Florida assessment of coastal trends (FACT) Florida assessment of coastal trends

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends

HT
393 FLORIDA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
.F6 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
F33
1 997 JUNE 1997

Florlla Assessmen

of Coastal Trends

FACT

Submitted to
Florida Coastal Management Program
Florida Department of Community Affairs
with funding provided by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Prepared by
Florida Center for Public Management
Gilbert T. Bergquist, Jr., Ph.D., Project Director
Nathaniel O. Emmert, Project Manager
Joni Anne Silvestri, Project Manager
Daniel Parker, Project Staff
Michael Plagens, Project Staff
Paul Souza, Project Staff
John Wilson, Project Staff
ftoperty of ego Itbw_

June 1997

US Department of Conuerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center tLbrmx
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

This document is available on the internet at:
http://www.fsu.edu/-cpm/FACT97/index.html

Printed on recycled paper

Ow-t~d~uc i2

190404 080 3$OJF~fti~~~

~t~~~P~R~3~gb65%49AVOCO3~ia";�
IMMM~ nlb Qdo $s~r~
OW40VAOL3&.QpgO~L;i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................
Executive Summary............................................................. 1
Inrdcion.....................................................................2...

~~\j~~~~ Section A: Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone .........................A-1
Impacts of Population Growth
*~~~~rg .bsluepoulAbsolute...........................................r....w....h . . . . . . . . . 2-
*Population growth rate........................................................A-4
*Population density...........................................................A-6
*Age of population ...........................................................A-8
*Population growth within ten miles of the coast ...................................A-i 1
*Population growth on barrier islands ...........................................A-12
*Seasonal residences .......................................................A-13
Patterns of Development
*Urban/Rural population......................................................A-15
*Change in major land cover categories .........................................A-18
Sufficiency of Infrastructure
* Residential building permit activity: New housing units and value reported
building permits............................................................A-21
*Total and per capita municipal solid waste generated...............................A-24
Economic Impacts
0 Per capita income..........................................................A-31

~~~""" ~~Section B: Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes .....................B-i
Alteration of Existing Natural Systems
~~~ . Mileslsoferdngcaslie..of......ero...................................................3-
*Undeveloped coastal barrier habitats v ..........................................B-5
*Miles of renourished beaches..................................................B-9
*Volume of ocean dredged material disposed of off Florida's coast ....................B-il1
Construction of Altering Structures
*Number of permits for coastal armoring.........................................B-13
*Number of permitted artificial reefs ............................................B-14

~~~~ ~~Section C: Responding to Coastal Threats and Hazards ...................C-i
~~~ ~ Coastal Hazard Mitigation
L~~~M *~~ Change in storm evacuation clearance times .....................................C-2
* Insured value of property in coastal hazard areas..................................C-5
Incompatible Living Areas
*Number of residents with hurricane experience ...................................C-8
*Population at risk to hurricane-induced flooding ..................................C-Il
Indus trial Impacts
*Reported oil/hazardous material spills..........................................C-1 4
*Population in proximity to nuclear power plants ..................................C-i 6

V Denotes indicators which are new for FACT 1997.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends IFlorida Coastal Management Program

Section D: Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems ................ D-1
Habitat Change
a Change in strategic habitat conservation areas ........................................ D-2
� Change in existing wetland habitat and conservation lands ........................................ D-5
� Change in existing upland habitat and conservation lands.................................................... D-7
� Change in coral reef community dynamics............................................................................ D-9
� Change in acreage of invasive non-indigenous (exotic) aquatic plants............................... D-13
* Change in acreage of invasive non-indigenous (exotic) upland plants ............................... D-16
Species Population Trends
� Documented marine mammal strandings ........................................ D-18
� Estimated manatee population and documented deaths ........................................ D-20
� Sea turtle nesting activity ..................................................................................................... D-25
Southern bald eagle population ........................................................................................... D-29
� Reddish egret population ..................................................................................................... D-32
Number of wood stork nests................................................................................................ D-34
* Number of eastern brown pelican nests ........................................ D-36
Water Quality Trends
� Acreage of seagrass............................................................................................................ D-38
� Number of beach closings and advisories ........................................................................... D-44
� Acreage of shellfishing waters by classification ................................................................... D-47
� Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems installed ................................................... D-50

.= s Section E: Managing Fresh Water Allocation .............................................E-1
Fresh Water Allocated for Ecological Maintenance
* Total fresh water withdrawals .................................................... E-2
* Discharge of treated domestic and industrial wastewater ................................................... E-4
* Reuse of reclaimed water ................................................... E-6
Fresh Water Allocated to Meet Residential Needs
� Public supply water withdrawals ............................................................................E-8
� Domestic self-supplied water withdrawals ..............................................................E-10
* Per capita water supply withdrawals .....................................................................................E-12
Number of potable water treatment facilities ........................................ ............E-14
Fresh Water Allocated to Meet Commercial-Industrial Needs
* Commercial-industrial water withdrawals ........................................ ............E-15
Thermoelectric power generation water withdrawals ....................................................E-17
Fresh Water Allocated to Meet Agricultural Needs
* Agricultural water withdrawals ......................................................E-19

Section F: Sustaining the Human Uses of the Coast ..........................................F-1
Maintenance of Recreational Value
� Coastal recreation activity by residents . .........................................F-2
Coastal recreation activity by tourists / ........................................F-4
� Recreational saltwater fishing trips .....................................................................................F-7
� Registered recreational vessels ........................................F-10
� Number of marina boat slips ...................................F-14
� Number of boat launches ........................................F-16

v Denotes indicators which are new for FACT 1997.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends ii Florida Coastal Management Program

Sustainable Economic Use
*Public access areas along sandy beaches V......................................F-i 8
*Revenue generated by the tourist development tax................................F-20
*Cargo handled at seaports...................................................F-22
*Number of cruise boat passengers ............................................F-26
*Registered commercial vessels ...............................................F-28
*Value of foreign trade through seaports.........................................F-32
*Saltwater fish landings V ....................................................F-34
*Catch per angler day on headboats / ..........................................F-38
*Value of commercial marine fisheries landings ...................................F-40
Balancing Development with Coastal Resources
No indicators have been developed for this sub-issue (See Section J)

Section G: Balancing Public and Private Uses of Resources .............G-1
3b ~~Private Property Issues
No indicators have been developed for this sub-issue
Stewardship of Coastal Resources
*Submerged land leases......................................................G-2
*Management status of coastal habitat...........................................G-5

Section H: Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic Resources ............H-i
_ ~~~Preservation of Resources
0 Number of sites listed in the national register of historic places .......................H-4
*Museums and cultural/historical events..........................................H-6
* Amount of grant money awarded for restoration of historic properties ..................H-8
Conservation of Coastal Open Space
No indicators have been developed for this sub-issue (See Section J)

Section I: Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement.. ............. .I-i
Public Awareness
*Public support for purchase of coastal lands.......................................1-2
*Public concern for beach access................................................1-4
*Public preparedness for hurricanes..............................................1-6
*Public concern for seafood safety...............................................1-9
Public Participation
*Public participation in coastal policy............................................I1-il
*Membership in coastal advocacy groups........................................ 1-13
*Beach visits by residents ....................................................1-i 5
*Participation in the Florida coastal cleanup...................................... 1-17

Section J: Indicators No Longer Included in FACT ....................... -

VDenotes indicators which are new for FACT 1997.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends i Florida Coastal Management Program

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends [FACT)

Executive Summary

In 1995, the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) contracted with the Florida Center for Public
Management to develop Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT 1995), the nation's first coastal
environmental indicator system. FACT 1995 added an important management tool to improve FCMP's vision in
dealing with the future of Florida's coastal areas. FACT 1995 provided a comprehensive perspective of the
important environmental, growth management, economic, and social values associated with the coast. This
system provided a means of evaluating Florida's progress in protecting its coastal areas; a basis for making
strategic decisions about programs and financial resources; and information about coastal issues and problems to
other decision-makers and the general public.

The process for developing FACT 1995 set the' substantive, conceptual and organizational structure for the initial
version of FACTand for all subsequent editions. The first step in the indicator development process was to initiate
an issue and sub-issue development process designed to identify the critical, strategic issues facing Florida's
coastal future over the next five to twenty years. These issues and their defining sub-issues would then be used to
provide the organizational framework for identifying the required indicators. On January 24, 1995 a workshop was
convened and a number of coastal experts representing a range of coastal policy interests spent a day discussing
coastal priorities. The principal product of their deliberations was the development of a list of nine strategic issues
facing Florida's coastal areas. These issues are as follows:

� Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone
� Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes
� Responding to Coastal Threats and Hazards
� Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems
� Managing Fresh Water Allocation
� Sustaining the Human Uses of the Coast
� Balancing Public and Private Uses of Resources
� Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic Resources
� Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement

Over the next several months, appropriate indicators were developed and organized according to each issue, and
these indicators comprise the body of indicators found in FACT 1995. Each indicator is displayed in a
standardized format that reflects the reasons for its inclusion, identifies technical information regarding its source,
format, and limitations, and provides a brief analysis and/or graphical display of any trends associated with the
indicator. In addition, each indicator displays certain conceptual information commonly used to characterize
indicators concerning the availability of data for the indicator and the strength of the information supporting the
indicator. Discussion of those conceptual frameworks and others used to support this system is included in the
Introduction.

This document - FACT 1997- is the first scheduled update and revision of the original indicator system. This
revision includes:
updating the data in the indicators,
� deleting indicators with poor or nonexistent data sources,
� adding new indicators to improve the system, and
� reformatting the individual indicator sheets to improve their graphic effect.

FACT 1997, in addition to this published format, will also be made available on the Internet in electronic format.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1 Florida Coastal Management Program

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT]

Introduction

Overview

Many governmental agencies operate programs for years and spend millions of dollars without ever attempting to
make any assessment of the impacts or documenting the status and trends of the subject of their efforts. The
result can be the loss of focus for the program, the inefficient use of financial and personnel resources, and the
loss of public and political support. For the past five years planning professionals at all levels of government,
particularly environmental planners, have been aggressively working on redesigning their policy planning
processes and actively building an intergovernmental partnership to improve their joint public policy management
skills by adding measurements of progress, increasing accountability, and focusing on results.

A major area of importance is the development of environmental and growth management indicator systems.
Indicators are useful tools for a wide variety of management purposes and the capacity of individual public
organizations to develop policy is greatly enhanced by the availability of good indicator systems.

The multiple uses of indicators and the pivotal role they play in any serious attempt to improve public management
have focused much attention on procedural and technical issues concerning the development of indicator systems
at all governmental levels. International, national, and regional conferences and a variety of publications on
indicators and indicator systems development have created increasingly high levels of interest, especially among
state and regional agencies. In 1990, only a handful of states were using indicators in any direct sense, and only
two, Florida and North Carolina, had made any explicit attempt to systematically develop and document a
comprehensive environmental indicator system. Federal agencies were only beginning to develop explicit
indicator systems.

That has radically changed. There is now so much indicator work going on that the situation is almost chaotic.
Almost 30 states have developed or are finishing initial work on environmental indicators or closely related state of
the environment documents, and virtually all states report they expect to undertake indicator development projects
in the near future. At the federal level a number of interagency and intraagency organizations are at work to
develop indicator systems and, perhaps more importantly, to begin the process of the redesign of federal
environmental monitoring systems. Just now beginning is a movement at the local level, and even at the
community level, to use indicators.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT)

The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) provided national leadership by becoming the first state
coastal program to develop an explicit indicator system when in 1995 they developed the first Florida Assessment
of Coastal Trends (FACT 1995). This tool provided a comprehensive perspective of the important environmental,
economic, and social values associated with the coast; a means of evaluating Florida's progress in protecting its
coastal areas; a basis for making strategic decisions about programs and financial resources; and information
about coastal issues and problems to other decision-makers and the general public.

The Florida Coastal Management Program contracted with the Florida Center for Public Management (FCPM) of
Florida State University to assist in the design and development of this system. FCPM was charged with
preparing:

a report containing a structured collection of environmental, growth management, economic and
social indicators that collectively describe the status of Florida's coastal areas, that portray the
historic trends affecting coastal Florida, and that project Florida's coastal future.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 2 Florida Coastal Management Program

FCPM was required to accomplish the following to successfully complete this objective:

� work intensively with Florida Coastal Management Program staff to develop a design and structure for the
system that completely reflects what is needed and desired for the system, assess existing sources of
indicator data and information already known and accessible to FCPM and utilize that which is appropriate,
� conduct research as needed to identify other desirable data and information needed to develop additional key
indicators, and
* prepare specific technical documentation to support each indicator to include a discussion of the concept of
the indicator, the source of the data, a contact person with address and phone number, the format in which the
data resides, any costs associated with its acquisition, the frequency of collection of the data, the geographic
coverage, an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the indicator and its data, a discussion of how the
data will be collected, a brief analysis of the data, and a graphic or tabular display.

The original Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT 1995) document represented the product of these
activities. Structured across its nine issue areas are 98 indicators that reflect important measurements of key
environmental, social, economic, cultural, and aesthetic issues affecting Florida's coastal areas.

In 1996, the trends and conditions outlined in FACT 1995 were used as the foundation for the development of the
first Florida State of the Coast Report, a summary discussion of critical information regarding coastal issues in
Florida.

This current document - Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT 1997) - is the first update and revision
of FACT and represents a significant step forward in refining, refocusing and consolidating the original indicator
system. While the general structure of FACT 1995 was retained along with many of the original indicators, a
number of weak or unsupportable indicators were deleted and new, more powerful data sources were identified to
support new indicators.

Process for Developing FACT 1997

The process of developing FACT 1995 included the following steps:

FACT is structured around nine strategic issues judged to be critical to the future of Florida's coast over the next
20 years. These broad strategic issues were refined into two-to-four sub-issues or components of each issue.
These sub-issues then became the final framework around which indicators were developed. The nine issues and
their associated sub-issues are as follows:

I) Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone 5) Managing Fresh Water Allocation
* Impacts of Population Growth * Fresh Water Allocated for Ecological
* Patterns of Development Maintenance
� Sufficiency of Infrastructure 9 Fresh Water Allocated to Meet
* Economic Impacts Residential Needs
2) Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes 0 Fresh Water Allocated to Meet
� Alteration of Existing Natural Systems Commercial/industrial Needs
� Construction of Altering Structures 0 Fresh Water Allocated to Meet
3) Responding to Coastal Threats and Agricultural Needs
Hazards 6) Sustaining the Human Uses of the Coast
* Coastal Hazard Mitigation O Maintenance of Recreational Value
� Incompatible Living Areas * Sustainable Economic Use
� Industrial Impacts a Balancing Development with Coastal
4) Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Resources
Ecosystems 7) Balancing Public and Private Uses of
� Habitat Change Resources
* Species Population Trends 0 Private Property Issues (no indicators
* Water Quality Trends have been developed for this sub-issue)
0 Stewardship of Coastal Resources

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 3 Florida Coastal Management Program

8) Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic 9) Encouraging Public Awareness and
Resources Involvement
* Preservation of Archaeological and * Public Awareness
Historical Resources a Public Participation
� Preservation of Living Resources
* Conservation of Coastal Open Space

Good indicator systems require regular maintenance to remain effective. The scheduled revisitation of FACT
1995 which led to this FACT 1997 is responding to three major needs:
� the need to periodically update the data in the indicators to continue the demonstration of relevant trends,
� the need to periodically assess the existing measures to ensure they are the best possible indicators, and
* the need to ensure that new and emerging issues have appropriate measures.

The revision process that led to FACT 1997 included the following elements:

Overall Assessment: The entire indicator system was comprehensively reviewed to identify strengths and
weaknesses. Groups of indicators were reviewed to assess their joint effectiveness in supporting issue and sub-
issue areas. These assessments directed attention toward new or substitute indicators for some areas and
suggested deletion of others.

Individual Assessment: Each indicator was individually assessed to make a judgment regarding its contribution
to the effectiveness of the system. The ability to observe, reconsider and reevaluate the indicators originally
chosen allowed staff to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators. Proposed indicators with no data
were dropped as formal indicators. Indicators with weak data or technical flaws were similarly dropped from the
system. Where a better source of data to support an existing indicator was discovered, the substitution was
made.

Updating Retained Indicators: Indicators retained from the original system were updated and revised to keep
them current. When available new data points were added, all tables, graphs and analysis were appropriately
modified.

Addition of New Indicators: Since the development of FACT 1995 new sources of data have been developed or
discovered that provided indicators for some dimensions of the issues and sub-issues that had previously been
unsupported. Where such data was available, new indicators were developed and provided in the FACT 1997.

Reformatting: An explicit effort was made to improve the graphic impact of FACT 1997 through the use of
symbols to code issue groups and types of indicators (environmental, economic, cultural-aesthetic, and quality of
life). (See the following section for details.)

Review: All indicators were:
* cross-reviewed by FCPM staff,
* reviewed by Florida Coastal Management Program staff,
* reviewed by the individual or organization supplying the data, and, in some cases,
� reviewed by an outside expert.

Conceptual Frameworks

The following definitions and conceptual frameworks have been used in the development of FACT 1995 and
FACT 1997.

Definitions. Basic indicator-related definitions include:
� Parameter: A property that is measured or observed.
� Indicator: A parameter, or a value derived from a parameter, which points to/provides information
about/describes the state of a phenomenon/environment/area with a significance extending beyond that
directly associated with a parameter value.
� Index: A set of aggregated or weighted parameters or indicators.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 4 Florida Coastal Management Program

Uses. It is axiomatic that environmental agencies at all levels should use indicators to make key strategic
decisions concerning the success of their efforts and to make important program and budget adjustments.
Startlingly, this is much too often not the case. Federal environmental agencies and their associated state
agencies are driven by huge, monolithic programs which over the years have taken on importance unto
themselves. Most of the measurement and reporting that occurs deals with program activities rather than
measures that deal with what is actually happening. With leadership from some federal agencies and a few of the
states, this is starting to change with the initiation of projects that are beginning to use results-based data and
information as the foundation for making decisions.

Indicators represent components or processes of real world systems. This means that they function as models
and have all of the possibilities and limitations that models offer. The numerical values of indicators tend to have
special meaning to particular observers - a meaning that goes beyond the numerical value itself. For example,
the number of top trophic level predator birds could be used to represent the vitality of a whole ecosystem based
on the species habitat requirements. In other words, indicators generally simplify in order to make complex
phenomena quantifiable in such a manner that communication is either enabled or promoted.

Indicators are only as useful as the information they are based upon. The measuring devices that are used to
evaluate problems, their causes, and the steps taken to address those problems need to be selected carefully
from this information and presented to decision-makers and to the general public in ways that are relevant to them
and can be readily understood.

Indicators are useful tools for a wide variety of management purposes. The availability of indicator systems at the
state level of government can increase the capacity of individual states to develop policy. Indicators can be used
as a:
� mission-level tool to provide a broad evaluation of an agency's performance,
� measurement foundation for structuring goals,
� basis for measuring and communicating achievement and progress,
� basis for making strategic planning and budgeting decisions,
� means of evaluating the performance of individual programs and activities,
� tool in building particular constituencies,
� basis for the development of education programs, and
� tool for public relations and information dissemination.

In order to measure success and failure of environmental protection programs by their environmental results
rather than by bureaucratic inputs - regulators, the regulated community, and the public should be encouraged to
find the least costly, most effective ways to achieve those results within a geographic jurisdiction.

The relatively young and emerging science and art of developing indicators and indicator systems is evolving
some simple conceptual tools to provide clarity and order to the process. The following presents several
conceptual approaches presently in use by FCPM in describing and displaying the indicator systems with which
they are associated.

Qualification Standards. For each individual indicator system being developed, it is useful to list with as much
precision and completeness as possible the specific criteria used to define an acceptable indicator for that system.
Described in such criteria might be such concerns as:
� the geographic scope of the indicators (national, statewide, regional, ecosystem, local),
� the selection criteria used,
� the acceptable types of indicators (environmental, program, administrative),
� the availability of data (is it available now or is it a prospective indicator?), or
� how it is intended to be used (its purpose).

By clearly identifying such standards early in the process and constantly comparing the selection of indicators
against them, attention can remain focused on indicators appropriate for the system being developed.

Indicator qualification standards employed in the development of FACT include:
� the geographic scope of the indicators must measure an activity or condition that affects Florida's coast or its
35 coastal counties,
� the indicator must reflect an important dimension of one of the nine strategic issues, and
� any Type A indicator (see below) must meet FCPM Indicator Selection Criteria (see following page).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 5 Florida Coastal Management Program

Selection Criteria. Ideally, each indicator finally included in an indicator system should meet a series of
standards designed to ensure high and consistent quality. Listed below are the selection criteria employed by
FCPM in all its indicator work. Selection criteria are of two types:
1. essential - criteria an indicator must meet, and
2. preferable - criteria an indicator should meet.

Essential Criteria include:
� Measurable: The indicator measures a feature of the environment that can be quantified simply using standard
methodologies with a known degree of performance and precision.

* Data quality: The data supporting the indicators are adequately supported by sound collection methodologies, data
management systems, and quality assurance procedures to ensure that the indicator is accurately represented. The
data should be clearly defined, verifiable, scientifically acceptable, and easy to reproduce.

* Importance: The indicator must measure some aspect of environmental quality that reflects an issue of major national
importance to states and to the federal government in demonstrating the current and future conditions of the
environment.

� Relevance: The indicator should be relevant to a desired significant policy goal, issue, legal mandate, or agency
mission (e.g., contaminated fish fillets for consumption advisories; species of recreational or commercial value) that
provides information of obvious value that can be easily related to the public and decision-makers.

� Representative: Changes in the indicator are highly correlated to trends in the other parameters or systems they are
selected to represent.

� Appropriate scale: The indicator responds to changes on an appropriate geographic (e.g., national or regional) and/or
temporal (e.g., yearly) scale.

* Trends: The data for the indicator should have been collected over a sufficient period of time to allow some analysis of
trends or should provide a baseline for future trends. The indicator should show reliability over time, bringing to light a
representative trend, preferably annual.

� Decision support: The indicator should provide information to a level appropriate for making policy decisions. Highly
specific and special parameters, useful to technical staff, will not be of much significance to policy staff or management
decision-makers.

Preferable Criteria include:
. Results: The indicator should measure a direct environmental result (e.g., an impact on human health or ecological
conditions). Indicators expressing changes in ambient conditions or changes in measures reflecting discharges or
releases are acceptable, but not preferred. Process measures (e.g., permits, compliance and enforcement activities,
etc.) are not acceptable.

� Understandable: The indicator should be simple and clear, and sufficiently non-technical to be comprehensible to the
general public with brief explanation. The indicator should lend itself to effective and appealing display and presentation.

* Sensitivity: The indicator is able to distinguish meaningful differences in environmental conditions with an acceptable
degree of resolution. Small changes in the indicator show measurable results.

� Integrates effects/exposures: The indicator integrates effects or exposures over time and space and responds to the
cumulative impacts of multiple stressors. It is broadly applicable to many stressors and sites.

� Data comparability: The data supporting an indicator can be compared to existing and past measures of conditions to
develop trends and define variation.

� Cost effective/availability: The information for an indicator is available or can be obtained with reasonable cost and
effort and provides maximum information per unit effort.

� Anticipatory: The indicator is capable of providing an early warning of environmental change.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 6 Florida Coastal Management Program

Hierarchy of Indicators. The "hierarchy of indicators for environmental resources" was developed to assist in the
classification of measurements of pollution constituents that are subject to governmental regulation and it is most
effective when it is employed for that purpose. It has more limited utility when used to classify other types of
environmental concerns, particularly ecological issues. The hierarchy is thus not being used for non-
environmental resource indicators, including the social, cultural and economic indicators in this edition of FACT.
The ranking, where appropriate, is found in the Data Characteristics section of the indicator sheet.

Hierarchy of Indicators

for Environmental Resources
Output IOutcome
1 2 3 4 5 6
Actions to Responses of Changes in Changes in Changes in Changes in the
Protect Coastal the Community Human Inputs Ambient Uptake and/or Health of
Environmental that Affect the that Lead to Conditions or in Assimilation by Humans, Biota, or
Resources by Protection of Coastal the Quantities Coastal Biota Ecological
Federal or Coastal Environmental of Coastal Systems in
State Agencies Environmental Degradation Environmental Coastal Areas
Resources Resources

Theme Icons. Measuring complex systems eventually reveals their interdependent nature. The coastal ecology,
our quality of life, the economic structure, and our cultural and aesthetic values are deeply interconnected and our
overall health and welfare is made up of a combination of these factors. Each indicator measures one or more of
these characteristics and, in an attempt to illustrate these connections, has been labeled with a series of icons
representing each component. Arguments can be made in most cases that an indicator measures some aspect of
each category, but only the most direct connections were highlighted for clarity. Connections which were less
evident or not truly accurate are shown in a light shading. (Note: The manatee graphic was provided by Bonnie J.
Abellera.)

Ecology - represents indicators which measure some component of coastal ecology.

i:i l Economic - represents indicators which measure some component of the coastal economy.

i:;7\ i XQuality of Life - represents indicators which measure some quality of life component.

[ Cultural/Aesthetic - represents indicators which measure some Cultural/Aesthetic component.

This document is available on the internet at:
http://www.fsu.edu/-cpm/FACT97/index.html

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 7 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section A
Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone

- ~~~~Impact of Growth in the coastal Zone

Management
P ogram

Population growth and development have many implications for Florida's coastal areas. Population growth could
be considered the ultimate environmental pressure as additional demands are placed upon coastal resources as
the populace increases. In most cases, environmental risks to human health, quality of life, and the coastal
ecology are the results of human activities. With over 75 percent of Florida's residents living within coastal
counties and the anticipation of a 50 percent increase in coastal population by the year 2020, coastal growth and
the demands placed upon resources becomes a primary focus for any planning process.

The patterns which development take to support this increase affect a wide variety of issues, including habitat
degradation, infrastructure sufficiency, economic impacts. The need to house, feed, and transport increasing
populations inevitably produces more pavement and less natural habitat. Since growth is limited on at least one
side by water, coastal development often quickly extends along the coast and inland. Careful assessment of
coastal ecosystems and the effects of growth upon them will be necessary if we are to protect these areas.

Population growth at current levels of consumption affects the issue of sustainability and our future. To mninimize
the impacts of coastal population growth, a combination of changes in lifestyle, technological processes, and land
conservation must occur. The number of people and the scale, composition, and pattern of their consumption and
waste generation will continue to have negative effects on the environment until sustainable measures are in
place. The following list identifies the indicators that are examined in this section.

Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone Indicators:

* Absolute population growth
* Population growth rate
* Population density
* Age of population
* Population growth within ten miles of the coast
* Population growth on barrier islands
* Seasonal residences
* Urban/Rural population
* Change in major land cover categories
* Residential building permit activity: New housing units and value reported on building permits
* Total and per capita municipal solid waste collected
* Per capita income

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Evacuation clearance time (Section C)
* Public supply water withdrawals (Section E)
* Beach visits by residents (Section 1)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-i Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

* ~~~~Absolute Population Growth

ManaPSement

This indicator shows the population for Florida's coastal and noncoastal counties and the state as a whole from
1920 to 1990. It also includes projections of future population counts through 2020. Population growth,
particularly for Florida's coastal areas, is an important indicator since it is directly linked with land use and
development, use of resources, demand for services, and pollution. Population growth can be considered the
ultimate environmental indicator. While our activities can be mitigated to impact the environment to a greater or
lesser degree, individuals will inevitably produce increased effects on the environment as their numbers grow.

In coastal regions land is at a premium, since the water limits growth in one or more directions. Resources which
are necessary for our current way of life are often limited, such as drinking water. Also, coastal areas are under
additional pressure from tourism, sea-going transports, and other coastal industries. Given these constraints,
examination of population projections is particularly useful in providing a perspective on the directions in which
Florida's coastal areas are heading and the degree to which population pressures will affect them.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-71 45, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQU IS ITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures. Projections are based on calculations by the
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Program.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
These data are the best available for this indicator. The limitations associated with the data are the same
limitations inherent in census data. The collection methodologies and analysis of the population figures may lead
to some double counting, undercounting, or misrepresentation.

Data Analysis
The seventy-year period presents an upward trend in growth for both Florida and the state's coastal areas.
Growth during this time period could be explained by the growth of Florida's coastal areas as tourist destinations.
Tourism increases the demand for services, which creates jobs and entices people to move to the state's coastal
areas.

The proportion of the population residing in coastal counties increased from the 1 920s to the 1970s, growing from
59 percent of the total population to over 79 percent. Future projections show the percentage of coastal
population dropping to less than 76 percent by 2020, but having a total of over 15 million people (compared to 10
million in 1990); more than the state's current total population. There are many reasons people choose to live in
the coastal areas of Florida, including proximity to recreational amenities (i.e., ocean and beach), aesthetic beauty,
and the economic opportunities associated with port access and tourism.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Absolute Population Growth

1920 571,515 396,955 968,470 59.0
1930 947,533 520,678 1,468,211 64.5
1940 1,307,697 589,717 1,897,414 68.9
1950 2,016,926 754,379 2,771,305 72.8
1960 3,836,111 1,115,449 4,951,560 77.5
1970 5,388,295 1,403,123 6,791,418 79.3
1980 7,664,728 2,439,855 9,746,324 78.6
1990 10,066,203 2,871,526 12,937,930 77.8
2000 11,921,200 3,606,300 15,527,500 76.8
2010 13,689,200 4,269,200 17,958,400 76.2
2020 15,430,200 4,919,500 20,349,700 75.8

Absolute Population Growth
Millions
25.0 /

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0
'----- ...... IProjections i,
0.0 i I l i i l i I I
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year
I2Coastal Counties INoncoastal Counties|

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

,,up. ~~~Population Growth Rate
dan

This indicator describes the rate at which the population of Florida's coastal areas has grown and compares this
rate to the growth rate of the state as a whole. The rate is calculated by computing the difference between the
population in a given year and that of ten years earlier, then dividing that difference by the population of the earlier
period. The quotient, multiplied by 100, yields the percent change from one decade to another. Examination of
the direction of the rate (increasing, decreasing, holding stable), and the level of the rate (high, medium or low)
provides a valuable perspective on understanding the dynamics of population growth along Florida's coast. The
population growth rate is useful in understanding future demographic levels. As the population of coastal areas
grows, so to do the adverse impacts that humans have on the coastal environment (e.g., loss of habitat, increased
stormwater runoff, and increased water use). Examining trends of population growth can help in developing
management strategies for this growth so as to minimize its impacts on the coast.

Data Characteristics
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Analysis
The seventy-year time frame of analysis shows a peak growth rate occurring in both Florida as a whole and the
state's coastal areas during the 1950's. During that decade, coastal populations almost doubled. The growth rate
for both areas decreased during the 1970s and flattened out in recent years. While growth is still occurring, the
rate of growth has been decreasing and is projected to decrease further in the future.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

Population Growth Rate

1920 (baseline) (baseline)
1930 65.8% 51.6%
1940 38.0% 29.2%
1950 54.2% 46.1%
1960 90.2% 78.7%
1970 40.5% 37.2%
1980 35.6% 43.5%
1990 37.8% 32.7%
2000 18.4% 20.0%
2010 14.8% 15.7%
2020 12.7% 13.3%

Population Growth Rate
Population growth rate (percent)

100

20 US Average I
20

0 I I l I I I I II
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year
IjFlorida *Coastal Counties I

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

-~~~~~~ ~~IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

* ~~~~~Population Density

Managoement
4.'- Pro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gram

This indicator describes the average number of people occupying one square mile in Florida's coastal areas and
compares this density to the population densities of the non-coastal counties and in the state as a whole. The total
land area of Florida is 54,190 square miles; the coastal counties account for 30,069 square miles (55.5 percent of
Florida's land area) and the non-coastal counties account for the remaining 24,121 square miles (44.5 percent).
The population density is derived by dividing total square miles into the total population. This is a useful indicator
since population density can indirectly suggest the competition for space placed on the environment and on urban
development. The ability of an area to support life becomes stressed as population densities approach it's
carrying capacity. Local and regional effects include degradation of habitats and a decrease in the quality of life of
its inhabitants. While this indicator displays roughly the same information as does straight population, showing
population growth as a ratio of population to a fixed commodity like land can make the impact more meaningful.

Population density, particularly for Florida's coastal areas, is an important indicator since it is linked with land use
and development, use of resources, demand for services, and pollution. In coastal regions land is at a premium,
since the water limits growth in one or more directions. Population density is also a good reflection of the stress
placed on the natural environment.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is found in the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Analysis
Increases in population density mirror the increases in absolute population. From 1920 to 1990 the population
density in coastal counties increased almost 1,800 percent, from 19.03 to 335.21 people per square mile. This
rate of increase was greater than that of the non-coastal counties (about 724 percent) and the state as a whole
(over 1,300 percent). Therefore, it can be said that the population density in the coastal counties has increased
faster than in the rest of the state. The primary reason is that the coast offers natural amenities, which attract
people and businesses.

The greatest percent change in coastal county population density occurred between 1950 and 1960, when the
density increased by 60.58 persons per square mile, or 90.20 percent. The largest increase in the state's overall
population density also occurred between 1950 and 1960, whereas the greatest change for the non-coastal
counties' population density occurred between 1970 and 1980. The smallest percentage of change in coastal

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

per square mile, or 35.60 percent. The non-coastal counties experienced their smallest change between 1930
and 1940, when the density increased only by 2.82 persons per square mile, or 13.06 percent. The decade of
least change for the state as a whole was also 1930 to 1940, when the population density changed by 7.93
persons per square mile, or 29.25 percent. The data show that the coastal counties were growing at a faster rate
than the rest of the state prior to the 1980 census, when the non-coastal counties began to experience larger
increases in population density than the coastal counties.

Persons Per Square Mile

1920 16.45 -- 19.03 -- 17.88 --
1930 21.59 31.25 30.22 58.80 27.11 51.62
1940 24.41 13.06 43.55 44.11 35.04 29.25
1950 31.27 28.10 67.16 54.21 51.18 46.06
1960 46.26 47.94 127.74 90.20 91.44 78.66
1970 58.13 25.66 179.43 40.47 125.41 37.15
1980 86.31 48.48 243.31 35.60 179.98 43.51
1990 119.04 37.92 335.21 37.77 238.91 32.74

Population Density
Persons per square mile
350 /
300
250
200
150
100
50

Year
INon-Coastal Counties ECoastal Counties Florida mUS Average

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Flondais $ ~~Age of Population Mngmn

Flrd soften perceived as a retirement haven and, with that, as having an older average population. This
perception is not necessarily accurate and is continuously changing. This indicator displays the age of the
population of coastal Florida and compares it to the state as a whole.

Patterns of development are determined in part by the age composition of the population. The age of the
population is important because of the varying impacts different age groups have on infrastructure and housing
needs, resource use, and impacts on the environment. The needs of a population vary with its age demographics.
Younger populations have different educational requirements, occupational opportunities, and recreational
desires. The age structure of a population can be useful when analyzing future policy and planning goals involving
infrastructure and development patterns.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is found in the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
11 7145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Analysis
Analysis of each individual age group reveals that, with the exception of the 15 to 24 and 25 to 44 year old groups,
the cohorts generally comprised the same proportion of the total coastal population in 1990 as they did in 1975.
For example, in 1975 the 65 and over age cohort comprised 19 percent of the coastal population; in 1990 the 65
and over cohort still constituted 19 percent of the coastal population, even though the number of individuals in this
group increased by 671,059 persons.

The two age groups that reflect changing proportions are the 15 to 24 year olds and the 25 to 44 year olds. From
1975 to 1985 the number of individuals in the 15 to 24 year old cohort increased by 175,268 persons, but then
declined by approximately 10,000 persons between 1985 and 1990. The proportion of the coastal population
represented by 15 to 24 year olds has shown a slight decreasing trend since 1980 when this cohort made up 16
percent of the coastal population. As of 1990, the 15 to 24 year old cohort made up only 12 percent of the coastal
population. Conversely, the population of 25 to 44 year olds continued to increase, as did the proportion of the
coastal population found in this age cohort. In 1975 this age group represented 22 percent of the coastal
population. By 1990 this age cohort represented 30 percent of the coastal population, increasing by over
1,500,000 persons since 1975.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Age of Population for Coastal Counties

0-14 1,396,320 1,422,825 1,579,489 1,832,956
15-24 1,065,618 1,219,260 1,240,886 1,230,740
25-44 1,487,867 1,899,544 2,337,321 3,033,942
45-64 1,469,811 1,696,300 1,865,950 2,015,857
65+ 1,281,649 1,425,809 1,746,948 1,952,708

Age of Population for Florida

0-14 1,836,332 1,876,774 2,090,624 2,412,069
15-24 1,401,546 1,622,767 1,675,790 1,669,825
25-44 1,899,590 2,450,189 3,091,078 3,927,400
45-64 1,833,883 2,109,021 2,339,183 2,559,201
65+ 1,513,879 1,687,573 2,091,257 2,369,431

Age of Population for Coastal Counties
Millions of People

12 /

2 ,

0 / /
1975 1980 1985 1990
Year

1I0-14 yrs. M15-24 yrs. 025-44 yrs. M345-64 yrs. 565+ yrs.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

Proportion of Population by Age in Coastal Counties
Percent of population

100% I1 epnsblte

60%

40%

20%

0%
1975 1980 1985 1990
Year
1m0-14 yrs. F-115-24 yrs. *25-44 yrs. EM45-64 yrs. E]l65+ yrs.1I

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-1 0 Florida Coastal Management Program

-~~~~~~ ~~IMPACT OF GRhOWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Population Growth within

Ten Miles of the Coast Managmn

Florida's primary attractions are its beautiful coastline and warm winter climate. These natural attributes attract
thousands of visitors and new residents to the state every year and many new residents choose to live on or near
the coast. As population grows within ten miles of the coast, the environmental degradation associated with
human growth and development increases, as does concern for the public's health, safety, and welfare. The
areas within ten miles of the coast are more affected by hurricanes and coastal storms than any other areas within
the coastal zone.

Tracking population growth within ten miles of the coast is important for preserving Florida's precious coastal
resources and protecting the population in those areas from major storms. If population growth rates were
monitored at a regional level it would be possible to identify areas where this growth threatens natural resources,
where growth is stagnant, and where growth has exceeded the ability to get to safety during storms. Knowing the
population growth rate within ten miles of the coast would allow for area-specific planning and analysis of the
impacts of state and local policy.

Actual population data are available only from decennial census counts. Census data have limited use for coastal
planners, as it is available only for county or census tract levels. Also, population changes are occurring so rapidly
that more frequent data are desirable. Interdecennial populations are estimated by a variety of sources and the
use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) enables a reliable approximation of coastal residents. As an
example, the Department of Community Affairs has produced a GIS data set for the 1995 population within five
miles of the coast, including barrier islands, and found that 7.8 million people, over 60 percent of Floridians, live
there.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format and as Geographical Information System files. The cost for obtaining
this information is approximately $80 per hour. Compiling the data will require eight to sixteen hours of work. If
plots are produced, an additional 24 hours or work will be necessary.

COLLECTION
The data are collected by census tract every ten years. Population is estimated for the years in between census
updates. The data are collected for the entire state, but can be broken down by county and census tract.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible with some effort.

Recommendations
In order to obtain these data, a definition of the ten-mile line needs to be developed (i.e., ten miles from the natural
coastline or ten miles in from barrier islands, etc.) and the appropriate GIS data set predicted periodically.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-Il1 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

0 ~~~Population Growth on Barrier Islands

~~~~~~~~~~rn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Managmn

Barrier islands are made up of loosely compressed materials (mostly sand) and are vulnerable to forces of wind,
waves, sediment transport, the effects of hurricanes, and sea level rise. Most barrier islands can be characterized
as low-lying and highly susceptible to coastal flooding. These islands are composed of different and distinct
ecosystems; some of these ecosystems include dunes, wetlands, maritime forests, and salt marshes. Barrier
islands serve many social and natural functions: they are the first line of defense against hurricanes and coastal
storms; they provide enclosures for estuaries and marshes; they are home to a variety of plant and animal life;
and, they provide considerable recreational and aesthetic benefits (Beatley, 1994). Population growth on barrier
islands is an important indicator because human-made development can threaten the quality of the already fragile
environment. Monitoring population growth will help policymnakers document the impacts of development on these
islands and aid in planning future development. The primary threats to the human population of barrier islands are
hurricanes and coastal storms. Monitoring population growth will assist disaster and evacuation planning for these
areas.
Actual population data are available only from decennial census counts. Census data have limited use for coastal
planners, as it is available only for county or census tract levels. Also, population changes are occurring so
rapidly, that more frequent data are desirable. Interdecennial populations are estimated by a variety of sources
and the use of a geographic information system (GIS) enables a reliable approximation of coastal residents. As
an example, the Department of Community Affairs has produced a GIS data set for the 1995 population within five
miles of the coast, including barrier islands, and found that 7.8 million people, over 60 percent of Floridians, live
there.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is available from Steve Grantham, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of
Emergency Management, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, or at (850) 413-9891.
ACQU IS ITION
The data are available in hard copy format and as Geographical Information System files. The cost for obtaining
this information is approximately $80 per hour. Compiling the data will require eight to sixteen hours of work. If
plots are produced, an additional 24 hours of work will be necessary.
COLLECTION
The data are collected by census tract every ten years. Population is estimated for the years in between census
updates. The data are collected for the entire state, but can be broken down by county and census tract.
TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible with some effort.

Recommendations
In order to obtain these data, a definition of barrier islands needs to be developed so as to include other barrier
structures, such as peninsulas and spits, and the appropriate GIS data set produced periodically.

References
Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna K. Schwab, An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management,
Washington DC, Island Press: 1994.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Seasonal Residences
Flod.
Cosal
Man~ggment

Seasonal residences in coastal areas are an indirect indicator of the human growth rates that are not accounted
for in resident population census. While not permanent, this population represents an increase in human activity
that impacts the welfare of the natural environment and increases demands on services. Seasonal residences are
characterized by non-permanent occupancy of the owner of the property. Generally, these residences are leased
out as vacation property and are found predominantly in Florida's coastal counties. The number of seasonal
residences is important since it directly impacts a county's infrastructure and tax base. By monitoring the number
of seasonal residences, the coastal counties and the state may be better able to address infrastructure and policy
issues related to variable population levels.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
I117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-71 45, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
These data are the best available for this indicator. These figures are estimates derived from mathematical
analyses, based on census data which are collected every ten years. The limitations associated with the data are
the same limitations inherent in census data. The collection methodologies and analysis of the population figures
may lead to some double counting, undercounting, or misrepresentation. While some flaws and biases are
inherent in the census information due to the data collection process and analysis, they are not defects that reduce
the utility and validity of these figures.

Currently the data are collected with data on seasonal housing and migrant worker housing and are impossible to
disaggregate. Furthermore, the data have been grouped inconsistently in past years; this results in difficulties in
obtaining accurate counts for strictly seasonal residences.

Data Analysis
Seasonal residences in coastal counties increased by over 360 percent in the previous decade. Six counties
increased their number of seasonal residences over one thousand percent, one of those (Collier county) over two
thousand percent. Only six counties did not at least double their number of seasonal residences and one of those
counties (Taylor county) actually had a reduction of 19 percent.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

Seasonal Residences in Coastal Counties
Residences

400,000 360,515

300,000

200,000

� - ......78,247

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Lu.... ~~Urban/Rural Population
)rn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Management

This indicator describes the percentage of the population living in urban areas and the percentage of the
population living in rural areas within the 35 coastal counties. An urban population is defined as all persons living
in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urbanized areas. An urbanized area is
comprised of an incorporated place and an adjacent densely settled surrounding area that together have a
minimum population of 50,000. Population not classified as urban constitutes the rural population. Rural
classification need not imply farm residence or a sparsely settled area, because a small city is rural as long as it is
outside an urbanized area and has fewer than 2,500 persons (BEBR, 1994). This indicator is useful in that it
documents a major change in the character of the demographics of Florida's coastal areas - the shift from a
predominantly rural Florida to an urbanized Florida. It is also useful in that it is associated with changing land use
patterns brought on by increased development.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data prior to 1950 have been adjusted to constitute a substantially consistent series based on incorporated places
of 2,500 or more persons with additional areas defined as urban under special rules (BEBR, 1994).

Data Analysis
The shift from a rural to a predominantly urban state has shown a fairly steady increase since before 1920 until the
1950's when growth rapidly increased in urban centers. This shift may have been a result of increased economic
activity partially aided by a growing influx of tourists and seasonal residents.

Two factors are thought to affect this pattern of population movement. First, there was a significant immigration of
persons to Florida from outside the state. Most of these people located in urban areas where employment is
found. A second factor concerns an increase of size of communities, which shifted formerly rural communities to
an urban status.

Population in rural coastal areas has continued to increase as well, but at much slower rates, The greatest rate of
population growth in rural areas occurred between 1950 and 1960, when this population increased by 46.8
percent. From 1960 to 1980 the population remained relatively stable, decreasing slightly in the 1960's and
increasing less than 7 percent in the 1970's. The 1980's, however, saw a new surge of population with almost
200,000 residents being added to rural communities.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

Urban/Rural Population in Coastal Counties

1920 280,100 49 291,415 51 571,515
1930 344,176 36 603,357 64 947,533
1940 460,776 35 846,921 65 1,307,697
1950 524,027 26 1,492,899 74 2,016,926
1960 769,098 20 3,067,013 80 3,836,111
1970 734,789 14 4,653,506 86 5,388,295
1980 786,053 10 6,878,675 90 7,664,728
1990 981,228 10 9,084,975 90 10,066,203

Urban/Rural Population in Coastal Counties
Millions of Residents
12 /

10'

6
4
2
0 / /
0'~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ FI I I I I

Year
I-Urban Population 19 Rural Population I

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-16 Florida Coastal Management Program

Urban/Rural Population in Coastal Counties
Percent

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%I I I I I

Year
It-Urban Population ;ERural PopulationI

References
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. 1994.
Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GOnWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Change in Major Land Cover Categories

ManagementZ

Population pressures and development have resulted in significant changes in Florida's land use and land cover.
Rapid and large scale growth culminating in residential and commercial development, sprawling cities, and the
need for land to support agricultural activities has decreased the remaining lands in a natural state. These natural
areas provide essential functions that, when altered, impact the viability of entire species. These natural areas
provide essential functions that, when altered, affect the viability of entire populations. Large habitat areas
become fragmented. Once a species' habitat is changed, extirpation or extinction of the species increases in
likelihood. The number of taxa on Florida's list of endangered and threatened species is second only to California
in the entire nation. Change in land cover also impacts the state's air, water, and natural resources and the quality
of life of Florida's citizens. Changes in water regimes occur when natural areas are paved, increasing runoff and
decreasing groundwater recharge. For Florida, many of these associated problems with land cover change have
been in coastal areas where intense development has taken place and changed the face of the land.

Improvements in satellite technology now provide the ability to almost continuously monitor land cover. However,
high costs of data acquisition and technical difficulties involved in determining specific land types from satellite
imagery limit the usefulness of satellite data for monitoring trends in landcover. Until the use of this technology is
more economically and technically feasible, a useful substitute capable of providing trend data on land cover
category has been assembled by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission from a series of U.S.
Forest Service reports. All data in the reports were collected using a combination of field survey and air photo
interpretation techniques. These reports, however, present information on the entire state, which cannot be
broken down by county. Land inventories have been conducted seven times (1936, 1949, 1959, 1970, 1980,
1987, and 1995), and provide estimates for a wide range of land uses and covers, such as the number of hectares
of forest, marsh, cropland, pasturelrange, and urban and other lands. Additionally, changes in critical habitat,
such as longleaf pine and scrub oak, are included because of their rate of historic loss and significance in
supporting entire complexes of non-threatened as well as threatened species. In the future it will be necessary for
the state to closely monitor the progress of land use, to protect certain remaining land covers, and to help educate
Floridians about land issues so as to ensure maintenance of the environmental values associated with the state.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
A summary of the data from the U.S. Forest Service can be found in a report entitled Trends in Florida Wildlife
Habitat 1936-1987," produced by Randy Kautz. An update through 1995 is currently being prepared for
publication. Mr. Kautz can be contacted at the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600, or at (850) 488-6661.

ACQUISITION
The information is available in hard copy at no cost.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide at irregular intervals. It has been collected for the years 1936, 1949, 1959,
1970, 1980, 1987, and 1995.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
PressurelState/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-1 8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The irregularity of the data collection decreases its utility. Moreover, definitional differences in land cover may
make the comparisons among land cover data difficult. In spite of the limitations, the data are the best available
for long-term measurement of land cover and land use in the state. Because the data cannot be disaggregated by
county, at the present time it is not possible to display land cover for just the coastal areas of the state.

Data Analysis
It is important to note that the following figures for land area pertain to the entire state of Florida, not just to the
coastal counties. The land cover figures display area in millions of hectares; one hectare is equal to 2.471 acres.
The data show that between 1936 and 1995, the areas occupied by forest land and marsh land decreased 21.8
percent and 51.1 percent, respectively. During the same period, the area of cropland, pasture and range lands
increased a combined 58.8 percent, and the area of urban and other lands increased approximately 628.4
percent. These figures highlight the shift away from natural land cover to land cover change compatible with
agricultural activities and urban development. Since 1980 only, urban land and other has shown an increase of
46.8 percent, or three percent a year.

One of the critical habitats that is strongly associated with threatened and endangered species is longleaf pine.
The number of species of groundcover plants associated with longleaf has ranged from 150 to 300 per hectare,
and the highest species density of amphibians and reptiles in North America has been mapped in the geographic
distribution of longleaf pine (Means, 1996). Between 1936 and 1995, Florida lost 91 percent of its longleaf pine
forests, primarily due to clearcutting, conversion to agricultural and urban uses, and replanting of other pine
species. During the same period, 60 percent of scrub oak was lost. Concurrent with these immense losses in
specific land cover, the number of species considered to be imperiled has increased.

Statewide Change in Major Land Cover Categories
(millions of hectares)
Land Cover
16

12
I Urban & Other
10
10 Pasture/Rangeland
8 O.El Cropland
~~~~~~~6 *W= Marsh
l Forest
4

0
1936 1949 1959 1970 1980 1987 1995
Year
*Values for Cropland and Pasture/Range were combined in 1936 and 1949.

Statewide Change in Major Land Cover Categories
(millions of hectares)

Forest 8.4618 8.4683 7.5675 7.2636 6.9598 6.7223 6.6133
Marsh 2.8214 2.1451 2.4540 1.4769 1.2295 1.2513 1.3789
Cropland N/A N/A 1.4266 1.4955 1.5373 1.5992 1.4745
Pasture/Range N/A N/A 1.8594 2.6326 2.8400 2.5689 2.4159
Urban & Other 0.2944 0.4326 0.7196 1.1585 1.4606 1.8852 2.1445
Total 14.0271 14.0271 14.0271 14.0271 14.0271 14.0271 14.0271
N/A = Data Not Available

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-19 Florida Coastal Management Program

Statewide Change in Critical Land Cover Categories
(millions of hectares)

Longleaf Pine 3.3103 2.5209 1.2434 0.6203 0.5048 0.3862 0.3019
Scrub Oak 0.5863 0.7708 0.7874 0.5423 0.4072 0.3397 0.2346

Recommendations
Data collected from satellite imagery on a statewide level should be obtained and produced in a manner that data
may be made available at local or county levels. This would provide for a more accurate assessment of the land
cover in each county and a good indication of the land use patterns occurring in each county.

References
Kautz, Randy. "Trends in Florida Wildlife Habitat 1936 - 1987." Florida Scientist 56 (1), pp. 7-24: 1993.

Kautz, Randy. (in prep) "Trends in Florida Wildlife 1936-1995."

Means, Bruce. 1996. "Longleaf Pine Forests, Going, Going ..... ", in Mary Davis, ed. Eastern Old-Growth Forests.
Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 210-229.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-20 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Residential Building Permit Activity: New Housing
Units and Value Reported on Building Permits Ca
Management
Prgram

Building permit activity is an important economic and environmental indicator. The number of units authorized by
building permits reflects a considerable financial investment in the state's coastal areas. A housing unit is defined
as a room or group of rooms intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. In a multi-unit building such as
an apartment complex, each apartment represents one housing unit. The reported value of building permits is
also an indirect economic indicator of the amount of disposable income invested in housing. The higher the value,
the more money people are spending on constructing new housing or improving existing housing. It is important
to note, however, that the value of building permits does not have a one-to-one correlation with the number of units
authorized, since building permits are issued for improvements as well as for new construction.

Building permits can also be an indicator of the pressures that development places on available land for
development and the results of growth management legislation. Legislation's ability to direct development in a way
that is compatible with the natural environment can be determined in part through the number and location of
building permits issued. In order to protect natural resources and/or to sustain current populations, some areas of
the state have enacted stricter policies regarding the issuance of building permits. The number of permits issued
can be used to monitor how much development is occurring in sensitive coastal areas.

As the population of Florida grows, so too will the amount of land that is developed. The coastal areas will likely
be the focus of the majority of development in the state. Along with this development will come increased
pressures on natural resources, which could potentially harm the coastal ecosystems that initially attracted
development. In addition, large portions of the population and their investments in development will be at serious
risk from coastal storms. Carefully managing the issuance of permits and the types of development allowed will
be necessary if a sustainable balance between growth and protecting coastal ecosystems is to be reached.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures. Projections are based on calculations by the
University of Florida, Bureau of Economnic and Business Research, Population Program.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data are based on voluntary reports from local building officials processed by the Bureau of the Census. The
number of units authorized by building permits does not necessarily reflect the actual number of units built. A
certain percentage of structures receiving permits will not be completed and a small percent of privately owned
housing units do not require building permits and are not included in this data. These data do not include mobile
homes or conversions of non-residential units to residential units. Value figures are estimated on a cost-per-foot
basis by each jurisdiction and may not be comparable with other locations. A further limitation to these data is that
they do not break out additions from new structures, nor do they give any indication as to the size of the buildings.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-21 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The data show that, during the period between 1985 and 1991, there was a declining trend in the number of
building permits issued. The decline occurred in both coastal and non-coastal counties, with fewer building
permits issued in both areas. The number of units authorized by permits increased between 1991 and 1994,
suggesting an increased demand for new housing.

Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits

1985 151,395 40,418 191,813
1986 159,593 32,693 192,286
1987 137,442 31,074 168,516
1988 111,023 35,755 146,778
1989 103,566 38,439 142,005
1990 72,394 30,041 102,435
1991 70,938 24,436 95,374
1992 79,433 22,626 102,059
1993 87,717 27,416 115,133
1994 100,415 14,718 115,133

Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits
Number of authorized units (thousands)

250

200

150

100

0 ' I l l l I I i/
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year
IECoastal MENon-Coastal I

The value reported on building permits has been erratic. Except for a peak in 1989, there was a decrease in the
value of permits from 1985 to 1991. However, in 1992 through 1994 the value of the permits appeared to be on
the rise. The most recent increase in value may have been the result of the large amount of construction required
after Hurricane Andrew. As with the number of authorized housing units, the value reported on building permits in
coastal and non-coastal counties have followed the same general trend.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-22 Florida Coastal Management Program

Value Reported on Building Permits
Thousands of dollars

1985 $11,436,776 $3,789,600 $15,226,376
1986 $11,542,319 $2,901,216 $14,444,535
1987 $10,738,433 $2,823,667 $13,562,100
1988 $10,772,615 $3,448,851 $14,221,466
1989 $12,025,597 $3,945,666 $15,971,263
1990 $ 9,046,326 $3,469,656 $12,515,982
1991 $ 9,213,206 $2,797,011 $12,010,217
1992 $10,450,302 $2,991,491 $13,441,793
1993 $11,348,336 $3,405,784 $14,754,120
1994 $12,325,164 $4,499,278 $16,824,442

Value Reported on Building Permits
Billions of dollars

0
O / I I I I I I I v
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year
IErCoastal FEINon-CoastalI

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-23 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAIL ZONE

Total and Per Capita

Municipal Solid Waste Collected . al
Erogram

The 1988 Florida Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) revised nearly all aspects of Florida's solid waste
management program. Among its many requirements, the law mandates the creation of an annual report to the
legislature detailing the status of solid waste collected, its composition and management, state agency activities,
and program recommendations. Counties have primary responsibility for solid waste management in Florida, but
as lead agency the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for information gathering
and submission of the annual report.

There are three major methods utilized to manage municipal solid waste (MSW) in the state: landfilling,
combustion, and waste reduction/recycling. As of January 1995, the state had 101 landfills, 63 of which are lined,
Class I landfills. The state's current combustion plant capacity is 18,996 tons per day, making Florida the state
with the most combustion capacity in the nation. Waste reduction/recycling includes the 39 composting facilities
operating in 21 counties throughout the state. Starting in 1995, recyclers are required to have certification and
annually report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In 1995, there were 307 facilities
which handled recycled material for the 198 DEP-certified recyclers in the state (DEP, 1996).

Landfilled solid waste includes waste which is deposited in Class I, II, or III landfills, and Construction and
Demolition (C&D) debris disposal facilities. Class I landfills receive an average of 20 tons or more of solid waste
per day, whereas Class II landfills receive less than 20 tons per day. Waste deposited in Class III landfills is non-
hazardous, non-putrescible, and more narrowly defined than the MSW wastes received by Class I and II landfills.
Class III landfills receive only yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos, carpet,
cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, and other approved materials which are not
expected to produce leachate which poses a threat to public health or the environment. C&D facilities manage
debris which is not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick
concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a
structure. It also includes rocks, soils, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing
or development operations.

Though once a relatively inexpensive method of waste disposal, landfills have become increasingly expensive due
to the lack of available land and environmental constraints. The scarcity of suitable land in coastal counties
increases the cost of land to serve as a landfill site. Expanding urban areas also causes problems with siting
landfills, as most people do not want a landfill near their home. Environmental regulations limiting destruction of
wetlands and restricting disposal of solid wastes in areas where water contamination is possible have also limited
the areas that can serve as potential landfill sites. As the use of reduction/recycling and combustion increases,
the amount of MSW which needs to be landfilled decreases.

This indicator is valuable because it shows the trend in the amount of MSW collected, which is necessary for
infrastructure planning needs.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on MSW is available in the Solid Waste Management Annual Report to the legislature. The data can
be obtained from Peter Goren, Waste Reduction Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2600
Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 4570, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, or at (850) 488-0300.

The population information used for the calculations of per capita waste generation is from the Florida Statistical
Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business
Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box 117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at
(352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries. It may be purchased from the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-24 Florida Coastal Management Program

ACQUISITION
The solid waste information is available in hard copy format at no cost and is available on the Internet at
http:llwww.dep.state.fl.uslwastelprograms.htm. The population data are available in hard copy format. The
1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
The data are collected annually by state fiscal year through 1995 for each county through surveys and then
compiled into statewide totals. Data collection after 1995 is based on the calendar year. Beginning in 1995,
recycling data for 12 of 19 material types have been collected directly by the state from recyclers via the
Recovered Materials Dealers certification and reporting program rather than the surveys.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 3
Pressure/State/Response: Pressure
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
There is no way to account for waste that does not pass through a waste management center. In many cases the
waste may be improperly or illegally disposed of or may be composted by private individuals. Some counties have
done studies to document composting programs and this tonnage is counted as recycled.

The population figures for 1995 are derived from a separate table within the Florida Statistical Abstract and may
have been calculated in a different manner than the 1990-1994 population figures.

Data Analysis
Between 1990 and 1995, Florida's coastal counties collected about 80 percent of the state's total MSW. This is
not surprising, since over 77 percent of the state's population currently resides in the coastal counties. Between
1991 and 1995, MSW collected by the coastal counties increased between five and eight percent, while the
population has changed less than two percent annually. The amount of MSW collected by the non-coastal
counties has been more irregular. From 1990 to 1992 the amount of MSW collected increased an average of only
1.1 percent per year. Between 1992 and 1993 the amount of MSW collected increased by 4.7 percent and then by
14.7 percent from 1993 to 1994. While the generation of MSW continued to increase from 1994 to 1995, it
increased at only 3.5 percent, slowing dramatically from the previous year.

Municipal Solid Waste Collected (tons)

1990 15,551,739 3,806,473 19,358,212
1991 15,636,223 3,847,340 19,483,563
1992 16,400,660 3,892,397 20,293,057
1993 17,412,714 4,067,582 21,480,296
1994 18,769,391 4,791,542 23,560,933
1995 19,345,640 4,966,117 24,311,757

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-25 Florida Coastal Management Program

Amount of Municipal Solid Waste Collected
Million tons

30 /

25 C.................
- - --------
20

0 I I I I I I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year
I:Coastal 'ENon-CoastalI

Per capita waste generation in coastal counties has been higher than per capita waste generation in non-coastal
counties. A possible explanation for this is the large number of tourists who visit coastal counties each year and
contribute to the waste stream, but are not counted in the population figures. The trend for both coastal and non-
coastal counties has been one of slow increase with some fluctuation, although the rate of increase has been
somewhat faster for the non-coastal counties. From 1990 to 1995 per capita MSW generation in coastal counties
increased by 14.9 percent. Per capita MSW generation in non-coastal counties increased by 21.8 percent during
the same period.

Municipal Solid Waste Collected per Capita
Tons per Person per Year

2.00 / 1.75 1.77
1.54 1.53 1.58 166
1.50 133 11.30 1.2 132

0.50

0.00
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year
l-Coastal Counties ONon-Coastal Counties |

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-26 Florida Coastal Management Program

From 1990 to 1995 there was a decrease in the amount of waste placed in Florida's landfills, while the amount of
waste processed by recycling and combustion facilities increased. In coastal counties in 1990 and 1991, landfills
processed a larger proportion of waste than the recycling and combustion facilities combined. In 1995, nearly ten
percent more total waste was processed by recycling facilities than by landfills in the coastal counties. Over 25
percent of the waste collected in coastal counties was processed by combustion plants.

The processing of MSW in non-coastal counties followed a trend similar to that of the coastal counties. However,
landfills remained the dominant form of waste disposal in non-coastal counties, with over half of the waste going to
landfills, although the amount of waste recycled in non-coastal counties almost quadrupled during the same
period. Combustion facilities have been less popular in non-coastal counties, with less than five percent of these
counties' waste processed via combustion between 1990 and 1995.

Amount of Municipal Solid Waste Processed (tons)

1990
Coastal 10,048,394 (64.6) 2,382,690 (15.3) 3,120,655 (20.1) 15,551,739
Non-Coastal 3,354,133 (88.1) 444,715 (11.7) 7,625 (0.2) 3,806,473
State (Total) 13,402,527 (69.2) 2,827,405 (14.6) 3,128,280 (16.2) 19,358,212
1991
Coastal 8,924,729 (57.1) 3,513,510 (22.5) 3,197,984 (20.5) 15,636,223
Non-Coastal 3,162,057 (82.2) 545,790 (14.2) 139,493 (3.6) 3,847,340
State (Total) 12,086,786 (62.0) 4,059,300 (20.8) 3,337,477 (17.1) 19,483,563
1992
Coastal 7,359,803 (44.9) 4,672,884 (28.5) 4,367,973 (26.6) 16,400,660
Non-Coastal 3,009,363 (77.3) 743,214 (19.1) 139,820 (3.6) 3,892,397
State (Total) 10,369,166 (51.1) 5,416,098 (26.7) 4,507,793 (22.2) 20,293,057
1993
Coastal 7,070,293 (40.6) 5,540,478 (31.8) 4,801,943 (27.6) 17,412,714
Non-Coastal 2,833,938 (69.4) 1,104,079 (27.0) 129,565 (3.6) 4,067,582
State (Total) 9,904,231 (46.1) 6,644,557 (30.9) 4,931,508 (23.0) 21,480,296
1994
Coastal 6,633,693 (35.3) 7,031,892 (37.5) 5,103,806 (27.2) 18,769,391
Non-Coastal 3,028,157 (63.2) 1,575,905 (32.9) 187,480 (3.9) 4,791,542
State (Total) 9,661,850 (41.0) 8,607,797 (36.5) 5,291,286 (22.5) 23,560,933
1995
Coastal 6,161,498 (31.8) 8,028,016 (41.5) 5,156,126 (26.7) 19,345,640
Non-Coastal 3,052,972 (61.5) 1,686,673 (34.0) 226,472 (4.6) 4,966,117
State (Total) 9,214,470 (37.9) 9,714,689 (40.0) 5,382,598 (22.1) 24,311,757
Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the total waste that was processed in that manner.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-27 Florida Coastal Management Program

Amount of Municipal Solid Waste Processed in Landfills
Million tons

10 ".
8 2 . . . - __--_ - - - - : - ----

4
2
0 I l l l l I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year
IElCoastal ONon-CoastalI

Amount of Municipal Solid Waste Processed by Recycling
Million tons

12 /

10 - ---

6 l - - - - - - - -- -

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year
IJCoastal OENon-CoastalI

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-28 Florida Coastal Management Program

Amount of Municipal Solid Waste Processed
in Combustion Facilities
Million tons

6 /

. � - - -.- -.-.. - - - _
4

0 I I I I I I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year
IrECoastal EfNon-Coastal

From 1990 to 1995, the proportion of waste landfilled in coastal vs. non-coastal counties decreased by
approximately eight percent. For the same period, the proportion of waste incinerated decreased by about four
percent. The proportion of waste recycled in coastal counties increased by approximately two percent. The total
proportion of waste in coastal counties has remained fairly constant at approximately 80 percent of the state's total
MSW from 1990 to 1995.

Proportional Share of Waste in Florida by Disposal Method

< g~~~ e g g g g a q M , .4v-*Xo.~*..z i

1990 75.0% 25.0% 99.8% 0.2% 84.3% 15.7% 80.3% 19.7%
1991 73.8% 26.2% 95.8% 4.2% 86.6% 13.4% 80.3% 19.7%
1992 71.0% 29.0% 96.9% 3.1% 86.3% 13.7% 80.8% 19.2%
1993 71.4% 28.6% 97.4% 2.6% 83.4% 16.6% 81.0% 19.0%
1994 68.7% 31.3% 96.5% 3.5% 81.7% 18.3% 79.7% 20.3%
1995 66.9% 33.1% 95.8% 4.2% 82.6% 17.4% 79.6% 20.4%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-29 Florida Coastal Management Program

Coastal County Proportional Share of Waste
in Florida by Disposal Method
Coastal counties' proportion of state total
100% -/ -/
---- --- - - -- ------ ----- 1----
90% -

80% -

70% -
60%I
so~~~~~~ , , 1 1,h

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
IULandfilled Elncinerated *Recycled /% of Total MSW

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-30 Florida Coastal Management Program

IMPACT OF GROWTH IN THE COASTAL ZONE

Per capita Income

Mana~enent

Per capita income is a measure of the wealth of an area's population as well as an indicator of the economic
health of that region. Increases in income can create greater disposable income, which often results in increased
consumption of goods and services, along with a host of other associated effects. These effects include greater
demands on waste facilities, increased traffic and construction, and increased use of resources. Alternatively,
wealthier populations often have more to expend on recreation, charities, and provide a larger tax base. Per
capita income does not suggest where additional income is spent or where such a population places its priorities,
but increasing values do suggest a more stable, healthy economy.

Per capita income is determined by dividing the total income of county residents by the total population of the
counties. These values are then normalized to 1993 dollars using the Consumer Price Index to provide a
comparable figure over time.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is from the Florida Statistical Abstract, produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box
117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7145, or at (352) 392-0171. The Abstract is available at most major libraries.
It may be purchased from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

Consumer Price Index information also comes from the Florida Statistical Abstract. Calculations are based on
1 982-84 = I100.

ACQU ISITION
The data are available in hard copy format. The 1996 edition of the Abstract costs $39.95 to purchase.

COLLECTION
This information is based on decennial U.S. Census figures.
TECH NICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The population figures used to calculate per capita income are estimates derived from mathematical analyses
based on census data collected every ten years. While some flaws and biases are inherent in the census
information due to the data collection process and mathematical analysis, they are not defects that reduce the
utility and validity of these figures.

The limitations for normalizing the data to 1993 are those which are inherent to the Consumer Price Index's
calculation.

Data Analysis
Between 1983 and 1993, the per capita income in coastal counties was consistently higher (twenty to twenty-five
percent higher) than the per capita income in non-coastal counties. An explanation for this is that the urban
populations consistently receive higher salaries than rural communities. Much of the state's urban population
resides within the coastal counties, which subsequently maintain these higher average salaries. This could also
be an indication of a higher cost of living and property values in coastal versus non-coastal counties.

The per capita income for both coastal and non-coastal counties has shown a trend of fairly steady increase, but
income figures for 1991 through 1993 have not increased at as high a rate. When figures are normalized to 1993
levels, there is actually a decrease in 1991 for coastal counties and in 1991 and 1992 for non-coastal counties.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-31 Florida Coastal Management Program

Per Capita Income in Coastal
and Non-Coastal Counties

1983 $11,298 $9,045 99.6 $16,391 $13,122
1984 12,092 9,586 103.9 16,817 13,331
1985 13,021 10,171 107.6 17,487 13,660
1986 13,880 10,780 109.6 18,300 14,213
1987 14,578 11,268 113.6 18,543 14,333
1988 15,463 12,061 118.3 18,887 14,732
1989 16,761 12,881 124.0 19,532 15,011
1990 17,648 13,449 130.7 19,512 14,869
1991 18,102 13,937 136.2 19,205 14,786
1992 18,681 14,420 140.3 19,240 14,852
1993 19,330 14,834 144.5 19,330 14,834

Per Capita Income in Coastal
and Non-Coastal Counties
1993 dollars (Thousands)
20

t4 IWEL to
12

1 0 l I I I I I I

Year
IECoastal Counties ENon-Coastal Counties I
Note: Income axis does not start at zero for reasons of clarity.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends A-32 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section B
Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes

Im Iw ~)

~~A

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Flrda
Maaeen

Florida's coastline is a dynamic system; together, physical and biological processes form and define the state's
unique environment. Barrier islands, common landforms in Florida, serve an integral role in the local and state
economy. For example, barrier islands often enclose the productive estuarine ecosystems that anchor the
shellfish industry. Barrier islands are also prime destinations for beach visitors and nature enthusiasts. Care must
be taken to ensure that Florida's coast retains its beauty and economic value.

The demand for property along the coast is high; residents seek to situate themselves near the beach. The
implementation of erosion control mechanisms on the coast can protect structures from adverse effects
associated with chronic erosion and severe coastal storms. However, control mechanisms are not benign; they
often redistribute erosion elsewhere, requiring a continuing reliance upon the construction, maintenance, and
replacement of erosion control devices. One alternative to structural erosion control mechanisms is beach
renourishment. Renourishment, though costly, may not have the same negative impacts often associated with
control structures like seawalls and jetties. However, renourishment is an iterative process; eroded sand must
continually be replenished to maintain the integrity of the beach. Further, sand for renourishment is often dredged
from offshore bars. This practice can damage offshore environments. Inlet management plans may prove to be a
successful alternative. Instead of introducing sand from outside of the system, inlet management incorporates
other mechanisms such as sand bypassing from areas of sand accretion to areas where coastal structures have
interfered with the long shore transport and deposition of sand (and caused erosion).

Another technique that has been used to enhance the coastal economy is the implementation of artificial reefs.
Originally initiated by the fishing industry, artificial reefs provide habitat for many aquatic species. The materials
that are used to create artificial reefs have improved over time; coastal managers seek to optimize the benefits of
reefs (i.e., providing habitat) while minimizing associated negative effects like the splintering of reef materials and
leaching of unwanted substances into surrounding waters.

This chapter considers (1) the condition of physical processes on Florida's coast and (2) measures that have been
taken to either enhance or preserve coastal characteristics. The coast is Florida's greatest asset. Although some
physical processes like erosion are controlled, some processes are not well understood at this juncture. For
example, the rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate in the next 100 years. While it is not possible to
predict the exact mean sea level a century from now, the implications for the coastal environment should be
considered. Recognizing the potential effects of altering coastal physical process today allows for future flexibility
and expeditious response to changes that may occur. The following is a list of indicators that are examined in this
chapter, and a list of indicators in other chapters that may provide additional information regarding coastal physical
processes.

Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes Indicators:

* Miles of eroding coastline
* Undeveloped coastal barrier habitats
* Miles of renourished beaches
* Volume of ocean dredged material disposed of off Florida's coast
* Number of permits for coastal armoring
* Number of permitted artificial reefs

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-I Florida Coastal Management Program

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Coral reef community dynamics (Section D)
� Strategic habitat conservation areas (Section D)
� Existing wetland habitat and conservation lands (Section D)
� Developed and agricultural land along the coast (Section G)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

0 ~~~~~Miles of Eroding Coastline '

The process of erosion affects many miles of Florida's coastline. While the erosion and accretion of sand are
naturally occurring phenomena, they exist, without disturbance, in a dynamic equilibrium. Construction adjacent to
the coastline has accelerated erosion in some areas and caused the accretion and shoaling of sand in others.

Beach erosion endangers public and private property. Many areas in Florida experience significant erosion but
are not candidates for restoration because no structures are situated nearby. Alternatively, there are many areas
where erosion is less dramatic, but because the threat to surrounding development is high, restoration is desired.
Erosion is considered to be a critical problem if it threatens human interests. There are two classifications of
erosion: critically eroding beaches are areas where substantial development or recreational interests are
threatened; non-critically eroding beaches are areas where the erosion processes, although substantial, do not
currently threaten any development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The information can be obtained from Mr. Ralph R. Clark, who compiled a report entitled A Statewide Inventory
and Identification of the Beach Erosion Problem Areas in Florida. Mr. Clark can be reached at the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd.,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 487-4469 extension 174. Beach profile data may be found on the
internet. The website is http:11www.bcs.tlh.fl.us. The bureau intends to add erosion length information to the
website by December 1997.

ACQUISITION
Erosion length and some rate information is available. Interested parties must pay for reproduction costs pursuant
to state law.

COLLECTION
Data regarding the length of erosion from 1989 to 1993 were published in the aforementioned report. Erosion
length information is expected to be available on the internet by the end of 1997. Beach profile data are available
on the internet from 1971 to 1997. Shoreline surveys are available on the internet from the mid 1800s to the
present.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 4
Pressure/StatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
While the quality of erosion rate data is very high due to on-site visits, aerial photography, and remote sensing, the
cause and effect relationship of erosion may be less clearly defined. Erosion rates are indicative of not just one
natural phenomenon, but are an effect of many different processes. Care must be taken to consider the influence
of single severe storm events on erosion rates. Annual analyses may not be as insightful as studies of longer time
periods.

Data Analysis
Between 1989 and 1993, the amount of eroding shoreline increased from 332 to 356 miles. This represents an
increase of nearly 7 percent in five years. Erosion increases are apparent in both critically and non-critically
eroding beaches. Critically eroding areas increased from 218 to 233 miles, and non-critically eroding areas grew
from 115 to 123 miles.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 8-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

Miles of Eroding Beaches

Miles of non-critically eroding beaches 114.8 119.3 122.1 123.1 122.6
Miles of critically eroding beaches 217.6 218.8 227.5 231.9 232.9
Total 332.4 338.1 349.6 355.0 355.5

Miles of Eroding Beaches
Miles of Erosion

400 / ' 332.4 - - 338.1 - - - - -349.6 355 355.5
350
300
250
200
150
100
50

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
IllNon-critically eroding beaches WmCritically eroding beaches I

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

0 ~~~Undeveloped Coastal Barrier Habitats

)rn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mana~gemnent

Coastal upland habitats are unique because of the influence of coastal processes such as erosion, deposition,
longshore drift, salt spray, storms, and long shore drift. In addition to the familiar beach dune habitat, one may find
hardwood forests, sand pine scrub forests, grasslands, interdune swales (marshes), and, in the Florida Keys,
rockland hammocks. The specially adapted plants stabilize the dry, sandy soils found along the coast, protecting
inland areas from the effects of coastal processes. These plants depend on the animals which live among them to
help maintain the natural balance. In fact, species which naturally inhabit the coast have evolved together to easily
recover from catastrophes such as hurricanes.

Development for residential and resort use is the greatest threat to these habitats due to their prime scenic
locations. Although low-lying shoreline habitats are protected by regulation, most of the other habitats may be
developed. Most of the other major threats to these habitats are associated with development. Foot traffic and
visitor overuse, off-road vehicle traffic, and plant and artifact collection disrupt these habitats by harming
vegetation which stabilizes the sandy soil and retains water which otherwise easily drains away from the surface.
Maintaining natural sand sources requires large areas of shoreline and river systems to retain their natural
characteristics.

The coastal environment is complicated because the same management practices or natural disturbances can
have vastly different effects depending on the type of natural community. For example, fire and coastal storms
can serve an integral role in the maintenance of and productivity of sand pine forests. However, fire can destroy
an oak hammock (areas of low, closed canopy forest) and it may be replaced by another type of plant community
such as sand pine scrub. Forest management is not only complicated by concerns about nearby residences and
other development, but also by the varied effects it can have on the landscape.

Agricultural use of the coast can destroy or help maintain natural communities, again depending on the type of
natural community. Certain timber cutting practices, when combined with planting sand pines, can lead to
regeneration of fairly natural sand pine forests. Yet agriculture is often associated with draining natural wetlands
and planting monoculture crops, which may not provide useful habitat. Thus, when making judgments about
appropriate land uses and management practices, coastal ecosystems require a very detailed assessment.

The amount of coastal upland habitat remaining thus indicates the amount of coastline where natural coastal
processes are undisturbed as well as undeveloped. The indicator most directly reflects the ecological value of
remaining habitat and the scenic and recreational benefits associated with those habitats, but because the coastal
region provides such important protection to inland areas from coastal processes, it also reflects economic value
of storm protection as well.

Land surveyed for this indicator includes both barrier islands and high-energy shoreline (typically sandy beaches)
in areas without barrier islands. In the case of barrier islands, the entire landscape was surveyed. In the case of
mainland coastline, the 1989-92 survey includes land on the first coastal terrace (subject to frequent salt spray
influence), often using a road boundary.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Land conditions on barrier islands were surveyed by the U.S. Geological Survey using aerial photography data
from two time periods, 1945-55 and 1972-75. Data are analyzed in Harry F. Lins, Jr., Patterns and Trends of Land
Use and Land Cover on Atlantic and Gulf Coast Barrier Islands, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1 156,
1980.

Current information on the status of coastal upland lands is maintained by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Data from an intensive survey of coastal upland habitat is presented in: Ann F. Johnson and James W. Muller, An
Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland Natural Communities: Final Summary Report, March 1993.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

For further information, contact Barbara Lenczewski (850-224-8207) at Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1018
Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C, Tallahassee, Florida, 32303.

ACQUISITION
Current information is available in hard copy and electronic format from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, with
the price (if any) determined by the nature of the specific data request. The data used in this indicator was
provided at no cost in hardcopy. The U.S. Geological Survey report is available from the Florida State University
library.

COLLECTION
This data was collected during an intensive statewide survey in 1989-1992. Although future statewide surveys
depend on grant funding, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) maintains its database of public and private
lands which includes this data; the database is updated to reflect known changes in the ownership and
development status of the land. Thus, a reasonable approximation of this data can be extracted from their
database on request when FNAI resources permit.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 6
PressurelState/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The U.S. Geological Survey data includes only barrier islands and excludes mainland coastal habitat and the
Florida Keys. Its land cover data can not be readily translated into habitat determinations. For instance, forest
cover may indicate natural communities or single species pine plantations. Barren land may represent natural
communities or cleared land.

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory data includes nearly all upland coastal habitats. However, it excludes coastal
wetland habitats (with the exception of interdune swales) and open water. In some areas of mainland coastal
areas the entire coastal habitat may not have been included due to use of a road boundary.

Data Analysis
Long term analysis of the loss of coastal habitat is complicated by changing definitions, methods and technologies
available to scientists. Mapping coverage by the two data sources differs, although not so much that the results
cannot be compared. The FNAI database is greater; in addition to barrier islands, the Florida Keys and certain
areas of mainland coastal areas with coastal upland communities are included.

Both the FNAI and USGS mapping criteria eliminate small parcels. The FNAI database typically considers only
parcels with areas greater than 20 acres, although exceptions are made for certain types of habitat where smaller
parcels may be considered valuable. The USGS maps exclude all linear features which are not at least 660 feet
wide and consider a residential or commercial area only if it covers at least 10 acres.

Land Cover of Barrier Islands (1945-55, 1972-75)

1945-55 69,505 52,835 122,340 32,007 3,650 356,908 514,905
1972-75 56,001 38,687 94,688 101,988 3,697 318,560 518,933
Consolidated from USGS data.

The earlier U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data used photographs of lesser optical quality without planimetric
control, leading to inaccuracies which are not present in the 1972-75 photographic data set. Both USGS surveys
estimate acreage of land cover, rather than estimating the acreage of natural communities present, the practice
used in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) database.

The USGS data includes estimates of developed and wetland acreage, which helps illustrate trends in
development between 1945-55 and 1972-75. The USGS study concluded that urban or builtup land increases on
the Florida Atlantic were probably due to conversion from forest land (18,000 acres lost), wetlands (14,000 acres

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

lost), and open land (10,000 acres lost). Development along the Florida Gulf coast was probably at the expense
of wetlands (23,000 acres lost) and open land (4,000 acres lost).

Remaining Coastal Upland Natural Communities (1989-92)

Public ownership 36,991 33,879 70,161
Private ownership 9,425 8,625 18,759
Total 46,416 42,503 88,920

Note: Forest includes maritime hammock, mesic flatwood, sand pine scrub, tropical hammock,
rockland hammock, xeric hammock, and coastal berm communities. Open includes beach
dune, coastal grassland, coastal strand, all other scrub, coastal interdunal swale, and coastal
rock barren communities.

Since no reliable pre-development maps are available indicating the natural communities covering barrier islands
and other coastal areas, current estimates of lost coastal habitat are uncertain, but it is certain that vast areas of
coastal uplands and wetlands have been developed. Between 1945-55 and 1972-75, the USGS estimated that
about 18,000 acres of forest and 10,000 acres of open land were lost to development on the Florida Atlantic. On
the Gulf side, USGS estimated about 4,000 acres of open land lost to development. By comparing the 1989-92
survey to the 1945-55 survey, one can estimate that a minimum of 35,000 acres of coastal upland habitats have
been lost to development. The true number may be twice as high, considering that the 1989-92 survey covers a
greater area of the coast, the likelihood that pre-1945 development on barrier islands was likely concentrated in
upland areas, and the constantly changing shape and area of sandy coastlines.

Based on the available data sources, it is even more difficult to estimate the loss of coastal wetland habitats to
development. Between 1945-55 and 1972-75, the USGS estimated that 14,000 acres of wetlands on the Florida
Atlantic and 23,000 acres on the Gulf were lost to development. The 1989-92 study did not assess most wetland
habitats, so it is not known what the current amount of remaining wetlands are present in these coastal areas.

Since most remaining coastal upland natural communities are in public hands, it could be assumed that relatively
little further development will occur on large, undeveloped tracts of land. However, of the-70,000 acres of publicly
owned land, about 21,000 acres are on military bases and are thus subject to partial development.

Coastal Upland Natural Communities (estimated land cover)
Acres (thousands)

140 '---

120

100

20
0 /
1945-55 1972-75 1989-92
|-Forest EzOpenI

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

References
Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural Resources, Guide to the Natural Communities of
Florida, February 1990.

Huck, R.B., "Management of Natural Communities of Choctawhatchee Sand Pine [Pinus clausa (Engelm.) Sarg.
var. immuginata Ward] in the Florida Panhandle," Resource Management Notes, Vol. 8, No. 2, Florida
Park Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, Winter 1996/97.

Kruer, Curtis R., An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland Natural Communities: Florida Keys,
Florida Natural Areas Inventory, April 1992.

Lins, Harry F., Jr., Patterns and Trends of Land Use and Land Cover on Atlantic and Gulf Coast Barrier Islands,
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1156, 1980.

Johnson, Ann F., and James W. Muller, An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland Natural
Communities: Final Summary Report, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, March 1993.

Johnson, Ann F., and James W. Muller, An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland Natural
Communities: Northeast Florida, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, March 1993.

Johnson, Ann F., and James W. Muller, An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland Natural
Communities: Southwest Florida, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, June 1993.

Johnson, Ann F., James W. Muller, and Kelly A. Bettinger, An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland
Natural Communities: Panhandle, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, August 1992.

Johnson, Ann F., James W. Muller, and Kelly A. Bettinger, An Assessment of Florida's Remaining Coastal Upland
Natural Communities: Southeast Florida, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, April 1993.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Miles of Renourished Beaches

4,-ria is famous for its beautiful beaches. Their 0eauty is an integral component of the state'P Management

Florida is famous for its beautiful beaches. Their beauty is an integral component of the state's lucrative tourism
industry. Many of the most frequented beaches, such as the stretch from West Palm Beach southward to Key
Biscayne, are threatened by erosion. Beach restoration and renourishment are management techniques that
maintain Florida's lavish beaches and also protect coastal structures from storm events. Restoration is the initial
placement of sand on an eroded beach; renourishment is the periodic replacement of sand after subsequent
erosion. Restoration and renourishment provide a protective barrier and a means of retaining the economic value
of beaches.

Beach renourishment provides enhanced recreation and protection of coastal structures. Beach renourishment
can significantly reduce damage to structures by increasing their distance from the shoreline and providing a
buffer to dissipate wave energy. Beach renourishment, other than for strictly recreational values, is mostly
undertaken when critical erosion has progressed to the point of imminently endangering property and/or
significantly reducing the economic value of the beach. The amount of renourishment activity may indicate (1) the
degree of erosion occurring along Florida's coastline, and (2) the relative preference of renourishment as
compared to other management methods (e.g., seawalls).

Beach renourishment is not, however, an entirely benign solution. Sand for renourishment is often dredged from
offshore bars that are out of the immediate coastal system; this can negatively affect the offshore environment.
Further, beach renourishment provides merely a temporary cure. As sand is eroded, beaches must continually be
replenished. Inlet management plans may prove to be a successful alternative. Instead of introducing sand from
outside of the system, inlet management incorporates other mechanisms such as sand bypassing from areas of
accretion to areas of erosion (where coastal structures have interfered with the long shore transport of sand).

Since the beginning of the Beach Erosion Control Program in 1964, the Florida Legislature has appropriated
$197,859,259 for beach preservation and erosion control. These funds are matched by local government and
federal dollars. Over $60,000,000 have been appropriated for beach restoration projects, and over $40,000,000
have been appropriated for beach renourishment projects. In addition, $31,800,000 were appropriated for
Hurricane Opal recovery. Some of these dollars were used for beach restoration, however, they are not included
in the beach restoration total.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The information can be obtained from Paden Woodruff, who can be reached at the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 487-1262 extension 103.

ACQUISITION
State law requires that all reproduction costs be covered.

COLLECTION
Data for renourishment for all of Florida from 1989 to 1993 were included in a report entitled Status of
Comprehensive Beach Management Planning. Updated data may be obtained from the Bureau of Beaches and
Coastal Systems.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 2
Pressure/State/Response: Response
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
Beach renourishment is only one method used to protect the coastline. Examples of other methods include the
construction of breakwaters and jetties.

Data Analysis
Prior to 1994, 83.6 miles of beaches were restored and are undergo periodic maintenance. Another 24.8 miles
were added between 1994 to 1996. A total of 108.4 miles of beach have been restored and are under a
maintenance program.

Total Miles of Beach Restored and
Under a Maintenance Program
108.4

100 83.6 87.2 88.4

07
prior to 1994 1994 1995 1996
Year
ETotal Miles of Beach Restored and Under a Maintenance Program

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-10 Florida Coastal Management Program

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Volume of Ocean Dredged Material

Disposed of Onf Florida's Coast V idasa
Paveram

Eight permanent ocean dredged material sites are designated off Florida's coast. Specifically, dredged material
sites are found at the following locations: (1) Fernandina Beach, (2) Jacksonville, (3) Canaveral, (4) Ft. Pierce, (5)
Miami, (6) Tampa, (7) Pensacola, and (8) Pensacola Inshore. These areas have been set aside as receptor sites
for dredged material from channel dredge projects. Additional sites were formerly labeled "interim-designated" or
"interim approved," pending approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 stipulated that only permanent sites can be used for disposal of ocean
dredged material as of January 1, 1997. Prior to any new or previously interim site being used, an environmental
impact statement and public review must be completed by EPA.

In some cases, dredge materials can be used to renourish Florida's beaches. For example, beach quality sand is
the only dredged material that may be disposed of at the Pensacola Inshore site.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The volume of disposed material is monitored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the disposal sites are
designed by EPA. Information on disposal sites may be obtained from Chris McArthur at EPA Region IV, Coastal
and Water Quality Branch, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, or at (404) 562-9391. The contacts at the
Army Corps of Engineers are Mark Wolff, Jacksonville District, P.O. Box 4970, CESAJ-CO-QN, Jacksonville,
Florida 32232-0019, or at (904) 791-1131 and Susan Rees, Mobile District, Post Office Box 2288, PD-EC, Mobile,
Alabama 36628-0001, or at (205) 690-2724.

ACQUISITION
The volume of material which is disposed of in designated sites is monitored during dredging projects, and data
are available upon comnpletion of each particular project. Data on the amount of disposed material can be
obtained at no cost from the Army Corps of Engineers after particular post-construction surveys are completed.

COLLECTION
Information on the amount of disposed material is available after each post-construction survey or can be
collected annually for each of the disposal sites.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 3
Pressure/State/Response: Pressure
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Data are only available regarding the volume of material disposed; data are not available regarding the total
acreage of submerged lands affected. The quality and accessibility of the data for each site vary considerably;
data are approximations.

Data Analysis
Disposal volumes range from a low of 247,000 cubic yards in 1952 to a high of 4,269,000 cubic yards in 1990.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-i 1 Florida Coastal Management Program

Volume of Ocean Dredged Material
Disposed of Off Florida's Coast*

1952 0.247 1969 0.962 1985* 3.084
1953 0.444 1972* 2.007 1986 0.352
1954 0.749 1974 0.962 1987 2.064
1956 0.198 1975 3.826 1988 0.385
1960 2.047 1976 4.159 1989 0.533
1961 0.747 1977 0.078 1990* 4.247
1962 0.012 1978 1.786 1991 0.767
1963 1.158 1979 0.084 1992 0.997
1965 0.758 1980 2.480 1993 2.089
1966 0.074 1981* 2.142 1994 1.652
1967 0.442 1983 1.044 1995 3.047
1968 0.760 1984 0.917 1996 4.269
* 1981 includes data from the two previous years.
1972,1985, & 1990 include data from the previous year.

Volume of Ocean Dredged Material
Disposed of Off Florida's Coast*
Cubic yards (millions)

4.... � . . . . . . . .------------------------

ii~~~~~~~~~~ �
4
3~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I T
~~~~~- 0 ' 0,,,;,'', l,,'''''',6 ,,,
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

DISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

0 ~~~ Number of Permits for Coastal Armoring

Armoring refers to coastal protection measures such as seawalls, bulkheads, and other similar structures. These
structures are designed to prevent erosion in a defined area and protect against coastal storms. The
effectiveness of armoring of the coastline is fair; armoring protects certain locations, however, may have adverse
effects in others.

Armoring can negatively affect adjacent property. Seawalls and other armoring structures are not able to absorb
the energy of waves and currents as well as unaltered coastline. Wave energy may be deflected to either side of
the structure or to the shoreline in front of the structure; this may accelerate erosion in these areas. Owners of
adjacent property often erect armoring structures to ameliorate the additional wave energy. The cycle continues,
transforming the natural coastline to one riddled with armoring structures.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data are available from the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems within Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection. The information is not easily accessed because of the immense size and design of the
database. The Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems plans to make the data available on the internet in the
near future. The bureau may be reached at (850)488-3181.

ACQUISITION
The information is available at no cost.

COLLECTION
Data are collected by the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. All armoring structures must obtain a permit
from the Department of Environmental Protection; they compile the data in a central database.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are available, but not usable in the current format.

Data Limitations
The number of permits issued for coastal armoring indicates the degree to which counties rely upon armoring
structures for the protection of property. This indicator presents the number of permits issued, however, the data
do not necessarily indicate the construction of the structure. The number of permits does not directly indicate the
amount of armoring.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

-~~~~ B~~~ISRUPTION OF COASTAL PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Number of Permitted Artificial Reefs

Artificial reefs provide a concentrated habitat for a vast number of species attracted to underwater formations. In
most cases, the placement of these structures was initiated by the sport fishing industry to bolster fish populations.
Changes in the materials used for artificial reefs reflect an improved understanding of their affects in marine
environments. Whereas old refrigerators and discarded tires where formerly used, decommissioned vessels and
bridge rubble have become favored in recent years. There is currently a movement to allow only prefabricated
concrete structures to be used as reefs to prevent some of the problems (e.g., pollution, floating debris, or
movement of the reef) associated with other commonly used materials.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data for artificial reefs in Florida through 1991 can be obtained from Florida Sea Grant College, Building 803,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 3261 1, or at (352) 392-5870. Don Pybas compiles and publishes the
Atlas of Artificial Reefs in Florida; this document lists all new artificial reefs in Florida by year. Currently in its fifth
edition, the atlas is updated in five-year intervals. An updated version will be available by December 1997.

ACQU ISITION
Data are collected by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Office of Fisheries and
Management, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 922-4340. Data are
compiled in a periodic report that is published by Florida Sea Grant College, Building 803, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 3261 1, or at (352) 392-5870. The report is entitled Atlas of Artificial Reefs in Florida; it may be
purchased for $1 0.

COLLECTION
The data are updated and tabulated for each county in five-year intervals.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually connected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
There are several limitations to these data. The compiled data represent only those artificial reefs actually
permitted. The data do not include any reefs which may have been constructed without a permit from DEP, or
those reefs that were permitted but never constructed. Thus, the actual number of artificial reefs is unknown and
is probably considerably larger than the reported number of reefs. While the data are available every five years,
they are not readily available for intermediate years. Those data may be obtained only from the respective
counties permitting the reefs.

Data Analysis
The data show a generally upward trend in the number of permitted reefs from 1971 to 1991. Prior to 1971 there
existed only 19 known sites. From 1978 to 1988 a substantial increase, from 6 to 72 permitted reefs, was
recorded. A significant drop in the numbers of permits occurred from 1988 through 1991; during these years the
number of newly-constructed reefs dropped from 72 to 12. The decrease in permits can be explained by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' enforcement of a liability insurance requirement of $1,000,000 per reef. This, in effect,
made it impossible for the private sector to continue to sponsor the construction of reefs. Since 1989 all reefs
have been constructed by local governments.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Permitted Artificial Reefs Constructed
in Florida per Year
Number of reefs permitted per year
80 72

- - - - 556
60
41 40
40 1 1 33
21 26 25
20 11 12 13 8 10 01 12
4 2
0

Year

Total Number of Permitted Artificial Reefs
in Florida
Total number of permitted reefs
600 /

500 'q

400 L1

0~~~~~~~~~~~c /
300 ,o !

200 m r: n
100 ON Cox

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends B-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section C
Responding to Coastal Threats and Hazards

~~~ 3,~

Responding to coastal Threats and Hazards

Management

Hurricane Andrew cost an estimated $30 billion dollars in insured and uninsured losses, devastating the
environment, entire communities, and the insurance industry (DCA, 1995). Many families were left homeless and
many insurers were left bankrupt. The aftermath of Hurricane Andrew has brought to the forefront issues of
hazard mitigation and preparation, populations at risk along Florida's coast, risk sharing, and personal
responsibility.

Over three-quarters of Florida's population live in coastal counties. The population is a mixture of those who have
experienced first hand the threat of coastal storms and those who have no experience in preparation and
evacuation in case of such weather. Furthermore, because of the large concentrated population in these areas it
is important to monitor both natural and human-caused coastal threats and hazards as well as the level of
preparation being conducted by government and citizens to reduce the potential harm to the population at risk.

The indicators in this issue area all deal in some way with how Floridians respond to threats and hazards, either
natural or human-induced, that affect coastal counties. Natural events include tropical storms, hurricanes, and
other natural phenomena that lead to flooding and/or high winds. Human-induced events include oil and
hazardous material spills, and shipping accidents. The following list identifies the indicators that are examined in
this chapter.

Coastal Threats and Hazards Indicators:

* Change in storm evacuation clearance times
* Insured value of property in coastal hazard areas
* Number of residents with hurricane experience
* Population at risk to hurricane-induced flooding
* Reported oil/hazardous material spills
* Population in proximity to nuclear power plants

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Population growth within ten miles of the coast (Section A)
* Beach closings and advisories (Section D)

References
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 1995. "National Hurricane Program, State of Florida." October 1, 1994.
September 30, 1995.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-i Florida Coastal Management Program

RESPONDING TO COASTAL THREATS AND HAZARDS

change in Storm Evacuation Clearance Times

~~~~~~~~~~rn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Management

Prior to the landfall of a hurricane, evacuation orders are given to residents determined to be at risk of death or
injury from storm surge flooding and high winds. The affected population is determined by a variety of factors
including hurricane characteristics, the size of the population needed to be moved to safety, risk attributes
associated with residential location, evacuation routes, and shelter access. Evacuation clearance time is
determined by the number of residents to be evacuated, the expected behavior of those residents, roadway
network characteristics, and hurricane shelter availability. Because of the high regional clearance times statewide,
it is difficult to issue evacuation orders that will completely clear the area prior to the arrival of gale force winds.

As evacuation times rise, the coastal population is at greater risk of death or injury during hurricanes. By not
directing population or public expenditures away from coastal high hazard areas, the coastal population grows and
exasperates the problem of evacuation. Populations within the category I hurricane evacuation/surge zone
(sustained winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour) face a greater risk than those outside of this zone due to their
immediate vulnerability to storm surge flooding. The number of people within this zone is already significant, and
continued growth increases the population at risk. With longer evacuation times, either fewer people can be
evacuated within a certain time frame or the evacuation order must be given earlier. When evacuation orders are
given early and a hurricane does not make landfall, the public may become skeptical of the validity of the orders,
which may affect the response during the next order. If the orders are not given earlier, fewer people can
evacuate thus placing a greater number of people at risk. Evacuation time is critical to the safety of the public and
serves to indicate the potential for hazardous situations. Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study: Technical Data
Reports indicate that many of the state's coastal urban areas have long evacuation clearance times. This may be
a problem; however, no consistent information is available to show how these evacuation clearance times are
changing from year to year.

The Technical Data Reports contain several different analyses that are necessary to determine clearance times.
The hazards analysis discusses and provides data on the potential threat from hurricanes. From this, the
vulnerability analysis determines the populations and facilities at risk. The behavioral analysis assesses how the
population reacts and where they will go with the approach of a hurricane and the issuance of an evacuation order.
The shelter analysis compares shelter inventory, capacity, and demand. The transportation analysis combines all
these analyses with an assessment of the evacuation roadway capacities to determine the amount of time
necessary for the population to clear the area.

As can be seen, the overall complexity of such an analysis, involving different factors and population sizes for
each area, makes it difficult to establish an overall goal that all areas can adhere to. Presently, there is no specific
criteria or threshold by which evacuation clearance times are measured. In accordance with Rule 9J-5.012(2)(e)
of the Florida Administrative Code, all coastal cities and counties have been given the objective to "maintain or
reduce" hurricane evacuation times.

The data presented here are a compilation from regional evacuation studies and Technical Data Reports
undertaken between 1986 and 1995. Population figures and clearance times are based on storm surge areas. A
storm surge area may be defined as the area that would be impacted by wind driven water. Vulnerability will be a
culmination of the size of the population, the number of structures, their ability to withstand hazardous weather, the
time necessary to evacuate, and the presence of shelter. In addition, a critical factor is how informed and
knowledgeable people in coastal locations are of the potential dangers associated with an approaching storm.
This indicator presents the available clearance times for each coastal county for each category of storm. The
preparation of future technical reports will allow for analysis of the percent or hourly change in evacuation
clearance times.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Hurricane Evacuation Study: Technical Data Reports are available from each county emergency
management office. The studies were either conducted by the RPCs or by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
as a contractor. In addition, Chapter 9J-5, section 102(2)e.1 of the Florida Administrative Code requires local
governments to inventory and analyze evacuation times in their comprehensive plans. A summary of the key data
from the reports, the clearance time, vulnerable population, shelter capacity, shelter demand, and shelter status,
has been developed by the Hurricane Preparedness Section of the Department of Community Affairs/Division of
Emergency Management.

ACQUISITION
A summary of clearance times is available from Ms. Wendy Stewart, Staff Assistant, Florida DCA/DEM, 2555
Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-2100, or at (850) 413-9944.

COLLECTION
The data have been collected and modeled at varying time periods for all Florida counties.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Studies are rendered when funding is made available through local or state government, FEMA, the Corps of
Engineers, or other sources. Consequently, studies are completed at different time interval across all counties;
this limits trend analysis as well as inter-county comparisons. In addition the methodology and assumptions,
although generally consistent, do vary depending on when the study was conducted and by whom the study was
conducted. The primary variables include surge inundation areas, population data, storm scenarios, evacuation
areas, behavioral characteristics of evacuating populations, and roadway network and traffic control data. Each
variable contains many sub-variables, many of which are dependent upon assumptions that have not been
universally agreed upon. Moreover, the definition and determination of clearance time is not consistent across all
reports.

Data Analysis
No historical trends can be established since there is only one set of clearance times for coastal counties currently
available. Additionally, as described in the data limitations section, many of the variables used to calculate
evacuation clearance times were determined in different years using various methodologies. Overall, clearance
times were higher for more populated southern counties due to limited options being available regarding the
direction of evacuation and the long distances necessary to get out of harm's way. For a Category 1 hurricane,
the clearance time was the lowest for Charlotte County and the highest for Dade County, both counties in the
south. For a Category 2 hurricane, the lowest clearance time was 9 hours, predominately for northern counties in
the state. The highest clearance times were for Dade County (18) and Collier (17) and Monroe (17) in the
southern part of the state. For a Category 3 hurricane, the highest clearance times remain in the south in Monroe
(40) and Lee (24) Counties. For Category 4 and 5 storms, clearance times were higher overall in southern
counties. Evacuations will occur among several counties in a region. Subsequently, multi-county clearance times
may be beneficial to look at in addition to single county times.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

Clearance Times for Each Category of Storm
by Coastal County

Bay 11 11 11 12 12
Escambia 16 16 16 19 19
Okaloosa 16 16 16 19 19
Santa Rosa 10 10 10 12 12
Walton 13 13 13 14 14
Franklin 10 10 10 10 10
Gulf 9 9 9 9 9
Jefferson 9 9 9 9 9
Wakulla 1I I1 11 11 11
Dixie 9 9 9 9 9
Taylor 9 9 9 9 9
Citrus 11 14 15 15 15
Hernando 13 13 13 18 18
Levy 9 9 9 9 9
Duval 9 9 11 14 14
Flagler 9 9 9 9 9
Nassau 9 9 10 10 10
St. Johns 9 9 11 11 11
Brevard 11 11 13 13 13
Volusia 9 9 9 9 9
Hillsborough 10 13 13 14 17
Manatee 9 10 11 11 11
Pasco 10 10 11 13 13
Pinellas 10 13 13 14 17
Charlotte 3 11 15 15 15
Collier 11 17 20 20 20
Lee 8 10 24 27 27
Sarasota 12 12 12 12 12
Indian River 9 9 12 12 12
Martin 10 10 15 19 19
Palm Beach 12 12 13 16 16
St. Lucie 9 9 10 10 10
Broward 13 13 18 21 21
Dade 18 18 18 18 18
Monroe 17 17 40 40 40

Recommendations
Because local governments are required to update their comprehensive plan every five years, which necessitates
the calculation of updated evacuation times, the regional planning councils should establish a consistent
procedure for updating the Technical Data Reports. Currently, there is no regular schedule for updating the
Technical Data Reports; instead the RPCs or the ACOE has been updating the reports as funding becomes
available and as time permits. The Florida Coastal Management Program and the RPCs should work together to
establish a regular funding mechanism for these studies.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

RESPONDING TO COASTAL THREATS AND HAZARDS

4, ~~~~Insured Value of Property

in Coastal Hazard Areas Management

The size of the population in coastal high hazard areas is a good indicator of a potential risk to human health.
Additionally, the insured value of property in coastal hazard areas is also an indicator of risk to property.
Homeowners insure their property for many reasons including the threat of damage from hurricanes and coastal
storms. Recent hurricane events demonstrate that insured losses can be significant and create a tremendous
burden for homeowners, private insurers, and local, state, and federal governments. As insured value of property
in coastal hazard areas rises, the state is faced with increasing responsibility for the fiscal impacts caused by
harsh weather. For example, Florida has numerous mobile homes in the coastal areas, all of which are extremely
susceptible to the effects of hurricane force winds. Mobile homes are just one example of vulnerable properties
whose density and construction need to be controlled in high hazard areas. Historically, definitions of what
constitutes the coastal high hazard area have varied. The Florida Administrative Code (see 9J-5.003(1 9))
currently defines the coastal high hazard area as the evacuation zone for a category I hurricane as established in
the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government.

There are two readily available sources of information on insured coastal properties: the National Flood Insurance
Program and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund.

The Federal Emergency Management Act's Federal Insurance Administration administers the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP makes flood insurance available to residents of communities that adopt and
enforce floodplain management ordinances which represent sound land use practices. One of the goals of the
NFIP is to reduce the buildup in hazardous areas, thereby reducing the risk to life and property. A flood policy is
needed because homeowners' policies do not cover flooding. For flood insurance to be made available in a
community, the community agrees to require permits for development in flood hazard areas and to ensure that
proper materials and methods are used in new construction.

Hurricane Andrew cost an estimated $30 billion dollars in insured and uninsured losses (DCA, 1995). Since then,
many insurers have been unwilling or unable to provide insurance to Florida residents and commercial residential
owners. Florida Statute 215.555 (1993 Special Session) established the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund
(FHCF) to provide additional residential insurance capacity to protect insurer solvency and to reduce catastrophic
exposure. The FHCF helps to make insurance available to residential property owners by sharing the risk and
providing reimbursement to insurers for a portion of their potential hurricane and windstorm-related losses. The
FHCF is different from the NFIP in that it does not directly insure anyone for a specific type of loss. The FHCF
acts as a reinsurer by paying the insurance company's "claim" if the company's losses exceed a set retention.
According to Florida Statute 215.555, the FHCF will "reimburse the insurer for 45 percent, 75 percent, or 90
percent of its losses from each covered event in excess of the insurer's retention, plus 5 percent of the reimbursed
losses to cover loss adjustment expenses."

This indicator reflects the insured value of property in coastal high hazard areas. Future data collection will show
any increase in the amount of insurance purchased and, indirectly, the amount of insurance risk in the coastal
zone.

D~ata Characteristics
SOURCE
Current information on the NFIP may be obtained from Charles Speights, Disaster Recovery Administrator for the
State of Florida, Department Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399, or at (850)
413-9960, or 413-9945. Current information on the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund may be obtained from
Joan Lazar, Assistant Chief, Florida State Board of Administration-Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, 1801
Hermitage Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32308, or at (850) 413-1340.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 0-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

ACQUISITION
Hard copies of the NFIP data are available at no cost. Hard copies of the FHCF data are available for 15 cents
per page.

COLLECTION
Data from both sources is available annually. The FHCF is reported by law once a year. Data is available for
1995 and 1996 from the NFIP; however, due to time constraints only 1996 is presented here.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data is not all inclusive. For example, commercial exposure under FHCF only includes residential commercial, such
as condominiums and apartment buildings.

Data Analysis
An analysis of the data from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is not possible since only one year of
data was available. The following table presents the number of policies and the amount of insurance coverage for
each coastal county. Future data availability will allow for an analysis of any trends associated with flood
insurance in coastal counties.

National Flood Insurance Program
1996, by Coastal County

Bay 17,046 1,614,682,000 Levy 999 65,081,400
Brevard 44,349 4,818,785,000 Manatee 31,603 3,327,516,300
Broward 381,718 41,599,382,700 Martin 14,210 1,898,832,100
Charlotte 27,915 2,885,146,500 Monroe 34,003 4,095,647,500
Citrus 5,541 452,919,400 Nassau 5,311 675,312,500
Collier 62,726 6,960,081,700 Okaloosa 12,740 1,326,133,600
Dade 285,833 30,807296,200 Palm Beach 128,385 16,163,745
Dixie 512 25,669,900 Pasco 26,484 2,181,382,600
Duval 15,855 2,117,942,600 Pinellas 117,818 11,361,397,600
Escambia 10,289 1,167,136,400 Santa Rosa 4,209 620,909,400
Flagler 4,129 478,087,200 Sarasota 47,030 5,055,381,500
Franklin 2,218 283,658,400 St. Johns 19,172 2,353,336,600
Gulf 1,031 100,183,700 St. Lucie 17,317 1,498,450,700
Hernando 2,530 231,362,700 Taylor 406 26,166,200
Hillsborough 37,973 4,577,972,200 Volusia 33,115 3,196,951,200
Indian River 19,221 2,304,356,700 Wakulla 921 74,393,200
Jefferson 31 2,158,500 Walton 6,371 696,545,900
Lee 93,104 9,882,087,100 TOTAL 1,512,115 $148,778,510,945

The following table presents 1996 coastal county data from the FHCF. The 1995 totals for coastal counties are
also included. Residential and commercial residential showed increases in the amount of insured value over the
two years. Mobile home coverage showed a two percent decrease. Continued data collection will be needed
before further analysis can be made.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund
1996 Coastal County Exposure
(in dollars, with percent change and totals from 1995)

Bay 5,851,257,075 761,995,185 245,393,228 6,858,645,488
Brevard 22,974,712,119 2,088,660,332 1,035,512,358 26,098,884,809
Broward 70,365,308,362 10,073,152,067 731,182,707 81,169,643,136
Charlotte 8,656,012,859 641,627,212 575,387,489 9,873,027,560
Citrus 5,326,275,036 186,341,331 461,010,641 5,973,627,008
Collier 14,982,204,117 3,779,144,850 474,876,302 19,236,225,269
Dade 73,273,969,102 9,009,519,114 252,780,672 82,536,268,888
Dixie 183,138,622 6,609,313 53,949,962 243,697,897
Duval 29,946,053,855 2,077,511,618 457,209,387 32,480,774,860
Escambia 10,928,548,577 724,231,788 178,982,590 11,831,762,955
Flagler 2,805,628,020 157,374,866 73,042,772 3,036,045,658
Franklin 516,002,660 42,580,038 23,059,899 581,642,597
Gulf 450,204,594 11,741,548 30,261,303 492,207,445
Hernando 6,212,612,614 124,916,462 571,457,216 6,908,986,292
Hillsborough 38,812,484,656 2,472,937,245 1,094,798,521 42,380,220,422
Indian River 6,741,343,977 1,114,605,032 333,067,663 8,189,016,672
Jefferson 277,216,852 12,106,577 41,487,131 330,810,560
Lee 23,435,510,774 3,299,603,555 1,955,645,415 28,690,759,744
Levy 662,279,458 31,042,414 152,361,864 845,683,736
Manatee 9,727,034,765 1,342,806,581 1,065,928,958 12,135,770,304
Martin 8,280,026,679 1,253,610,365 378,948,449 9,912,585,493
Monroe 4,468,761,543 346,399,380 317,316,455 5,132,477,378
Nassau 2,050,163,732 208,555,340 180,069,388 2,438,788,460
Okaloosa 7,908,801,188 1,175,393,735 94,553,762 9,178,748,685
Palm Beach 70,724,597,847 8,900,259,062 553,847,275 80,178,704,184
Pasco 13,474,466,036 567,719,223 1,495,308,024 15,537,493,283
Pinellas 42,319,163,807 5,514,848,412 1,650,722,616 49,484,734,835
Santa Rosa 17,521,594,958 708,075,183 195,266,377 18,424,936,518
Sarasota 6,579,765,163 750,708,932 186,650,891 7,517,124,986
St. Johns 5,082,367,200 249,746,151 132,223,695 5,464,337,046
St. Lucie 19,590,140,003 2,594,484,534 1,114,410,906 23,299,035,443
Taylor 415,034,037 8,492,700 55,123,164 478,649,901
Volusia 20,079,071,576 2,218,061,765 914,099,075 23,211,232,416
Wakulla 513,077,102 10,153,420 82,181,203 605,411,725
Walton 1,148,869,069 118,318,432 78,033,027 1,345,220,528
Total 1996 552,283,698,034 62,583,333,762 17,236,150,385 632,103,182,181
Total 1995 521,035,230,700 55,405,925,918 17,708,537,823 594,149,694,441
Percent +5.9% +12.9% -2.6% +6.3%
Change

References
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 1995. "National Hurricane Program, State of Florida." October 1, 1994-
September 30, 1995.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

RESPONDING TO COASTAL THREATS AND HAZARDS

Number f Residents With Hurricane Experience

Manpgement

Preparedness is a key component of emergency management. Considering the fact that 36 percent of all
twentieth century U.S. hurricanes have hit Florida (Hebert et al., 1995), hurricane preparedness is an important
issue for the state's residents and public officials. One component of this issue is hurricane experience and the
concern that the rapid growth of the state's population, particularly along the coast, results in a significant
proportion of residents that have not had experience with a hurricane.

The residents of a given county are considered to have hurricane experience if they were living in that county at
the time of a major hurricane (defined as category 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale). However,
there are conflicting schools of thought on the role experience plays in hurricane preparedness and evacuation
behavior. The notion of "having experience" is difficult to measure in a meaningful way. On the one hand, many
people think they have experienced major hurricane conditions, when in fact they have not (Leik et al., 1981). This
misconception, referred to as "false experience," may result in some residents not taking appropriate action when
a major hurricane is nearing landfall; because of this "experience-adjustment paradox," coastal newcomers may
actually be more likely to evacuate than more long-term coastal residents (Windham et al., 1977). This viewpoint
is contrary to the notion that residents with hurricane experience are likely to be better prepared and more
responsive to evacuation orders for the next hurricane than those without hurricane experience. These conflicting
views do little to help predict which residents will be best prepared if a major hurricane makes landfall, and it is
worth noting that no consistent relationship between evacuation behavior and hurricane experience has been
empirically documented (Baker, 1991).

The fact that most people overestimate their hurricane experience had led to concern that a false sense of security
will negatively affect people's responses in future hurricane situations (Jarrell et al., 1992). In fact, it has been
suggested that hurricane education replace hurricane experience as a more useful tool for both coastal residents
and disaster preparedness groups (Jarrell et al., 1992).

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Publications from the hurricane conferences may be obtained from the National Hurricane Conference, 864 East
Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 561-1163. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-46
may be ordered from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22151, or at (703) 487-4650 (reference item number PB 93105971). Dr. Earl J. Baker may
be contacted at the Department of Geography, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. For
information on the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, contact the Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida
Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, or at (850) 922-
5438.

ACQUISITION
The National Hurricane Conference publications are available in hard copy format at no cost, as is the article by
Dr. Baker. The NOAA technical memorandum costs $39 plus shippingthandling. Information on the Florida
Coastal Issues Survey is available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The hurricane experience data are compiled by county at varying frequency, depending upon the landfall of
hurricanes in the state. The Florida Coastal Issues Survey data were collected during the summer and autumn of
1996, and future data collection via the survey is likely.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The hurricane experience estimates are based on a formula using historical population and last occurrence of a
hurricane for each coastal county; the population estimates are therefore limited to the ten-year intervals of the
census data. Using population figures may .overestimate the percentage of people in each county who actually
participated in some type of hurricane preparedness activity; however, those non-participatory individuals would
still be considered experienced. Using population figures does not, however, account for tourists who may have
been visiting an area when a hurricane hit. The data also fail to consider any immigrants who experienced a
hurricane prior to their residence in Florida. Although the number of residents with hurricane experience is
constantly changing as people move in and out of the state and the numbers of births and deaths fluctuate, these
fluctuations probably have little impact on the overall estimate of five percent experience for coastal residents as of
1990.

Regarding the data from the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, there are some limitations inherent in any survey
methodology, although the survey was designed and implemented by professionals who specialize in ensuring the
randomness and representativeness of the sample, unambiguousness of the questionnaire, etc. Users of the
survey data should be mindful of the range of results applicable to each question based on the sampling error and
confidence interval as described below.

Data Analysis
When the definition of hurricane experience is applied to Florida's coastal counties, the estimated proportion of
1990 residents with hurricane experience ranges from a low of zero percent for some (12) counties to a high of 84
percent (for Gulf County) (Sheets, 1992). For the state as a whole, approximately five percent of the coastal
county population was considered experienced as of 1990 (Jarrell et al., 1992).

Given the low levels of hurricane-experienced coastal Florida residents, it is interesting to look at responses to
some of the questions from the Florida Coastal Issues Survey. This survey was conducted by the Survey
Research Laboratory at Florida State University during the summer and autumn of 1996. The survey results
consist of 1,002 completed telephone interviews of randomly-selected adults (age 18 and older) living in Florida.
The data reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of four percent; this means that for any
question, 95 percent of the time the results will fall within �4% of the results that would have been obtained had
the entire population of Florida been surveyed.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of four percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of coastal or non-
coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

As displayed below, when asked whether they had ever been ordered or advised to evacuate because of a
hurricane or tropical storm, nearly 24 percent of coastal county residents responded that they had.

yes 23.6% 10.6% 20.5%
no 76.4% 89.4% 79.5%

Over 27 percent of coastal county residents also responded affirmatively when asked whether their home or
property had ever been damaged by a hurricane or tropical storm. The following data compare the coastal
residents' responses to those of non-coastal residents and the state as a whole.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

yes 27.3% 21.2% 25.8%
no 72.7% 78.4% 74.1%
don't know 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%

Although events like hearing evacuation orders or sustaining damage from a storm seem like hurricane
experiences, only around 20 percent of the coastal survey respondents who answered those questions
affirmatively actually would be considered hurricane-experienced by the criteria of the strict definition. This
discrepancy further illustrates the point about false experiences, the possible danger of reduced response in future
hurricanes, and the need for hurricane education.

When survey respondents were asked whether they felt they needed more information on hurricane preparedness
and safety, only 22 percent (168 people) of coastal county respondents answered "yes." Of those 168 people,
about 91 percent stated they would be interested in printed information, 85 percent said they would be interested
in obtaining information from a TV or radio program, and 51 percent replied that they would be interested in
attending a public information session on hurricane preparedness and safety.

Recommendations
The National Hurricane Center methodology and definition of experience could be used to annually update the
estimates of residents with hurricane experience. Annual population figures can be estimated by interpolation or
extrapolation of decennial census figures.

An alternative would be to survey residents annually to ask them if they have hurricane experience. This would
result in estimates of perceived preparedness which, as reflected in the above data, would likely be higher than the
experience estimates resulting from strict application of the National Hurricane Center definition.

References
Baker, Earl J. 1991. "Hurricane Evacuation Behavior." International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,
9(2). August 1991, pp. 287-310.

Hebert, Paul J., Jerry D. Jarrell, and Max Mayfield. 1995. "The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United
States Hurricanes of This Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts)." In Hurricanes...
Different Faces in Different Places (excerpts from the 17th Annual National Hurricane Conference). Compiled
by Lawrence S. Tait, National Hurricane Conference, Tallahassee, Florida. 104 pp.

Jarrell, Jerry D., Paul J. Hebert, and Max Mayfield. 1992. "Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County
Populations from Texas to Maine." NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-46. 152 pp.

Leik, Robert K., T. Michael Carter, and John P. Clark. 1981. Community Response to Natural Hazard Warnings.
Cited in Earl J. Baker. "Hurricane Evacuation Behavior." International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, 9(2). August 1991, pp. 287-310.

Sheets, Robert C. 1992. "The United States Hurricane Problem: An Assessment for the 1990's.' In Coastline at
Risk - The Hurricane Threat to the Gulf and Atlantic States (excerpts from the 14th Annual National Hurricane
Conference). Compiled by Lawrence S. Tait, National Hurricane Conference, Tallahassee, Florida. 98+ pp.

Windham, Gerald O., Ellen I. Posey, Peggy J. Ross, and Barbara G. Spencer. 1977. Reactions to Storm Threat
During Hurricane Eloise. Cited in Earl J. Baker. "Hurricane Evacuation Behavior." International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9(2), August 1991, pp. 287-31 0.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-10 Florida Coastal Management Program

RESrONDING TO COASTAL THREATS AND HAZARDS

�;ih~~w~ ~Population at Risk to
Hurricane-Induced Flooding Manaemn
Pgement
Program

Historically, Florida residents have dealt with a number of severe weather conditions related to hurricanes.
Between 1900 and 1995, 58 hurricanes made landfall in Florida; 23 which have been classified as major (level 3,
4, or 5). In 1985, a series of storms (Elena, Juan, and Kate) jolted the panhandle, resulting in death, damage to
coastal structures, destruction of numerous seawalls, and damage to coastal highways. In August, 1992,
Hurricane Andrew made landfall in South Dade County. The Hurricane was classified as a category 4 storm with
sustained wind speeds of 145 miles per hour. The Hurricane produced approximately 7 inches of rain, a
maximum storm tide of 16.9 feet, and left behind $30 billion dollars worth of property damage (DCA, 1995). A total
of 60,000 homes were destroyed and a quarter of a million people were left homeless in Dade County.
Approximately 40 deaths were attributable to the Hurricane. In 1994, two tropical storms (Alberto and Beryl)
caused 100-year flooding events in the state panhandle. The flooding was so extreme that Presidential
declarations of "emergency" and "disaster" were made (DCA, 1995). Finally, Hurricane Opal in October, 1995 hit
Florida with Category IV storm surges that resulted in $3 billion dollars worth of damage.
Hurricane Andrew brought to the forefront the need for increased preparation in the event of catastrophic weather
events. Florida has 1,350 miles of general coastline, and 8,436 miles of tidal shoreline, which includes the outer
coast, offshore islands, sounds, bays, rivers and creeks. Out of the total state population (1995 estimate), 73%
live in these coastal areas and approximately 33 percent live within a category five storm tide inundation zone
(DCA, 1995). Florida is very susceptible to storm induced flooding. The average elevation throughout the state is
approximately 100 feet above mean sea level (msl) (1995). The flooding created by hurricanes is a threat to the
life and property of coastal residents. The most critical threat is to those residents within the category 1 hurricane
evacuation zone developed by the National Hurricane Center. This zone shows all areas that would be inundated
with water from a landfalling category 1 hurricane, defined as having sustained winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour.
The category 1 hurricane evacuation zone generally includes all of Florida's barrier islands, even those with areas
of elevation above the category 1 level. A disastrous weather situation is particularly acute for the vulnerable
populations in South Florida. Limited options are available regarding the direction of evacuation and the long
distances necessary to get out of harm's way.
As previously related, populations within the category 1 hurricane evacuation zone face a greater risk than those
outside of this zone due to their immediate vulnerability to the lowest class of hurricanes. The population at risk
includes residential property owners (including seasonal), tourists and visitors who may be using facilities in the
coastal area, and the mobile home population. The number of people within this zone is already significantly high,
and continued growth increases the population at risk with no previous experience of potential injury and loss from
storm events. The storm surge vulnerability for all of the state's 35 coastal counties has been determined by the
SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) model. SLOSH is a numerical computer model that is
used to calculate storm surge elevations and produce maps of predicted inundation areas for given categories of
hurricanes. This indicator is used to measure the increase in populations at risk to hurricane induced flooding,
and thereby help to promote disaster preparedness and mitigation at the appropriate level.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Florida Department of Community Affairs has compiled a data report of the vulnerable populations in each
county based on evacuation zones delineated by the local emergency management office. The data includes the
year of the latest hurricane evacuation study, year of the latest SLOSH model, clearance times, surge limits,
shelter capacity, shelter demand, shelter status, and special shelter needs. The data may be obtained from Mr.
Robert Collins, Hurricane Preparedness Planning Manager, Division of Emergency Management, Department of
Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, or at (850) 413-9952.
ACQUISITION
Hard copies of the reports are available at no charge.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-1 Florida Coastal Management Program

COLLECTION
The report reflects data from several sources. A series of county population estimates have been produced by
the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research's Division of Population Studies.
Information on population at risk is from the eleven regional Hurricane Evacuation Study: Technical Data Reports,
updated where necessary with locally derived information that is commonly found in the comprehensive plans of
local governments. The Technical Data Reports are updated on an irregular basis; some reports have not been
updated since 1986.
TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.
Data Limitations
The data have not been collected with the same frequency or over consistent time periods across all counties; this
limits trend analysis as well as inter-county comparisons. In addition the methodology and assumptions, although
generally consistent, do contain variations depending on the time and by whom the study was conducted. For
example, the dates of last hurricane evacuation study and last SLOSH model for each county range from 1986 to
1996. Hurricane evacuation study are currently being updated for many counties and regions of Florida.

Vulnerable Populations by County, 1986-1996

Bay 108,721 108,721 108,721 117,967 117,967 1986 1986
Brevard 191,696 191,696 202,719 202,719 202,719 1989 1987
Broward 116,154 116,154 155,750 225,751 225,751 1995 1995
Charlotte 47,742 109,899 140,758 158,174 158,174 1995 1995
Citrus 58,800 67,600 73,100 73,100 73,100 1996 1994
Collier 100,586 153,518 199,146 207,190 207,190 1995 1995
Dade 306,633 537,320 537,320 879,572 879,572 1995 1995
Dixie 13,400 13,400 14,700 14,700 14,700 1996 1994
Duval 82,585 82,585 110,648 202,493 202,493 1988 1988
Escambia 66,750 66,750 75,501 75,501 75,501 1986 1986
Flagler 11,515 11,515 17,336 18,047 18,047 1988 1988
Franklin 7,821 9,029 9,090 11,300 11,300 1994 1994
Gulf 7,412 7,412 9,341 12,400 12,400 1994 1994
Hernando 51,900 51,900 51,900 76,500 76,500 1996 1994
Hillsborough 159,354 236,236 295,636 347,322 382,273 1992 1992
Indian River 47,382 47,382 63,352 63,352 63,352 1994 1990
Jefferson 4,200 4,200 5,400 5,400 5,400 1994 1994
Lee 164,913 296,115 378,593 408,439 408,439 1995 1991
Levy 20,200 20,200 22,600 22,600 22,600 1996 1994
Manatee 75,672 84,299 98,123 112,072 129,062 1992 1992
Martin 55,967 55,967 80,095 91,161 91,161 1994 1994
Monroe 59,865 59,865 104,806 104,806 104,806 1995 1989
Nassau 24,411 24,411 27,600 36,783 36,783 1988 1988
Okaloosa 78,871 78,871 78,871 91,183 91,183 1986 1986
Palm Beach 205,893 205,893 271,993 302,052 302,052 1994 1994
Pasco 109,254 136,575 172,562 187,840 199,777 1992 1991
Pinellas 287,961 388,045 474,504 552,534 588,684 1992 1991
Santa Rosa 29,355 29,355 29,355 31,711 31,711 1986 1986
Sarasota 88,506 109,743 145,898 235,458 235,458 1995 1991
St. Johns 28,950 28,950 54,440 78,125 78,125 1988 1988
St. Lucie 97,157 97,157 106,568 106,568 106,568 1994 1994
Taylor 9,500 9,500 11,800 11,800 11,800 1996 1994
Volusia 113,507 113,507 166,408 166,408 166,408 1989 1987
Wakulla 11,271 11,271 11,271 15,550 15,550 1994 1994
Walton 28,030 28,030 28,030 31,711 31,711 1986 1986

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
No trends can be established since there is only one set of vulnerable population figures available for each county.
Additionally, as described in the data limitations section, the vulnerable populations of each county were
determined in different years using various methodologies.

Recommendations
Because local governments are required to update their comprehensive plans every five years, which necessitates
the calculation of updated population at risk of inundation estimates, the regional planning councils (RPCs) should
establish a consistent procedure for updating the Technical Data Reports. Currently, there is no regular schedule
for updating the Technical Data Reports; instead the RPCs or the Army Corps of Engineers have been updating
the reports as funding becomes available and as time permits. The 1995 National Hurricane Program State of
Florida recommended that the Legislature "appropriate funds to the Department of Community Affairs to
accelerate the updating of the regional hurricane evacuation studies, regional inland shelter studies and regional
hurricane loss and contingency planning studies" (DCA, 1995, 17).

References
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 1995. "National Hurricane Program, State of Florida." October 1, 1994 -
September 30, 1 995.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C -13 Florida Coastal Management Program

RESPONDING TO COASTAL THREAS AND HAZARDS

Replorted oil/hazardous material sPills

Mana~gement
*rn Prog~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ram

The spilling of oil and hazardous material in coastal waters is associated with shipping and mineral extraction
activities. The potential discharge of oil and hazardous material by these industrial operations represents a hazard
to coastal populations and all coastal life. Under Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection is required to respond to discharges or release of pollutants. These pollutants include
oil of any kind and in any form, gasoline, pesticides, ammonia, chlorine, any derivatives thereof, and those
hazardous substances in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

Oil and hazardous waste discharges affecting coastal waters may represent a potential or imminent hazard to the
public health, welfare and safety, or the environmental. The greater the number of spills, the greater the threat to
human health, in addition to the threats to ecosystem health, tourism, and water quality.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on oil/hazardous material spills is available from Carolann De Ford Bowen, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 659, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-2974.

ACQU ISITI ON
There is an official report which may be obtained for associated copy and computer access costs.

COLLECTION
The data have been collected statewide since the mid-i 970s and are updated annually.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 3
PressurelStatelResponse: Pressure
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
This information does not assess the toxicity or the magnitude of each spill, although the spills were categorized
as minor, moderate and major until 1990. Since 1990, the numbers do not include discharges by category due to
changes in the definition of these categories. There is a possibility that some spills go unreported.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

' Data Analysis
The number of oil/hazardous material spills increased dramatically from 1982 to 1994; the increase was 530
percent. The reasons for this increase are uncertain. An explanation for this drastic increase may be that the
public has become more environmentally conscientious and actively participates in protection of natural resources.
Therefore, more oil/hazardous material spills are being reported. In 1992 , there was a decrease in the number of
oil/hazardous material spills reported, which remained relatively stable in 1993. This may be a result of several
regulatory reforms that were instituted in the early 1990s after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Even though
this pressures facilities that store, handle, or transfer pollutants across the coastal waters of the state to be more
aware of their statutory obligation to protect the environment, the number of spills reported in the past three years
have been the highest ever.

Number of Reported Ol/lHazardous Material Spills
Affecting the Coastal Zone

Reported discharges

1000 o
~~~~~co

DLOl
600 M

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends c-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

RESPONDING TO COASTAL THREATS AND HAZARDS

Population in proximity to Nuclear Power Plants

Manament'a.

Nuclear power supplies approximately 18 percent of the Florida's power needs. Studies of risk perception
consistently indicate that the public rates the risk of a nuclear plant disaster higher than what has been
scientifically determined. The state has three nuclear power plants: Turkey Point (Dade County) and St. Lucie (St.
Lucie County) owned by Florida Power and Light, and Crystal River (Citrus County) owned by Florida Power
Corporation. Each of these plants is located directly on the coast to take advantage of the availability of water for
reactor cooling purposes. The location of these plants represents a potential radiological hazard to coastal
populations. A 10-mile radius Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) exists around each plant as designated by the
federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission due to the potential for release of radioactive material. The state and the
utility corporations plan and prepare for radiological emergencies that may affect the populations within the EPZs.
The State of Florida Radiological Emergency Management Plan for Nuclear Power Plants contains population
estimates for the EPZs and describes planning and procedures for radiological emergencies. Because the
population within an EPZ is likely to be directly affected by a radiological emergency, population growth within an
EPZ represents increased risk to the population based simply on the location of their residence.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on the population within the EPZs is available from Bill LeBlanc, Division of Emergency Management,
Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shurnard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399, or at (850) 413-
9896.

ACQU ISITION
The data are available in hard copy at no cost.

COLLECTI ON
The data are updated for each plant every 10 years based on the U.S. census.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Because the data are only collected every 10 years, the information quickly becomes out-dated. In addition, the
data only represent residential populations and do not include commercial and other non-residential uses of EPZ
areas.

Although the data are readily available, the indicator could be improved. The utility corporations should be
required to annually update population figures for the EPZs using methods that estimate the actual population
instead of methods that interpolate or extrapolate census information. This could be accomplished by having the
local government building departments track building permits from an established base year population.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-16 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
In each of the three EPZs, population figures increased from 1980 to 1990, thus indicating a greater population
under threat from radiological emergencies. The lack of annual observations prevents observations of population
changes correlated to specific events. Historically, Dade County and St. Lucie County have been high growth
counties, while Citrus County has been a low growth county. This trend is likely to persist in the near future.
However, preliminary estimates suggest that the population decreased around Turkey Point because of the
destruction of Homestead due to Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

Population within Nuclear Power Plant
10-mile Emergency Planning Zones

Population in thousands
160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..........
120 - - --------

80
60 . I
40
20 _

Crystal River Turkey Point St. Lucie
Nuclear Power Plant

J11980 D19901

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends C-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section D
Degradation and Restoration
of Coastal Ecosystems

z d

I ~~~~~Degradation and Restoration of Coastal

Ecosystems

if Ill ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~managementZ

Traditionally, management has been directed toward maintaining populations of individual species, however,
people are recognizing the importance of conserving biological diversity. Biological diversity is the variety of life at
all levels, which not only includes the array of plants and animals, but also the communities, ecosystems, or
landscapes in which they occur. A coastal ecosystem is comprised of the biological community together with its
physical environment. The degradation and restoration of coastal ecosystems are considered important because
as these systems become degraded, the overall environmental health of Florida will be compromised. Similarly,
the restoration of natural areas has far reaching impacts for both humans and other living species in Florida.

The Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems issue area provides a broad view of the relative health
and present status of components of the marine, estuarine, freshwater, and upland ecosystems present in
Florida's 35 coastal counties. The primary concerns are change in habitat , species population trends, and water
quality trends. Changes in habitat characteristics frequently have extensive impacts on the function and viability of
natural systems. Species population trends are directly related to and responsive to environmental conditions.
Water quality trends are important for all living species and can also impact natural systems. This responsiveness
may facilitate the development of indicators reflecting ecosystem health

Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems Indicators:

0 Change in strategic habitat conservation areas
0 Change in existing wetland habitat and conservation lands
0 Change in existing upland habitat and conservation lands
0 Change in coral reef community dynamics
* Change in acreage of invasive non-indigenous (exotic) aquatic plants
Change in acreage of invasive non-indigenous (exotic) upland plants
Documented marine mammal strandings
* Estimated manatee population and documented deaths
* Sea turtle nesting activity
* Southern bald eagle population
* Reddish egret population
* Number of wood stork nests
* Number of eastern brown pelican nests
* Acreage of seagrass
* Number of beach closings and advisories
* Acreage of shellfishing waters by classification
* Onsite treatment and disposal systems installed

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Change in major land cover categories (Section A)
* Miles of eroding coastline (Section B)
* Volume of ocean dredged material disposed of off Florida's coast (Section B)
* Discharge of treated domestic and industrial wastewater (Section E)
* Management status of Coastal Habitat (Section G)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-1 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas

Florida is recognized as one of North America's most important reservoirs of biological diversity. The existence of
numerous endemic species in Florida makes conservation and management activities of great importance to
global biodiversity protection efforts. As development pressures increase in Florida, habitat areas that are specific
to coastal counties are rapidly disappearing or at risk of decline. These dwindling coastal habitat areas are
important to many rare species including sea turtles, shorebirds, plovers, various taxa of beach mice, migratory
birds, and communities of longleaf pine. One way to preserve some components of coastal Florida's wildlife and
threatened plant communities is by establishing protection for strategic areas of habitat.

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCAs) delineate habitat areas in Florida that should be conserved and
added to current conservation lands if key components of the state's biological diversity are to be maintained. The
strategic areas are private lands that are recommended for additional protection and are needed to help sustain
populations of key species. By means of a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS), distribution maps
are created of the habitat areas for selected species of wildlife, threatened species of plants, and rare plant
communities. Conservation of coastal habitat areas will require new initiatives along several broad fronts as well
as renewed efforts in the implementation of traditional land acquisition and management strategies.

This indicator tracks the amount of important habitat in coastal counties that has been converted to a permanent
conservation status or is proposed for strategic habitat conservation.

Data Characteristics`4
SOURCE
This information is from the report Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. A copy can
be obtained by contacting Randy Kautz at the Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600, or at (850) 488-6661.I

The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost. The maps presented in the report are available in a
variety of scales and in digital formats for use with computer mapping software.

COLLECTION
The data are collected statewide from a variety of sources. Conservation lands are lands capable of providing
long-term protection for rare species and include lands such as national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and
portions of military lands; state preserves, reserves, parks, and forests; state-owned wildlife management areas;
water management district lands; county-owned nature preserves; and, lands owned by groups such as The
Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society, and other conservation entities (Cox et
al., 1994). Lands proposed for conservation are private or public lands that either need purchasing or conserved
through such tools as conservation easements or land-use agreements. Great reliance was placed on a land-
cover map developed from Landsat satellite data collected between 1985 and 1989. The first year of data
available fromn Closing the Gaps was 1994. Future updates of the Closing the Gaps report are anticipated at three
to five-year intervals.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The indicator is presently used as a benchmark since only one year of data is available. The Landsat satellite
imagery data are reliable in that the information is collected very consistently, though some time gaps will be
involved with the use of satellite data from the 1980's. Additionally, the interpretation of the data, manipulation of
the data, and use of data and maps generated by other agencies at different scales could include some degree of
error. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission plan to update the Strategic Habitat Conservation
Areas by July 1, 1997.

1994 Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas by Acreage'

Bay 35,321 (7.19) 14,573 (2.99)
Brevard 181,051 (27.16) 99,788 (14.95)
Broward 483,626 (63.52) 5,681 (0.74)
Citrus 74,841 (19.22) 41.743 (10.71)
Charlotte 69,407 (15.61) 143,754 (32.37)
Collier 594,035 (46.21) 488,072 (37.96)
Dade 698,269 (56.33) 23,959 (1.93)
Dixie 41,743 (9.35) 48,412 (10.82)
Duval 65,208 (13.06) 36,309 (7.24)
Escambia 15,560 (3.69) 247 (0.07)
Flagler 2,223 (0.74) 183,027 (59.12)
Franklin 75,335 (21.55) 108,927 (31.18)
Gulf 34,086 (9.56) 49,400 (13.88)
Hernando 61,750 (20.11) 10,374 (3.40)
Hillsborough 25,688 (3.93) 44,213 (6.79)
Indian River 60,762 (19.04) 19,266 (6.02)
Jefferson 30,628 (8.05) 74,594 (19.62)
Lee 21,489 (4.28) 120,783 (23.97)
Levy 74,841 (10.44) 129,181 (18.01)
Manatee 22,477 (4.83) 14,326 (3.07)
Martin 20,007 (5.65) 31,369 (8.85)
Monroe 579,215 (91.46) 18,772 (2.98)
Nassau 6,422 (1.52) 39,767 (9.54)
Okaloosa 20,853 (53.44) 16,055 (2.66)
Palm Beach 333,697 (26.72) 26,182 (2.09)
Pasco 50,388 (10.72) 58,539 (12.42)
Pinellas 3,211 (1.76) 6,916 (3.97)
St. Johns 13,585 (3.42) 45,448 (11.32)
St. Lucie 5,187 (0.01) 27,417 (7.60)
Santa Rosa 208,715 (31.89) 26,923 (4.13)
Sarasota 43,719 (12.23) 21,983 (6.14)
Taylor 62,491 (9.48) 80,275 (12.17)
Volusia 69,160 (9.56) 181,051 (25.04)
Wakulla 271,206 (69.24) 21,489 (5.50)
Walton 184,756 (27.15) 99,788 (14.67)
TOTAL 4,541,022 (20.52) 2,358,603 (12.4)

1 The percentage of total area of each county is provided in parenthesis.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
As shown in the table, Florida's system of publicly owned conservation lands covers 4.54 million acres, or roughly
20 percent of the land area of coastal counties. These lands represent a foundation for the protection of
ecologically sensitive and important communities and species.

An additional 2.35 million acres, or an estimated 12.4% of lands in coastal counties are proposed Strategic Habitat
Conservation Areas. As more data become available in the future, this indicator will relate the amount of important
habitat in coastal counties that has been converted to a permanent conservation status. These lands can be
purchased through state and local government land acquisition programs or protected through conservation
easements. In addition, the indicator will be able to show the amount of land in the Strategic Habitat Conservation
Areas that has been degraded by private activities and is no longer desirable or available as permanent
conservation areas.

References
Cox, James, Randy Kautz, Maureen MacLaughlin, and Terry Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife
Habitat Conservation System. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Existing Wetland Habitat
Flrda
and Conservation Lands Management
Prgram

Massive changes in land use are altering patterns of land cover that may threaten the United States' air, water,
and natural resources. In the years ahead, Florida will need to closely monitor the progress of land use so as to
ensure that the biodiversity associated with different land cover is not compromised. As development pressures
increase in Florida's coastal counties, wetland habitat areas are rapidly disappearing or being degraded. These
areas are important to many species including brown pelicans, wood storks, egrets, herons, pelagics, shrimp,
lobster, and crabs. Protecting wetlands as conservation lands is one way to preserve some components of
coastal Florida's threatened wildlife and plant communities. This indicator relates the total acreage and the
acreage conserved for specific wetland types. The specific wetland types presented have been recommended by
the environmental community for additional protection because of their unique roles in sustaining populations of
key species and, in some cases, the small amount of acreage remaining (Cox et al., 1994).

Wetlands account for nearly one-third of all the acreage in Florida and provide a wide range of benefits to the
environment. Wetlands serve as a habitat for fish, wildlife, and large populations of migratory birds; as a buffer in
moderating the effects of floods; and as a sink deposit for storing nutrients and runoff, thereby reducing sediment
loads and reducing erosion. Wetlands also provide various recreational opportunities and are an aesthetic value
for humans that influence people's quality of life (i.e., bird watchers).

The loss of wetlands has been documented for decades, while remaining wetlands have been degraded due to
land conversion and impacts from development. Many of their natural functions and benefits have been
diminished. Thus, trends in wetland acreage provide a useful indication of the existing acreage of wetlands, the
rate of change, and whether one type of wetland is being impacted more than another. The wetland habitat types
discussed in this indicator are salt marsh, mangrove swamp, cypress swamp, freshwater marsh, and hardwood
swamp.
Coastal salt marshes are herbaceous and shrubby wetlands that occur statewide in brackish waters. In tropical
climates, salt marshes may be interspersed within mangrove areas, as both habitats can exist in the intertidal
zone. Salt marshes are highly productive areas that provide nursery grounds for juvenile benthic and pelagic
species and are a source of organic material for nearshore ecosystems. Wading and shore birds may also be
found in these wetland habitats.
Cypress swamps are regularly inundated wetlands that provide forested borders along water bodies or occur in
depressions. Mangrove swamps occur in brackish waters along protected and low-energy shorelines of the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts of southern Florida. This type of community is composed of a freeze-sensitive tree species
that is distributed south of a line from Cedar Key on the Gulf coast to St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast. The
three major species of mangrove (black, red, and white) are mapped in a single class for the purposes of this
indicator. Mangrove swamps are highly productive areas that provide nursery grounds for juvenile benthic and
pelagic species and are a source of organic material for nearshore ecosystems. Wading and shore birds also
may feed and nest in these wetland habitats.
Hardwood swamp and freshwater marsh are two other examples of freshwater habitats in Florida that have limited
acreage remaining. Freshwater marsh are dominated by a wide assortment of herbaceous plant species growing
on sand, clay, marl, and organic soils in areas of variable water depths and inundation regimes. Mixed hardwood
swamps are wetland-adapted trees that consist of either pure stands of hardwoods (black gum, water tupelo, red
maple, etc.) or as mixtures of hardwoods and cypress (Cox et al., 1994).
Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data to support this indicator are found in the report Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation
System. A copy can be obtained by contacting Randy Kautz at the Office of Environmental Services, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600, or at
(850) 488-6661.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost. The maps presented in the report are available in a
variety of scales and in digital formats for use in computer mapping packages.
COLLECTION
Great reliance was placed on a land-cover map developed from Landsat satellite data collected between 1985 and
1989. A total of 22 land-cover types were developed using known land classifications, including those developed
by the Soil Conservation Service and Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Classifications consist of 17 natural
vegetation types, 1 class for water, and 4 additional classes associated with disturbed areas. The land-cover map
was compared for accuracy with aerial photography and field reports.
The data on conservation lands are collected statewide from a variety of sources. Conservation lands are lands
capable of providing long-term protection for rare species and include national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and
portions of military lands; state preserves, reserves, parks, and forests; state-owned wildlife management areas;
water management district lands; county-owned nature preserves; and certain private lands owned by groups such
as The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society, and other conservation entities
(Cox et al., 1994).
The first year of data available from Closing the Gaps was 1994. Future updates of the Closing the Gaps report
are anticipated at three to five year intervals.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
PressurelState/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.
Data Limitations
The indicator is presently used as a benchmark since only one year of data is available. The Landsat satellite
imagery data are reliable in that the information is collected consistently, though some time lapse are involved with
the use of satellite data from the 1980's. Additionally, the interpretation of the data, manipulation of the data, and
use of data and maps generated by other agencies at different scales could include some degree of error in
measurement. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission plans to update the data by October 1,
1998.

Data Analysis
There are 1,989 square kilometers (km2), or 491,283 acres, of coastal salt marsh habitat remaining in Florida. Of
that area, 60 percent is presently in conservation lands. Of the 856,596 acres of cypress swamp habitat in coastal
counties only 39 percent is in conservation lands. Mangrove swamp has the most protected acreage of the
selected wetland types. Of the 554,515 acres of mangrove swamp habitat presently existing in Florida's coastal
counties, 79 percent (1,771 km2) are in conservation lands. Freshwater marsh and hardwood swamps have the
smallest amount of coastal acreage of the selected wetland types. Freshwater marsh has a high percentage of
land in conservation (76 percent), while hardwood swamp has the smallest percentage of lands being conserved
(25 percent). Overall, 56 percent of the total acreage of these specific habitats are in conservation.

Coastal County Wetland Habitat Area in Florida (1994)

salt marsh 491,283 294,671 (60%)
mangrove swamp 554,515 437,437 (79%)
cypress swamp 856,596 331,968 (39%)
freshwater marsh 7,568 5,755 (76%)
hardwood swamp 3,723 941 (25%)
Total 1,913,685 1,070,769 (56%)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Existing upland Habitat

and Conservation Lands Mn

As development pressures continue in Florida's coastal counties, remaining habitat areas face increased
degradation and fragmentation. The decline in coastal habitats is important to many federal and state listed rare
and endangered species as well as species not presently under regulatory protection. These species may include
beach mice, gopher tortoises, plovers, sea turtles, and migratory birds. Protecting upland areas by designating
them as conservation lands is one way to preserve some components of coastal Florida's wildlife and rare plant
communities. Coastal upland habitat conservation areas in Florida are lands that should be conserved and added
to current conservation lands if key components of the state's biological diversity are to be maintained. The
upland areas not currently in conservation are private lands that are recommended for additional protection in
order to help sustain populations of key species(Cox et al., 1994). Some types of upland, such as sand pine scrub
and xeric oak scrub, also have small amounts of remaining habitat in the state and are therefore recommended
for conservation.
Florida's coastal counties are composed of many different habitat types, including the upland habitats that are
essential to the survival of numerous indigenous plant and animal species. Thus, trends in upland habitat acreage
provide a useful indication of the existing acreage, the rate of change, and whether one type of upland is being
impacted more than another. The upland habitat types discussed in this indicator are coastal strand, tropical
hardwood hammock, hardwood hammock, pine rocklands, sand pine scrub, and xeric oak scrub.
Coastal strand occurs on well-drained sandy soil and includes the zoned vegetation typical of the upper beach,
dunes, and coastal rock formations. This habitat generally occurs in a narrow band parallel to the open waters of
the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, and along some of the shores of bays and sounds throughout Florida.
Typical plant species include sea oats, beach morning glory, saw palmetto, and wax myrtle. Animal species
dependent upon this habitat include various taxa of beach mice and the snowy plover.
Tropical hardwood hammock communities are sparsely distributed along coastal uplands south of Sarasota and
Vero Beach. These cold-sensitive tropical communities have high species diversity and can contain over 35
species of trees and 65 shrub species. Tropical hammock in the Florida Keys may also contain several plants,
including mahogany, thatch palms, manchineel, and lignum vitae, which are extremely rare within the contiguous
United States.
Hardwood hammock habitat may occur statewide on fairly rich sandy soils. Variations in local soil-mnoisture
regimes, soil types, and geographic locations may result in species composition differences throughout the state.
This upland habitat has four major types: mesic, xeric, coastal, and hydric hammocks.
Pine rocklands are present only in Dade County and the Florida Keys, with the largest remaining patch on Long
Pine Key in Everglades National Park and on Big Pine and Cudjoe keys in the Florida Keys. Sixty-seven animals
and plant species have been found in this specific habitat type.
Sand pine scrub's natural habitat is almost entirely restricted to within the state of Florida. This vegetation type
occurs on sand deposits along former shorelines and islands of ancient seas. The plant community is dominated
by an overstory of sand pine and an understory of myrtle oak, Chapman's oak, sand-live oak, and scrub holly.
Xeric oak scrub is a hardwood community typically consisting of clumped patches of low growing oaks
interspersed with bare areas of white sand (Cox et al., 1994).

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is f rom the report Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. A copy can
be obtained by contacting Randy Kautz at the Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600, or at (850) 488-6661.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

COLLECTION
Great reliance was placed on a land-cover map developed from Landsat satellite data collected between 1985 and
1989. A total of 22 land-cover types was developed using known land classifications, including those developed
by the Soil Conservation Service and Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Classifications consist of 17 natural
vegetation types, I class for water, and 4 additional classes associated with disturbed areas. The land-cover map
was compared for accuracy with aerial photography and field reports.
The data on conservation lands are collected statewide from a variety of sources. Conservation lands are lands
capable of providing long-term protection for rare species and include national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and
portions of military lands; state preserves, reserves, parks, and forests; state-owned wildlife management areas;
water management district lands; county-owned nature preserves; and certain private lands owned by groups such
as The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society, and other conservation entities
(Cox et al., 1994).
The first year of data available from Closing the Gaps was 1994. Future updates of the Closing the Gaps reports
are anticipated at three to five year intervals.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
Pressu relStatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The indicator is presently used as a benchmark since only one year of data is available. The Landsat satellite
imagery data are reliable in that the information is collected very consistently, though some time gaps will be
involved with the use of satellite data from the 1980's. Additionally, the interpretation of the data, manipulation of
the data, and use of data and maps generated by other agencies at different scales could include some degree of
error in measurement. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission plan to update the data by October
1, 1998.

Data Analysis
Of the nearly I million acres of hardwood hammock habitat remaining in coastal counties, only 28 percent is in
conservation lands. Fifty-four kin2, or 13,338 acres, of tropical hammock habitat presently exist in Florida's coastal
counties, half of which is in conservation lands. There are 41 square kilometers (kin2), or roughly 10,000 acres, of
coastal strand habitat remaining in Florida's coastal counties. Of that area, 51 percent is presently in conservation
lands. Less than 13,000 acres of pine rockland remains in South Florida. Roughly 86 percent of this rare habitat is
in conservation. Total acreage of sand pine and xeric oak scrub is small (245 and 235 acres respectively). At
least 2/3 of each land type remains unprotected. Overall, 29 percent of the selected habitat types are in
conservation.

Coastal County Upland Habitat Area in Florida (I1994)

hardwood hammock 971,698 272,441 (28%)
tropical hammock 13,338 6,669 (50%)
coastal strand 10,127 5,187 (51%)
pine rocklands 12,765 11,082 (86%)
sand pine scrub 245 59 (24%)
xeric oak scrub 235 78 (33%)
TOTAL 1,008,408 295,513 (29%)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Coral Reef Community Dynamics

Management
Program

Coral reefs are important to coastal ecosystems for several reasons. These massive, calcareous structures are
"underwater rainforests"; the most biologically diverse marine ecosystems in the world. They provide shelter to
mobile aquatic animal species and have unusually high gross primary production which is recycled within the
reefs. The principal producer organisms are microscopic algae called zooxanthellae that live within the coral
tissues. This symbiotic relationship enhances the biological activity of the community in terms of the abundance
and the diversity of plants and animals found on the reefs. Reefs are also important as natural breakwaters to
storm surges and large wave forces. A loss of coral reefs could result, among other things, in increased erosion
of the coast and loss of significant fisheries.

The principal causes of reef loss are habitat degradation and over-exploitation of fisheries. Coral is extremely
fragile and can lose years of growth in just minutes from being affected. Examples of toxics that affect reefs
include oil pollution from boats and marinas, compounds that leach from bottom boat paints, and urban runoff
pollution. Urban runoff pollution contains nutrients from sewage and fertilizers that reduce water quality and cause
increased incidences of coral diseases and algal blooms. Healthy coral reefs also require sufficient light, which is
inhibited from reaching coral when water turbidity is increased. Chronic turbidity starves the symbiotic algae of
light and kills them. Exceeding the carrying capacity of a particular area for snorkeling and diving, the physical
destruction caused by ship and boat groundings, and massive storms and winter cold fronts also contribute to reef
degradation.

From 1989 to 1995, this indicator focused on three different aspects of coral reef community dynamics: number of
stony coral and octocoral species, diversity, and evenness. Stony coral have a skeleton composed of calcium
carbonate crystals. Octocoral species are a subclass of anthozoans that include common marine forms such as
sea fans, whip corals, and pipe corals. They have eight tentacles and eight complete mesenteries on either side
of a tentacle base. The species diversity index (H'n) is a computation that accounts for the number of species and
the distribution of individuals among the species. For example, two data collection samples each have 10 species
and 100 individuals. In the first sample, one species has 91 individuals, and the remaining nine species has one
individual each. In the second sample, each species each has 10 individuals belonging to that species. The
relative index values for these collections would show that the second sample has a much higher species diversity
index value.

The evenness index (J'n) is a ratio of how a sample compares to the optimal species diversity for the number of
species that were observed in the study area. The computation for evenness requires knowledge of the number
of species and the species diversity index value. The diversity index value is divided by the log base 2 of the
number of species in the study area. Values near one imply a high level of evenness where all the individuals are
equally distributed among the taxa. The term taxa is used to define organism categories that are debatable as to
being species x or species y.

Due to changes in budgeting and priorities, the three monitoring sites in the Dry Tortugas were completed in 1995,
and 40 new coral reef sites were examined in 1996 in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Sanctuary
is 2,800 square nautical miles, extends on both sides of the Florida Keys, and is the second largest marine
sanctuary in the United States. This new Sanctuary-wide reef project is an effort to detect ecosystem change not
measurable in single-location surveys. Data will be used to determine an overall net reef decline in percent cover;
stony coral species richness; overall net increase in measurable reef community parameters; significant changes
in individual reefs compared to the entire ecosystem (decreases in one location balanced by increases
elsewhere); and, changes that are linked to specific regions of the landscape (Wheaton, 1996). Data are currently
available only on the number of stony coral taxa for each of the reef sites.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The source for this information is Walt Jaap, Florida Marine Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE, St.
Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095, or at (813) 896-8626.
ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy. There are no costs associated with the acquisition of these data.
COLLECTION
Sampling in the Dry Tortugas National Park occurred from 1989 to 1995 at three coral reef community sites
located about 60 miles west of Key West. Techniques used included a population count in permanently marked
quadrats made of PVC pipe. Quadrat sampling includes counting and identifying the organisms, and mapping the
distribution of the taxa of interest within the quadrat. Sampling methods in 40 new reef sites utilize videographic
survey techniques.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Data from the previous three reef sites and the 40 new reef sites are not exactly comparable due to changes in
measurement methodology. However, data limitations will be greatly reduced with the increase from three to 40
sample sites and with ongoing data collection. The ability to assess any trends into the functioning and status of
reef communities is limited at the current level of study since only one year of data are available and data
collection on the previous sites has ceased.

Data Analysis
Final data from benthic coral reef monitoring at Bird Key Reef, Pulaski Shoal, and Texas Rock, are presented
here. The number of stony coral taxa at the three sites remained relatively stable between 1989 and 1995. With
the last year of data collection, one reef site (Bird Key) had experienced a decline in the number of species.
Pulaski Shoal showed an increase and Texas Rock exhibited no net change. Due to bad weather and/or vessel
engine problems, data collection for Texas Rock in 1994 and Pulaski Shoal in 1995 did not take place.

Number of Stony Coral Taxa
Number of stony coral taxa
20

0
Bird Key Reef Pulaski Shoal Texas Rock

Year
I11989 E1990 01991 [E1992 11993 E1994 *19951

The number of octocoral species, species diversity, and species evenness are presented in the table below.
Species diversity in the study areas remained generally stable. Bird Key Reef experienced a noticeable loss in
octocoral diversity between 1991 and 1992 while Texas Rock experienced the largest fluctuations annually in its
octocoral diversity. Stony coral diversity was stable for all three sites.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-10 Florida Coastal Management Program

All three sites were relatively stable in octocoral evenness and stony coral evenness throughout the study period.
The stony coral evenness values were higher than octocoral, suggesting relative equitability in apportionment of
colonies among stony coral taxa. The octocoral evenness values were relatively lower than other species as a
result of a high abundance of a single species, P. bipinnata (Jaap & Wheaton, 1995). The stability of these areas
indicates that there were no significant disturbances during the study period.

Benthic Coral Reef Monitoring at the Dry Tortugas

Bird Key Reef
1989 7 0.68 0.35 2.09 0.81
1990 6 0.58 0.32 2.20 0.79
1991 8 0.94 0.45 2.20 0.78
1992 7 0.58 0.30 2.08 0.84
1993 7 0.58 0.30 2.09 0.84
1994 8 0.65 0.31 2.09 0.81
1995 8 0.66 0.32 2.00 0.83
Pulaski Shoal
1989 21 2.24 0.74 1.85 0.84
1990 21 2.49 0.82 1.73 0.75
1991 20 2.45 0.82 1.79 0.78
1992 24 2.60 0.82 1.91 0.75
1993 24 2.50 0.79 2.05 0.74
1994 21 2.26 0.74 1.92 0.77
Texas Rock
1989 5 1.35 0.84 2.33 0.86
1990 4 1.07 0.77 2.45 0.87
1991 4 0.73 0.53 2.45 0.85
1992 4 0.90 0.65 2.39 0.83
1993 4 1.03 0.75 2.41 0.83
1994 5 1.40 0.87 N/A N/A
1995 4 1.03 0.74 2.37 0.88
N/A = Data Not Available

The following table shows data collected at the forty new reef sites in 1996. The reefs are defined as either
hardbottom, patch reef, offshore shallow, and offshore deep. Since this is the first year of data collection, no
trends can yet be established.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-1 1 Florida Coastal Management Program

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Coral Reef Site Analysis, 1996

Hard Bottom Sites Offshore Deep Sites
Rattle Snake Key (9H1) 9 Carysfort (9D1) 27
El Radabob (9H2) 9 Molasses (9D3) 25
Dove Key (9H3) 9 Conch (9D4) 25
Long Key (7H2) 19 Alligator (7D1) 21
Moser Channel (5H1) 13 Tennessee (7D2) 31
Molasses Keys (5H2) 7 Sombrero (5D1) 27
Sugarloaf (5H3) 16 Looe Key (5D2) 27
Content Key (3H1) 13 Eastern Sambo (5D3) 32
Western Sambo (5D4) 27
Offshore Shallow Sites
Carysfort (9S1) 16 Rock Key (5D5) 28
Grecian Rocks (9S2) 28 Sand Key (2D1) 28
Molasses (9S3) 22
Patch Reef Sites
Conch (9S4) 15 Turtle Reef (9P1) 31
Alligator (7S1) 18 Porter Patch (9P3) 24
Tennessee (7S2) 22 Admiral (9P4) 16
Sombrero (5S1) 21 West Turtle Shoal (7P1) 26
Looe Key (5S2) 21 Dustan Rocks (7P2) 26
Eastern Sambo (5S3) 12 West Washer Woman (5P1) 24
Western Sambo (5S4) 23 Western Head (5P2) 35
Rock Key (5S5) 18 Cliff Green (5P3) 33
Sand Key (2S1) 28 Smith Shoal (2P1) 22

Future data collection in the National Marine Sanctuary will include a coral cover value based on point count
analyses of video images for each of the forty sites.

References
Jaap, Walter C. 1995. Monitoring Methods for Assessing Coral Reef Biota and Habitat Condition. Summary
Document for a Symposium Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine
Research Institute.

Jaap, Walter C. and Jennifer Wheaton. 1995. Benthic Coral Reef Monitoring at the Dry Tortugas National Park 1
October 1994 to 30 September 1995. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine
Research Institute.

Voss, Gilbert L. 1988. Coral Reefs of Florida. Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press.

Wheaton, Jennifer. 1996. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Plan, Coral Reef and
Hardbottom Monitoring Project. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research
Institute.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Acreage of Invasive

Non-indigenous [Exotic) Aquatic Plants

Many ecosystems, particularly those in tropical and subtropical regions, are vulnerable to disturbance and
invasion by introduced non-indigenous plant species. Such invasions have social, economic, and
environmental impacts because they threaten unique and irreplaceable ecosystems. Because of its warm
climate and abundance of aquatic habitats, Florida is particularly susceptible to infestations of exotic
aquatic and wetland plants. Florida's large exotic aquarium plant and ornamental foliage industry imports
millions of non-native species each year; many of those have escaped or been accidentally introduced.
Control efforts on non-indigenous aquatic plants cost Florida taxpayers $10.6 million in fiscal year 1995-96
and are projected to cost $15 million in 1996-97. Two non-indigenous aquatic plant species of particular
concern in Florida are hydrilla and water hyacinth. Extensive public resources are also devoted to
management of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes).
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) was brought into the United States from Sri Lanka by aquarium plant
horticulturists in the early 1950s. Hydrilla is present in fresh waters of Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, and
the United States. Hydrilla provided the aquarium industry with a plant that could grow under the low light
conditions typically found in aquariums. Because of its ability to grow in low light conditions, its rapid
growth rate, and a high capacity for survival, hydrilla has become a serious aquatic weed in Florida.
Hydrilla grows rapidly enough to fill waterways quickly, resist management techniques, and out-compete
native submerged aquatic plant communities, thereby reducing plant diversity. Dense infestations of
hydrilla can reduce dissolved oxygen levels, increasing the potential for fish kills. Long-term hydrilla
infestations accelerate eutrophication by causing increased sedimentation. The spread of hydrilla limits
recreational and commercial boating, wildlife use, and flood control in affected water bodies.
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a native of South America, was imported into and is a major weed
species in 53 countries. This floating pest was introduced into Florida in the 1880s, and by the early
1960s it covered more than 125,000 acres of public lakes and navigable rivers. Since then, efforts by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have reduced
water hyacinth to approximately 1,000 acres. The growth rate of water hyacinth is among the highest of
any plant. In Florida, water hyacinth populations can double in as little as twelve days by sending off short
runner stems which develop new plants. It also reproduces by seed. Water hyacinth blocks waterways
and limits boat traffic, recreation, flood control, and wildlife use. By shading and crowding out native
aquatic plants, this invasive species reduces biological diversity in aquatic ecosystems.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information can be obtained from Jeffrey D. Schardt, Environmental Programs Administrator, at the
Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Innovation Park,
Collins Building, 2051 East Dirac Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, or at (850) 488-5631.
ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.
COLLECTION
These estimates are collected on an annual basis, statewide in most counties. Data are represented by
waterbody, and the waterbodies are aggregated by county.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The data represent public waterbodies (accessible by public boat ramp) and are consistently collected.
Due to the various sources of potential error, data is rounded to the nearest hundred acres. Survey
limitations include the following:

� Not every c~ounty is surveyed. For example, for coastal counties during the 1986-1995 period
displayed below, there are no data on acreage of hydrilla or water hyacinth for Martin and Monroe
counties; Broward, Dade, and St. Lucie counties were not surveyed from 1990 to 1996; and
several counties (with low recent levels of infestation) reported no data in 1996. Thus, the area
covered by the survey varies from year to year. The survey has never covered the entire state.

* A waterbody that spans more than one county is assigned to just one county for the purposes of
tabulating acreage of exotic plant species. This may result in overestimation or underestimation
of species' acreage when separating the data out to the level of coastal vs. non-coastal counties.

� Some exotics are found in both upland and wetland areas. This indicator, when combined with
Invasive Non-Indigenous (Exotic) Upland Species, measures a large portion of the coastal
ecosystem but is not all-inclusive even as a set.

Data Analysis
During the period 1986 to 1996, coastal county acreage of both hydrilla and water hyacinth peaked in
1987, but by 1988 acreage had dropped to below the 1986 levels. Hydrilla decreased 70 percent during
the period and ranged from a high of about 15,000 acres in 1987 to a low of about 4,300 acres in 1995.
Water hyacinth acreage followed a similar trend, decreasing 65 percent between 1986 and 1996 and
ranging from a high of about 3,900 acres in 1987 to a low of 635 acres in 1990. In 1991, hydrilla infested
over 40 percent of the entire state's public lakes and rivers, making it the most abundant fresh water plant
in Florida public waters at that time. As noted above, it is possible that some of the change in measured
hydrilla infestation is due to changes in the total area surveyed.

For Florida's coastal counties and for the state as a whole, state and federal management efforts have
reduced the acreage of each of these plants in infested waters. Aggregates of plant acreage, however,
may mask changes in individual waterbodies and counties. For example, in Palm Beach County, yearly
hydrilla acreage decreased from over 1,000 acres in 1986 and 1987, to less than 500 acres in 1988 and
1989, to less than 100 acres between 1990 and 1996. In contrast, Gulf County's hydrilla acreage
increased from 0 acres (1986-1989), to 100 or fewer acres (1990-1992), to 1,000 or more acres (1993-
1995), and back to 100 or fewer acres (1996).

Estimated Acreage of Hydrilla
and Water Hyacinth Infestation

1986 2,700 13,000
1987 3,900 15,200
1988 2,000 12,500
1989 1,900 10,700
1990 600 10,600
1991 1,100 9,500
1992 1,000 7,400
1993 1,100 9,500
1994 900 10,900
1995 1,300 6,000
1996 1,000 4,300
Data rounded to nearest hundred acres.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

Estimated Acreage of Hydrilla and Water Hyacinth Infestation

Acres (thousands)

0
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year
I[Water Hyacinth EJHydrillal

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Change in Acreage of Invasive

Non-indigenous [Exotic) Upland Plants n

Many ecosystems, particularly those in tropical and subtropical regions, are vulnerable to disturbance and invasion
by introduced non-indigenous plant species. Such invasions have social, economic, and environmental impacts
and focus attention on the threats these plants place on unique and irreplaceable ecosystems. Melaleuca,
Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Chinese tallow are four of the many problem upland exotic plants in Florida.
Melaleuca was introduced into Florida as an ornamental at the beginning of this century. Later, it was purposely
introduced into the Everglades in an ill-advised attempt to turn "useless swamps" into-valuable land. During the
last several decades, melaleuca has rapidly expanded its range into wetland habitats and urban and rural
landscapes. Melaleuca infestations have increased fifty-fold at many sites over a period of 25 years. Melaleuca
infests pine flatwoods, hardwood bottomlands, cypress forests, fresh water marshes, sawgrass prairies, and
mangrove communities as well as improved pastureland, natural rangeland, idle farmland, urban areas, and other
areas.
The Brazilian pepper tree is an aggressive perennial weed in southern Florida. Introduced as an ornamental in
Florida, Brazilian pepper forms dense, ten-meter high thickets in poorly managed pastures, abandoned agricultural
land, along roadsides, on canal banks, and in pine woods and hammocks. The tangled branches make it difficult
to clear the land. In Everglades National Park, its rapid invasion threatens the destruction of part of the natural
ecosystem. It covers thousands of acres in south and central Florida, the Florida keys, and other islands off the
state's east and west coasts.
Australian pine has invaded large sections of the remaining undeveloped portions of the barrier islands along the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts in south Florida. This exotic poses the greatest threat to native beach plant communities
of southern Florida. It is resistant to salt spray and can grow close to the high tide line. The species tends to
invade newly exposed sand and calcareous rubble, such as newly accreted beaches, areas where dredge spoil
has been dumped, and beaches where storms have destroyed existing vegetation. It has been suggested that the
Australian pine may interfere with the nesting of the American crocodile and sea turtles.
The Chinese tallow, native to eastern Asia, is a popular landscaping plant that has become naturalized in
numerous places in Florida. Chinese tallow possesses the classic characteristics of most invasive pest species: it
grows quickly, fruits when young, produces abundant seeds, resists native insects and diseases, grows in a wide
range of soils, invades disturbed habitats, and is promoted and distributed by humans for its attractive ornamental
qualities. Furthermore, the high content of tannins and allelopathic chemicals in the Chinese tallow are toxic to
native fish, aquatic invertebrates, and macrofauna.
This indicator measures the change in acreage of exotic upland species and, thereby, the potential pressures
placed on native plants.
Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine is in the report An Assessment of Invasive Non-
Indigenous Species in Florida's Public Lands, obtained from Don Schmitz, Wetland and Upland Alien Plant
Coordinator, Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Collins
Building, 2051 East Dirac Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, or at (850) 488-5631. Chinese tallow information can
be obtained from Greg Jubinsky, Environmental Administrator, Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, 3917 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-710, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
3000, or at (850) 487-2600.
ACQUISITION
Information can be obtained in a hard copy format at no cost for melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and
Chinese tallow.
COLLECTION
The data on melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine are collected on an annual basis, statewide. The
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council is currently developing an exotic species database, and county acreage figures
for all four of the plants addressed in this indicator should be available by the end of 1998.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-16 Florida Coastal Management Program

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators. 4
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.
Data Limitations
The biggest limitations to the data are that the information was collected statewide, not by county, and that there
are currently no acreage figures available on Chinese tallow. Also, some exotics are found in both upland and
wetland areas. This indicator, when combined with Invasive Non-Indigenous (Exotic) Upland Species, measures a
large portion of the coastal ecosystem but is not all-inclusive even as a set. The data in this indicator should be
used as a benchmark until further data are available.
Data Analysis
Melaleuca is among the most problematic of 33 major exotic pest plant species that are destroying the biological
diversity of Florida's natural wetland and upland areas. Most threatened among these is Florida's Everglades.
Congressionally mandated efforts to establish more natural hydrologic cycles, improve water quality, and preserve
unique species will cost millions of dollars over the next decade. Melaleuca, already present on 448,824 acres in
southern Florida, threatens these efforts to restore this natural resource. Melaleuca also occurs in southern
California and Hawaii and could survive in most coastal areas along the Gulf Coast.

In the south Florida region (from the north rim of Lake Okeechobee south to Florida Bay), melaleuca has infested
448,824 acres, the Brazilian pepper over 600,000 acres, and the Australian pine 373,723 acres. Generally,
melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and the Australian pine are found from mnid-Brevard County transecting to mid-
Pinellas County and extending to the southern border of Florida. The acreage estimates presented here are not a
comprehensive assessment because the area north of Lake Okeechobee has not yet been assessed.
In the last decade the Chinese tallow tree has aggressively invaded many wetlands, lakes, and river margins, as
well as disturbed and undisturbed uplands. Several small trees have been observed in tidal estuarine and coastal
wetlands. Originally introduced into South Carolina, it is now naturalized in the southern coastal plain from South
Carolina to Florida and west to Texas. According to a 1993 survey by DEP, the tree was found in 38 of the 67
counties in Florida (57 percent). Of those 38 counties, 25 counties had trees that were primarily associated with
ornamental landscapes with only occasional outlier trees. Thirteen counties had numerous populations of trees
present that were outside of the ornamental landscape and numbered more than fifty trees per cluster.
Preliminary observations during the spring and summer of 1994 indicate a substantial increase in numbers of
individuals in existing populations and considerable increase in new infestations. An acreage estimate on Chinese
tallow is not available at this time.

Exotic Upland Plant Infestation in South Florida, 1994

Melaleuca 448,824
Brazilian pepper 602,504*
Australian pine 373,723
*Not including Everglades National Park estimates of an additional 101,000 acres
of Brazilian pepper.
Recommendations
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management should collect
acreage totals annually for each county in Florida. This would allow for accurate identification of improving and
worsening problem areas.

References
Simberloff, Daniel, Don Schmitz, and Tom Brown, ed. 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of
Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology and Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the
United States. Washington, D.C.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Documented Marine Mammal Strandings

Marement

Every year marine mammals, predominantly dolphins, whales, and manatees, are found stranded on the Florida
coast. Strandings include dead or live animals that wash up on the shore. The animals are generally taken to a
marine zoological park for rehabilitation. The reasons marine mammals beach themselves are unknown. The
majority of strandings are simply a result of natural mortality. However, the presence of pollutants in marine
mammal tissue has led some to speculate that increasing amounts of toxins in the ocean may be related to this
phenomenon. This indicator is a measure of the number of marine mammals, excluding manatees, that are found
stranded on the Florida coast each year.

Stranding is a natural process and has been occurring since long before pollutants were introduced to the oceans
by humans. The role of pollutants in strandings has not yet been determined because of a lack of data. The
sensitivity of marine mammals to pollutants is not known and thus the role of pollutants in strandings has not been
determined. However, if stranded marine mammals have elevated toxin levels in their tissues, the number of
strandings may be an indicator of ocean health.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on marine mammal strandings is available through Dr. Daniel K. Odell, coordinator of the
Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network, which maintains the Marine Mammal Stranding
database. Dr. Odell can be contacted at Sea World of Florida, 7007 Sea World Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821-
8097, or at (407) 363-2662.

ACQUISITION
Stranding reports and tabulations are available through electronic data transfer or in hard copy. There are no
costs associated with the acquisition of these data.

COLLECTION
The Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network tracks marine mammal strandings from
Texas to North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The information is continually updated and
tabulated quarterly. The main database is housed in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. The
southeastern region encompasses the coastal zones mentioned above, but this indicator only considers the
Florida coast.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Often, marine mammal strandings on Florida's coast go undetected because of the remoteness of the site or
because of the incomplete coverage of the state's volunteer network. Increases in strandings observed since the
early days of the Network are due in part to increased awareness of and participation in the program and are not
necessarily due to increased strandings statewide. While these limitations exist, these data are the best
information available on marine mammal strandings on the Florida coast. The data have become more accurate
and will continue to improve as the Network expands.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-18 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The seventeen year period of record shows a general upward trend in the number of documented marine mammal
strandings. From 1978 to 1982, strandings increased by 79 percent, from 67 reported strandings to 120. A slight
decline in strandings following 1982 preceded an increase in strandings from 78 in 1984 to 286 strandings in 1988,
a 266 percent increase. The slight increase in 1987 and the significant increase in 1988 are due to the east coast
dolphin dieoff. The 178 strandings recorded in 1989 reflected a 38 percent decrease from the 1988 figure, and
since 1991 the numbers have been around 300 per year. The increases in the 90's are in part due to the
increased awareness of strandings on the part of the federal government as a result of the 1987-88 dieoff. The
causes of marine mammal strandings and the fluctuations in the number of strandings from year to year are not
known.

Number of Documented Marine
Mammal Strandings*
Strandings

400 /

300 o c o
250 0 CO
200
cN No = ,
250

0~~~~~~~~~~(

Yea r
*Excludes manatees
Note: The 1996 data include all reports received through 17 January 1997.
The number is close to, but probably slightly below, the actual number of strandings reported.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-19 Florida Coastal Management Program
200 0) 0=)i
C.o~
100 ~o~ [n"[,N

50 /7
I II I I I I I I I I I I I It

Year
*Excludes manatees
Note: The 1996 data include all reports received through 17 January 1997.
The number is close to, but probably slightly below, the actual number of strandings reported.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-19 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATIOH AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Estimated Manatee Population

and Documented Deaths Manpement
fgram

The West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus, is a large, slow-moving, gray-brown aquatic mammal. It was
designated Florida's state aquatic mammal in 1975. Manatees feed exclusively on aquatic plants, and the adults
average about 1,000 pounds in weight and ten feet in length. Manatee population counts indicate the number of
manatees frequenting Florida's coastal waters. Shifts in manatee population totals may indicate degradation of
the coastal environment, as manatees are grazers that feed on nearshore seagrasses and other submerged
vegetation. As the food source becomes degraded or less abundant, manatees will suffer.

Population analyses show a negative growth rate and list the main factors affecting population projections as adult
survival and fecundity. A ten percent increase in adult mortality would drive the population to extinction over a
1000-year time scale, whereas a ten percent decrease in adult mortality would allow slow population growth. A ten
percent decrease in reproduction would also result in extinction (Marmontel, et al, 1997).

Manatee deaths are caused by a variety of factors. The Manatee Salvage Data Base, maintained by the Florida
Marine Research Institute (FMRI), delineates six primary categories of manatee mortality, as follows:
Watercraft collision: More than half the watercraft collision deaths are caused by blunt trauma from
impact with a boat; the rest are caused by propeller cuts.
* Flood gate/canal lock: Manatees may be crushed or caused to be drowned.
. Other human related: Deaths attributable to human activity other than watercraft collision and
floodgate/canal lock deaths (e.g., drowning from or infection caused by entanglement in crab traps or
fishing nets).
Perinatal: Manatees 150 centimeters (about five feet) or smaller (newborn manatees) whose deaths are
not attributable to a human cause are considered perinatal deaths.
Other natural: Deaths caused by cold stress, bacteria, or other parasites.
Undetermined: Nearly all undetermined deaths are carcasses that are too badly decomposed to allow for
a clear determination of cause of death. This category also includes the rare event of a verified manatee
death in which the carcass disappears before it could be recovered.

Given its dependence on a high quality marine habitat and its status as an endangered species, the manatee is
important as an indicator of the environmental health of coastal Florida's nearshore and transitional habitats.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data on manatee populations can be obtained from Dr. Bruce Ackerman, Florida Marine Research Institute,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 100 8th Avenue, S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701, or at (813)
896-8626. Data on manatee deaths are compiled in the Manatee Salvage Data Base, managed by the Florida
Marine Research Institute. For a summary report of these data contact Dr. Scott D. Wright, Florida Marine
Research Institute, Marine Mammal Pathobiology Laboratory, 3700 54th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida
33711, or at (813) 893-2904. Up to date information can be found via the Internet at http://www.dep.state.fl.us
/psm/webpages/mortal.htm.

ACQUISITION
Both the population and mortality summary data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
Manatee count data are collected for the state three times each winter via statewide aerial survey. Manatee
mortality data are compiled annually. Cause of death is determined through necropsies performed by the Florida
Marine Research Institute.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-20 Florida Coastal Management Program

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
PressurelStatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Manatee population counts were done in 1976, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997. This irregular collection
pattern limits the comparisons that can be made between the counts. Data on numbers of manatees counted are
the actual figures, but they should be considered to be underestimates due to the limitations inherent in an aerial
survey. Manatees move freely year-round, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining an accurate count.

The data pertaining to manatee deaths are dependent upon volunteer reporting, so these figures are likely to be
underestimates. While the data on manatee populations are available on a statewide basis only, the data on
manatee mortality are broken down by county. The total number of manatee deaths presented here is pertain only
to coastal counties (where 93 percent of documented manatee deaths have occurred).

Data Analysis
The number of manatees counted increased between 1976 and 1997, from 737 to 2,229. This increase is
probably partly due to actual increases in the population size, but may also be due to better counting techniques.
From year to year, the number counted varies due to counting conditions as well as changes in the actual
manatee population. It is believed that the decrease from 1996 to 1997 is due to actual population decrease as
well as more difficult counting conditions.

Manatee Population Estimates
for the State of Florida
Number of manatees

3,000 2,639

2,500 2,229
1,856 1,822
2,000 1,465

1,500

1,00073

500 -

1976 1991 1992 1995 1996 1997

Year

The numbers of documented manatee deaths have followed a generally increasing trend with periodic declines.
The changes in the numbers of documented manatee deaths could be attributed to better reporting, an increased
population with normal mortality patterns, or fluctuations in mortality.

Between 1974 and 1996, the single greatest identifiable cause of death was collisions with watercraft (23% over
the twenty-two year period). Although the number of manatees which died due to watercraft collisions continues to
increase, the rate of increase has decreased during the past decade.

Other human related deaths (including flood gates/canal locks) account for only a small percentage (an average of
5.7 percent over the twenty-two year period of record) of the total deaths and the annual number of these deaths

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D -21 Florida Coastal Management Program

has remained fairly constant. The numbers of perinatal deaths have shown a steadily increasing trend, while the
numbers of other natural deaths have fluctuated but generally increased. Undetermined deaths account for 32
percent of all documented manatee deaths over the twenty-two year period, although the number varies widely
from year to year.

Number of Documented Manatee Deaths in Coastal Counties

1974 3 0 2 0 0 2 7
1975 6 1 1 7 1 12 28
1976 10 4 0 14 2 28 58
1977 12 5 5 9 1 75 107
1978 19 8 1 9 2 37 76
1979 23 7 7 9 4 21 71
1980 14 6 1 12 4 19 56
1981 22 1 4 12 9 64 112
1982 19 3 0 14 41 34 111
1983 13 2 5 17 6 28 71
1984 29 1 1 25 22 41 119
1985 32 2 3 21 19 35 112
1986 33 3 1 26 11 43 117
1987 39 4 2 29 14 20 108
1988 41 6 4 30 24 23 128
1989 45 3 5 38 32 39 162
1990 46 3 4 43 63 40 199
1991 51 6 6 49 14 39 165
1992 33 3 6 43 20 44 149
1993 33 3 6 39 24 32 137
1994 45 6 5 45 37 38 176
1995 42 5 5 53 33 54 192
1996 59 8 0 61 118 160 406
Total 669 90 74 605 501 928 2,867
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute. 1997. Manatee Salvage
Data Base. Summary Report.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-22 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Documented Manatee Deaths (1974-1979)
Number of deaths
120 /
100
80
60
40
20

Year
OIWatercraft collision rJFlood gate lOther human related
IEPerinatal mOther natural EUndetermined
Note: Scale on each graph varies to maximize detail

Number of Documented Manatee Deaths (1980-1989)
Number of deaths
200 /

150 -

100

50 .......

0 I I I I I I I I

Year
WIIWatercraft collision OFlood gate MOther human related
I1Perinatal mOther natural *Undetermined
Note: Scale on each graph varies to maximize detail

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-23 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Documented Manatee Deaths (1990-1996)
Number of deaths
500 /

400

300

2100

E !Perinatal =Other natural E.Undetermined
Note: Scale on each graph varies to maximize detail

Manatee Mortality in Coastal Counties
by Cause of Death, 1974-1996

Other human related
2.6%
Perinatal Watercraft collision
21.1% I
23.3%

Flood gate/canal lock
Other natural
17.5%

Undetermined
32.4%

References
Marmontel, Miriam, Stephen R. Humphrey, and Thomas J. O'Shea. 1997. Population viability ananlysis of the
Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), 1976-1991. Conservation Biology 11(2): 467-481.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-24 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Sea Turtle Nesting Activity
da

Sea turtles are large air-breathing reptiles with long, paddle-shaped foreflippers. They are remarkably adapted for
life in the sea, with a streamlined shape and powerful foreflippers which allow them to dive to great depths and
travel long distances. Although sea turtles spend the majority of their time in the ocean, the females must lay their
eggs on sandy beaches. Research on sea turtles has focused primarily on nesting females and hatchlings
because they are the easiest to find and study. Information on the reproductive cycle and migration patterns has
been collected from the thousands of sea turtles that have' been tagged by researchers. More recently, satellite
tracking has been utilized to gather information about other phases of the sea turtles' lives (Van Meter, 1992).

There are three species of sea turtles that regularly nest on Florida's extensive coast: the loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Two other species, the
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempl), are considered to nest only rarely on
Florida beaches. The loggerhead population that nests in the southeastern United States (primarily in Florida) is
the second largest in the world and accounts for 35 to 40 percent of loggerhead nesting worldwide (Meylan et al.,
1995). Florida's east coast from New Smyrna Beach to Boca Raton accounts for approximately 80 percent of the
nesting activity on the east coast of the United States (Van Meter, 1992). Florida's green turtle nesting population
is one of the largest remaining in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. The only site in the continental
United States where the leatherback turtle regularly nests is Florida.

All of the marine turtles that nest on Florida's beaches are protected under the Florida Statutes (Chapter 370.12)
and the federal Endangered Species Act. Many federal, state, local, and private groups are working to protect sea
turtles and aid in the recovery of turtle populations. These groups fund research on sea turtles, fund the purchase
and management of critical habitat, and sponsor programs to educate and involve local citizens in protecting
turtles. Continued support of ongoing conservation efforts, land acquisition, and public education is needed in
order to protect sea turtles and reverse the decline in their populations.

This indicator provides data on the number of nests identified in survey efforts statewide. Two data sources are
available from the Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute. The Florida Index Nesting
Beach Survey database provides the best trend data since 1989. Longer term, but less standardized, data is
available from the Florida Marine Turtle Nesting Summary database.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Florida Index Nesting Beach Survey data are available from Blair Witherington, Florida Marine Research
Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 19100 S.E. Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida 33469
or at (407) 575-5455.

Additional data, including the report Sea Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of Florida, 1979-1992, may be obtained
by contacting: Anne Meylan, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
100 Eighth Avenue, S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095, or at (813) 896-8626, extension 1104.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data are obtained primarily through early-morning surveys of tracks on beaches that are used as nesting sites
by sea turtles. In some cases, observers were present during the night and actually witnessed nesting activities.
Species identification and assessment of nesting success were usually based on a surveyor's evaluation of
features of the track and nest (e.g., track width, track configuration, size of the body pit). Both nests and false
crawl (abandoned nestings) totals are available.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-25 Florida Coastal Management Program

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Begun in 1989, the Florida Index Nesting Beach Survey is a 10-year, standardized survey; its purpose is to
consistently measure nesting totals throughout the state over time. The Index Nesting Beaches represent
approximately 80 percent of the Florida statewide sea turtle nesting and cover 198 miles (24 percent) of Florida
beaches, including 186 miles (48 percent) of east coast beaches. The index surveys are conducted during the
same 16 week period (May 15 through August 31) and on the same beaches (27 total) each year. The few
exceptions include the following:

* For 1989, Flagler Beach State Recreation Area, 1.3 kilometers of Juno Beach, and 0.2 kilometers of John
U. Lloyd State Recreation Area are not included in the index survey.

� For 1989 and 1990, the weeks of 1,2, 15, and 16 are not included in the index survey for Ft. Clinch State
Park, Amelia Islant, Little Talbot Island, Atlantic-Jacksonville Beach, Guana River State Park, and Fort
Matanzas National Park.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection also maintains a more comprehensive statewide turtle
nesting database. This database, however, is not as useful for observing trends as it reflects heterogeneous data
collection efforts and varying levels of surveyor experience. It has the advantage of covering a sixteen-year
period. However, methodologies and survey efforts changed significantly over this period (e.g., survey effort
increased several-fold during this time period). There are some limitations inherent in any survey methodology,
although the Florida Coastal Issues Survey was designed and implemented by professionals who specialize in
ensuring the randomness and representativeness of the sample, unambiguousness of the questionnaire, etc.
Users of the survey data should be mindful of the range of results applicable to each question based on the
sampling error and confidence interval as described above.

Data Analysis
Nesting activity (defined here as the numbers of nests counted) of all three species of sea turtles has remained
relatively stable since 1991, although a slight increase in Loggerhead nests may be represented by the Florida
Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) data. The smaller number of nests recorded in 1989 and 1990 may be a
result of incomplete survey coverage during those years.

Sea Turtle Nests in Florida Index Nesting Beach Survey

1989 39,172 466 44
1990 51,413 1,747 30
1991 53,899 397 69
1992 48,875 1,988 63
1993 42,689 272 48
1994 52,283 2,804 81
1995 59,379 359 85
1996 54,559 2,138 76

These figures should not be represented as an estimate of the overall number of turtle nests in the state. For
instance, in 1994 the Florida Marine Turtle Nesting Summary (MTNS) database recorded 71,756 Loggerhead
Turtle nests, 3,797 Green Turtle nests, and 259 Leatherback Turtle nests. Thus, in 1994 the INBS accounted for
73 percent of known Loggerhead nests, 74 percent of known Green Turtle nests, and 31 percent of known
Leatherback nests. It is likely that some nests go undetected as well. A smaller percentage of leatherback nests
are represented in the INBS data because leatherbacks begin nesting in March. INBS data are collected May 15
to August 31 in order to target the principal nesting period of the two more common species. Based on the MTNS

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-26 Florida Coastal Management Program

database, it is believed that nesting by all three species of sea turtles has increased over the past two decades.
One factor that may contribute to the overall increase in nesting activity is the ongoing protection efforts focused
on these species.

Loggerhead Turtle Nest Index

Number of nests (thousands)

70 /
-.-.-.--.-.-..-.-....-..... 59 -........ -
60 51 542
49
50 43
39
40

0
N N

1989: Incomplete geographic coverage.
1989, 1990: Incomplete surveys at some sites.

Green Turtle Nest Index

Number of nests
2804
3000

2500 2138
1988 ...
1747
2000

1500

1000
466 397 359
272

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-27 Florida Coastal Management Program

Leatherback Turtle Nest Index

Number of nests

100 8
81
76
80 69
63

60 48
44

40 3

20J

References
Flood, Phil. 1996. Information on Florida's beaches (no title). Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997. Florida Index Nesting Survey Data, 1989-1996. Florida
Marine Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tequesta, Florida.

Meylan, Anne, Barbara Schroeder, and Andrea Mosier. 1995. Sea Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of Florida,
1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Florida
Marine Research Publications.

Van Meter, Victoria B. 1992. Florida's Sea Turtles. Florida Power and Light Company. Miami, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-28 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Southern Bald Eagle Population

Manogmn

Florida supports more breeding southern bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) than any other
state in the U.S. (Nesbitt, 1995). These eagles are "dependent upon mature trees in which to nest and roost and
perch" (Nesbitt, 1995). In addition, because eagles are at the top of the food chain and therefore susceptible to
the bioaccumulation of pollutants, these animals will be among the first to respond to the changes that result from
development of Florida's wild lands (FGFWFC, 1995). The southern bald eagle is therefore important as an
indicator of the state's coastal environmental health and the declining abundance of coastal habitat.

Little is known about post-fledging survival of young eagles and post-nesting behavior of adult eagles. The survey
effort focuses on nesting eagle populations. An active territory is defined as an area where there has been a nest
and adult eagles are in attendance (either in a tree or simply within the territory); within a given territory, only one
nest is active at a time. A successful nest is one which has produced at least one chick that has survived to
fledging. Young are defined as chicks that are big enough to survive and fledge and fly off, not as chicks that have
merely hatched (Nesbitt, 1995).

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Annual reports are maintained by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Bureau of Wildlife
Research. They are available from Dr. Brad Gruver at 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
1600, or at (904) 488-3831. The raw data can be obtained from Steve Nesbitt at the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, Wildlife Research Laboratory, 4005 South Main Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601, or at
(352) 955-2230.

ACQUISITION
Data can be obtained in hard copy or on floppy disk in dBase format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has been collecting southern bald eagle data for the state
since 1973. Known territories are surveyed at least twice each nesting season using fixed-wing aircraft. Data are
displayed for each Florida county that has ever contained a known bald eagle territory. Nesting population figures
for each year represent periods that span from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the next year.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data are consistently collected over time, at intervals specific to this species' breeding behavior, and should
provide an excellent measure of the health of Florida's coastal environment. However, since data are collected via
aerial survey, the figures reflect the inherent limitations of all aerial surveys as well as occasional individual
responses to the presence of aircraft (e.g., some eagles assume an incubation posture in response to the
presence of the survey plane). In addition, since the methodology employed involves the search of known eagle
territories (i.e., it is not a systematic statewide search), the data represent a conservative estimate of nesting bald
eagle populations (FGFWFC, 1988).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-29 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Florida's southern bald eagle population levels have increased to the point where, in August 1995, this sub-
species was re-classified as threatened (as opposed to the former classification of endangered) by the federal
government (Nesbitt, 1995). The eagles' reproductive productivity, however, has been consistently higher in
Florida's non-coastal counties than in the coastal areas: from 1988 to 1996 the average number of active
territories was 24 percent higher in non-coastal counties and the average number of successful nests was 32
percent higher than in the coastal counties. The average number of young per successful nest has remained
close to 1.5 for both coastal and non-coastal counties. Between 1988 and 1996, the number of active bald eagle
territories in the coastal counties increased 97 percent and the number of successful nests increased 123 percent.
Escambia, Nassau and Walton counties are the only coastal counties in Florida that have never documented the
existence of an active bald eagle nest (Nesbitt, 1995).

Southern Bald Eagle Reproductive Productivity in Florida

1988 204 235 439 143 163 306 1.48 1.67 1.58
1989 231 248 479 154 186 340 1.42 1.56 1.50
1990 230 306 536 156 210 366 1.61 1.59 1.60
1991 254 347 601 159 229 388 1.49 1.55 1.52
1992 275 377 652 180 288 468 1.60 1.53 1.56
1993 300 368 668 191 257 448 1.46 1.55 1.51
1994 347 432 779 260 331 591 1.63 1.59 1.61
1995 373 458 831 272 349 621 1.59 1.62 1.61
1996 402 474 876 319 406 725 1.59 1.52 1.55

The years listed represent the end of the respective year-long survey periods (i.e., 1988 refers to the period between
July 1, 1987 and June 30, 1988, etc.).

Number of Active Southern Bald Eagle Territories in Florida
Number of active territories

500 /

400

300)

100

0~~~~~~_ I'2 I I I-II I
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year
[Coastal Counties r-Non-Coastal Counties

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-30 Florida Coastal Management Program

References
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC). 1988. Unpublished Annual Report.
I July 1987 - 30 June 1988.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC). 1995. Unpublished Annual Report.
1 July 1994 - 30 June 1995.

Nesbitt, Stephen A. September, 1995. Personal communication. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-31 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Reddish Egret Population

The reddish egret (Egretta rufescens) is a medium-sized heron that nests exclusively on coastal islands and
forages on "broad, barren sand or mud flats, usually in water less than 15 cm [about 6 inches] deep" (Paul, 1996:
286). This species is the rarest heron in the United States: about 2,000 breeding pairs were estimated to exist in
1991, and about three-quarters of those were in Texas. The reddish egret is recovering from near extermination
(due to plume hunting) in the early 1900s, and in recent decades it has been steadily re-occupying its former
range. Habitat loss is now the biggest human threat to this species, although disturbance of foraging and nesting
birds is again emerging as a problem. The reddish egret is listed as a "Category 2" candidate species for listing by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a species of special concern by the State of Florida (Paul, 1996).

In Florida, these birds occur along both coasts, with about two-thirds of the population located in Florida Bay and
the Keys. Nesting occurs entirely on islands (on the ground, in low bushes, and in trees). Although population
trends of reddish egrets in Florida do mirror availability of habitat, the cessation of plume hunting has had the
single greatest effect on the increases in this species' numbers (Paul, 1997). Given its dependence on a high
quality coastal habitat, the reddish egret is one of a number of species whose population trends and distribution
could collectively characterize habitat conditions along the coast of Florida (Paul, 1997).

Naturalists have observed reddish egrets in Florida since the early 1800s, and data have been sporadically
collected by various entities. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the National Audubon Society has been
collecting reddish egret data in an attempt to monitor species population trends.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data are available in the fifth volume of the series Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. This book may be
purchased by contacting the publisher, University Press of Florida, at 15 N.W. 15th Street, Gainesville, Florida
32611, or at (352) 392-1351. The chapter on reddish egrets was prepared by Richard T. Paul. Mr. Paul was also
the preparer of an October 1991 status report on reddish egrets for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Paul, 1991).
This report may be obtained by contacting the Field Supervisor at the Office of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211, Houston, Texas 77058, or at (281) 286-8282 (phone) or (281)
488-5882 (fax). Rich Paul may be contacted at the National Audubon Society, Tampa Bay Sanctuaries, 410 Ware
Boulevard, Suite 500, Tampa, Florida 33619, or at (813) 623-6826 (phone) or [email protected] (e-mail).

ACQUISITION
The Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida series is available in hard copy format. The volume on birds may be
purchased from the publisher for $65 or may be borrowed from a library at no cost. The 1991 status report is
available in hard copy format, and single copies may be obtained at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data are collected sporadically for different nesting sites in Florida. Surveys are performed by boat or on the
ground, and nesting sites generally range from the Tampa Bay area to the lower Keys on the west coast and from
Merritt Island to the Keys on the east coast.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
Pressure/StatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-32 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The data are collected intermittently for different sections of Florida, and the figures are extrapolated to yield
estimates for the entire state. Attempts at systematic surveys have been sporadic in Florida, and the data have
been collected by different people, sometimes at different points in the nesting season. It is important to
remember that statewide population figures are estimates, not actual counts.

Data Analysis
Florida's current population of reddish egrets is thought to number about ten percent of the population that existed
before plume hunting peaked around 1880 (Paul, 1996: 284). In the twentieth century, no nesting in Florida was
known before 1938, when one nest was found in Florida Bay. Until 1970, there was no nesting outside Florida Bay
and the Florida Keys. Clearly, the reddish egret appears to be increasing in number, although the exact rate and
magnitude of increase are difficult to quantify.

In considering the following population estimates, it is important to distinguish between numbers of breeding pairs
and numbers of birds. "Birds" includes immature individuals, whereas "breeding pairs" reflects pairs of nesting
adults. Numbers of birds should not be assumed to simply reflect twice the breeding population.

Estimated Reddish Egret Population in Florida

1938 1 breeding pair
1944 50 birds
1954 not more than I150 birds
1959 not more than 200 birds
.1974 300 birds
1977 150 breeding pairs
1980 250 - 300 breeding pairs
(estimate from 1977 revised upwards)
1984 at least 300 breeding pairs
1990 350 - 400 breeding pairs
1996 400 breeding pairs

References
Paul, Richard T. 1991. Status Report - Earetta rufescens (Gmelin). Reddish Egret. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Houston, Texas.

Paul, Richard T. 1996. "Reddish Egret." In Ashton, Ray E., Jr., series ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume V. Birds. Edited by James A. Rodgers, Jr., Herbert W. Kale 11, and Henry T. Smith. University Press
of Florida: Gainesville, Florida.

Paul, Richard T. 1997. Personal communication. March 14, 1997.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-33 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECGSYSTEMS

Number of Wood Stork Hosts

The wood stork, Mycteria americana, is one of the largest Florida wading birds, reaching a height of more than
four feet with a wing span of about five feet. It is the only native North American stork, is listed as an endangered
species in Florida, and has been federally listed as endangered since 1984. In the United States, there were an
estimated 20,000 breeding pairs in the 1930s, 10,000 pairs in 1960, and 5,000 breeding pairs existing in 1978
(USFWS, 1996). There were 59 wood stork colonies known to be active in Florida during the late 1980s and early
I1990s. The average colony size in 1995 ranged from 8 to 864 nests (Rodgers, 1995).

Wood stork nests and rookeries are typically found in or near fresh water and brackish wetlands. This species
requires higher concentrations of fish and more foraging area than other wading birds due to a unique feeding
technique of sweeping its bill from side to side and snapping it shut very quickly when it touches a fish. During
breeding season, storks will forage in an area of 700 square miles. Wood storks are dependent not only on an
ample supply of tidal fish, but also small reptiles and amphibians. Without the proper nutritional base to support
nesting efforts, wood storks will not nest.

The loss or reduction in mangroves or cypress trees also contribute to a disruption in nesting effort. Mangroves
are the preferred nesting habitat of wood storks in south Florida, and in northern Florida they prefer cypress trees
in upland fresh water swamps and ponds. Recent research has indicated that the productivity of individual
colonies of wood storks may be affected if the acreage of disturbed lands increases within a radius of 30 miles of a
nesting colony (Campbell and Landry, 1995).

A decline of wood stork nests in Florida's coastal counties may be indicative of a combination of changing
environmental conditions. Given its dependence on a high quality habitat and its status as an endangered
species, the wood stork is important as an indicator of the state's coastal environmental health and the declining
abundance of coastal habitat.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The data are available by contacting Linda Finger of the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 31 0, Jacksonville, Florida 32216-0912, or at (904) 232-2580.
ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.
COLLECTION
The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service has contracted with the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission to collect wood stork nesting population figures. Data will be collected for three
consecutive years (1993-1995), then the population will be monitored for five years. Thereafter, three years of
data collection will again take place. Data collection began in 1993 and are estimated based on aerial surveys.
Areas selected for observation are based on the historical presence of wood storks and areas that wood storks
would likely inhabit.
TECH NICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
PressurelStatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-34 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The data are reliable and are consistently collected, thereby providing a reasonable measure of the health of the
wood stork's coastal environment; however, there are several limitations. The number of nests must be estimated
due to the inherent limitations of an aerial survey. Because the survey is conducted one time per year, the result
may be an underestimation of nests, as the "nesting peak" may vary between areas.

Data Analysis
In 1993 there were an estimated 2,963 wood stork nests in Florida's coastal counties. In 1994 the estimate
declined to 2,023 nests, and in 1995 the number rebounded to 3,760 nests. Large fluctuations are characteristic
of wood stork nesting populations. Wood storks will abandon the nest if the nest is not protected from predators
by deep water and if shallow water is not nearby for ready food consumption. Both criteria change when the water
level fluctuates.

Of the eleven coastal counties that had wood stork nests present in 1993, six experienced an increase and five
experienced a decrease in the number of nests by 1995. In 1995, Brevard, Martin, and Palm Beach counties
experienced increases partly or wholly attributable to new colonies located during the census. Brevard, Collier,
Hernando, Hillsborough, and Pasco counties showed significant gains in the number of nests between 1993 and
1995. Manatee, St. Johns, and St. Lucie counties showed significant losses in the number of nests between 1993
and 1995. Overall, the estimated number of wood stork nests increased 27 percent during the three-year period.
With only three years of data available it is still too early to determine a significant trend in Florida's coastal
counties. Additional years of collection will be needed to establish the health and viability of the coastal wood stork
population. The last column presents the average for each county with at least two years of data available. An
increase (+) or decrease (-) between 1994-95 is also shown.

Estimated Wood Stork Nests by Coastal County, 1993 - 1995

Brevard 505 345 723 524 (+)
Collier 426 450 864 580 (+)
Dade 40 N/A N/A N/A
Duval 345 330 445 373 (+)
Hernando 12 16 175 67 (+)
Hillsborough N/A 8 115 41 (+)
Indian River 225 110 230 188 (+)
Manatee 140 N/A 33 57 (+)
Martin N/A N/A 65 N/A
Monroe N/A 160 105 88 (-)
Palm Beach N/A N/A 27 N/A
Pasco 180 169 410 253 (+)
Sarasota 520 170 500 396 (+)
St. Johns 170 N/A 60 76 (+)
St. Lucie 400 265 8 224 (-)
TOTAL 2,963 2,023 3,760 2,915 (+)
N/A=No active nests or data not available

References
Campbell, Kyle and Shawn Landry. 1995. Florida's Wetland and Fresh Water Ecosystems. Florida Center for
Community Design and Research, University South Florida.
[http://www.arch.usf.edu:80/fcfguide/ chap5-2.htm].

Rodgers, James. 1995. Census of Wood Stork Colonies in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. "Wood Stork." in Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern
United States (The Red Book) Region 4 (As of 1/96). [http://www.fws.gov/-r9endspp/i/b/sab5z.htm I].

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-35 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Number of Eastern Brown Pelican Nests

Manapgement

Given its status as a threatened species in Florida and its dependence on a high quality coastal habitat. the
eastern brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis carolinensis) is important as an indicator of the state's coastal
environmental health and the declining abundance of coastal habitat. Mangroves are the preferred nesting
substrate in Florida. Loss of or reduction in nesting substrate may result in a decline in nesting effort. The loss of
mangroves to freezes in the 1980s and development have impacted the numbers of nesting brown pelicans in
Florida. Chemical pollution of coastal habitat can also reduce the number of pelican nest. Development has also
impacted alternate nesting substrates, which may further explain declines in nesting efforts. Additionally, without
the proper nutritional base to support nesting efforts, pelicans will not nest.

Given the brown pelican's need for quality habitat, the presence of nests is an indication that high quality habitat is
available. The recent declining trends in numbers of eastern brown pelican nests may indicate degradation of
nesting substrates or fluctuations in the food supply and a need for remedial actions along some areas of the
Florida coast.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Annual reports are maintained by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Bureau of Wildlife
Research. They are available from Dr. Brad Gruver at 620 South Meridian Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
1600, or at (850) 488-3831. The raw data can be obtained from Steve Nesbitt at the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, Wildlife Research Laboratory, 4005 South Main Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601, or at
(352) 955-2230.

ACQU ISITIO N
Reports are produced in hard copy format, and raw data are available on floppy disk in database format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has been collecting brown pelican nesting data since 1968.
Known nesting sites are surveyed from fixed-wing aircraft near the expected peak of the nesting season. In 1983
data collection efforts were changed to a biennial survey; however, concern over the brown pelican's nesting effort
and success prompted a return to annual nesting surveys in 1991.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
PressurelState/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data have been consistently collected over time, surveying all sites known to have had nesting brown pelicans
since 1968. Estimates of the number of nests are subject to the inherent limitations of aerial surveys such as the
variability in observers' ability to distinguish among species and the difficulty in getting specific nest counts through
aerial viewing. In addition, seasonal and annual differences in the timing and intensity of nesting, relative to the
surveys, affect the number of nests counted for each colony site. This can lead to an underestimation of total
nests in any one year, as the "nesting peak" may vary over time and between areas.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-36 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Between 1968 and 1989, numbers of active brown pelican nests followed a generally increasing trend. This is
most likely attributable to actual increases in nesting populations, as the survey effort remained stable during that
period. The number of nests declined from a high of 12,310 in 1989 to 8,866 in 1993. This decline in nesting
effort may be a result of the mangrove-destroying freezes of the 1980s. Pelicans have been forced to use
alternative types of vegetation or nest on the ground due to the degradation of the nesting substrate. The number
of nests increased to 10,858 in 1994, an increase of over 22 percent from the previous year. Between 1994 and
1996 the number of nests decreased nearly 12 percent, to a total of 9,598 nests in 1996.

Estimated Number of Eastern Brown Pelican Nests

1968 6,936 1983 6,980
1969 6,133 1984 N/A
1970 7,690 1985 9,078
1971 5,923 1986 N/A
1972 7,990 1987 10,882
1973 6,010 1988 N/A
1974 6,090 1989 12,310
1975 5,950 1990 N/A
1976 5,491 1991 10,208
1977 6,532 1992 9,335
1978 7,780 1993 8,866
1979 8,942 1994 10,858
1980 8,095 1995 10,227
1981 8,125 1996 9,598
1982 8,666
* The years listed represent the end of the respective year-long survey periods (i.e., 1978 refers to the period
between July 1, 1977 and June 30, 1978, etc.).
N/A = not applicable (nesting surveys were not conducted during these years)

Estimated Number of Eastern Brown Pelican Nests
Thousands of nests

14 /

12 c

10 7 ==

8 = -

2 l- i 7

C--D C-O P- - r- -- - - -- --- -- - C C CD D 0- 0- o -o - o a- ) -- -) ) a)

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-37 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Acreage of Seagrass

Mamnwgement

The term "seagrass" is used to describe a group of species of grass-like plants that grow in shallow coastal
waters. In Florida, the three predominant species are commonly known as turtle-grass(Thalassia testudinum),
shoal-grass (Halodule wrighti), and manatee-grass (Syringodium filiforme). Seagrasses may exist as small,
patchy beds or as large, dense meadows. The species differ in their tolerance of environmental variables such as
water depth, current strength, and level of salinity. Seagrasses provide food for waterfowl, manatees, and green
sea turtles and are essential habitat for shellfish and finfish. They also affect nutrient cycling, sediment stability,
and water turbidity.

A number of phenomena may have adverse effects on seagrasses and can disrupt the delicate balance within
these communities. As a result of human population growth in coastal areas, there is more suspended solids and
turbidity in the water, so estuaries are experiencing a deterioration of ambient water quality. Turbidity obstructs the
sunlight from reaching the seagrass, there by prohibiting growth. This results in oxygen-deficient water, reduced
water column transparency, and a decline in the entire ecosystem. Human causes of seagrass degradation
include water pollution, activities such as dredging and filling, and events such as scarring (which occurs most
frequently from boat propellers). Declines in seagrasses are being documented worldwide.

The habitat requirements of seagrasses are used to characterize water quality because of seagrasses'
widespread distribution, important ecological role, and sensitivity to water quality parameters. Seagrasses are
particularly vulnerable to reduced water clarity (transparency), so their distribution (both depth and extent) is a
good indicator of this water quality parameter.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on the total acreage of seagrass can be obtained by contacting Frank Sargent at the Florida Marine
Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 100 Eighth Avenue, S.E., St. Petersburg,
Florida 33701-5095, or at (813) 896-8626 (SUNCOM 523-1011).

Information on the acreage of seagrass in Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor can be obtained by contacting
Raymond C. Kurz at the Surface Water Improvement and Management Department, Southwest Florida Water
Management District, 7601 U.S. Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida 33637, or at (813) 985-7481.

Information on the acreage of seagrass in Sarasota Bay can be obtained by contacting Dave Tomasko at the
Surface Water Improvement and Management Department, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 115
Corporation Way, Venice, Florida 34292, or at (941) 486-1212.

Information on the acreage of seagrass in the Indian River Lagoon System can be obtained by contacting Bob Day
at the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1900 South Harbor City Boulevard North, Suite 109,
Melbourne, Florida 32901, or at (407) 984-4950.

ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-38 Florida Coastal Management Program

COLLECTION
Because of the expense, seagrass mapping programs are generally completed in two- to five-year cycles by the
water management districts, if at all. For example, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, South
Florida Water Management District (east coast only), and St. Johns River Water Management District are involved
in seagrass mapping projects. Currently, the Northwest Florida Water Management District and the Suwannee
Water Management District are not involved in seagrass estimates. Some regions in the state are mapped in five
to ten year cycles as joint efforts between federal agencies and/or the state. These projects include the Big Bend
seagrass project by the U.S. Minerals Management and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary coral Reef
and Hardbottom Monitoring Project by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection/ Florida Marine Research Institute (DEP/FMRI).

Seagrass data by the Florida Marine Research Institute are from the Panhandle, Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Lemon
Bay, Charlotte Harbor, South Florida, Palm Beach County, Hobe Sound, Indian River Lagoon, and Mosquito
Lagoon. Data for the Panhandle were interpreted in 1993 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) from 1984-1985 using color aerial photography. Data for the Big Bend were interpreted in 1984 by the U.S.
Department of the Interior Mineral Management Service using natural color aerial photography. Tampa Bay data
were interpreted in 1992 by the Southwest Florida Water Management District using natural color aerial
photography. Lemon Bay data were compiled in 1988 by Mangrove Systems, Inc. using aerial photography and
were digitized into ERDAS. Charlotte Harbor to Estero Bay data were compiled by DEP and the Florida
Department of Transportation using aerial photography. South Florida data were compiled from several sources
at DEP using aerial photography. Palm Beach data were compiled by Palm Beach County using Auto-CAD and
ARC/INFO. Hobe Sound data were provided to DEP by the Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve Manager. Indian River
Lagoon data were interpreted by the St. Johns River Water Management District using color infrared aerials.
Mosquito Lagoon data were interpreted from 1986 Landsat-TM imagery by the Bionetics Division of Kennedy
Space Center and converted from image format to an ARC/INFO coverage by DEP in 1994. Additional areas of
current and/or future seagrass mapping projects include the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Florida Bay,
Biscayne Bay, and the area from Anclote Key to the Florida-Alabama border. The projects that should be
completed by 1997 are: Florida Key National Marine Sanctuary- FMRI, Florida Bay- FRMI, Biscayne Bay- FMRI,
Big Bend- United States Geological Survey (USGS), Panhandle- USGS, and the Indian River Lagoon- St. John's
River Water Management District ( Sargent, 1997).

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 6
PressurelStatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Currently, the data on acreage of seagrass are inconsistently and infrequently collected. Data collection is done
on a regional basis; however these regions do not cover the entire state, and the timing cycle of collection varies
among these regions. In addition, the acreage estimate in this indicator does not include seagrass acreage for
Duval, Flagler, Nassau, or St. Johns counties (Florida's four northeastern-most coastal counties) because of
unsuitable habitat for seagrass beds.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-39 Florida Coastal Management Program

Sources of Data for Estimating
Total Acreage of Seagrass

Bendgrass Citrus, Hernando, 1983 1:40,000 Minerals Management Service
Jefferson, Levy, Pasco, (MMS)
Pinellas, Taylor
Chargrass Charlotte, Collier, Lee, 1982,1987 1:24,000 Florida Dept. of Transportation,
Manatee, Sarasota Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection, Mangrove Systems,
Inc., FMRI
IRLgrass Brevard, Broward, Indian 1992 1:24,000 St. Johns River Water
River, Martin, St. Lucie, Management District
Volusia
Palmgrass Martin, Palm Beach 1990 1:24,000 Palm Beach County
Pangrass Bay, Escambia, Franklin, 1982-1985 1:24,000 FMRI
Gulf, Okaloosa, Santa
Rosa, Wakulla, Walton
SFgrass Dade, Monroe 1982-1986 1:40,000 Marszalek, Dade County, MMS,
FMRI
Tbaygrass Hillsborough, Manatee, 1990 1:24,000 Southwest Florida Water
Pinellas, Sarasota Management District, FMRI
* Identifying name for seagrass-coverage data in the Marine Resources Geographic Information System at the Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI).
Source: FMRI Technical Report TR-1

Different programs run in different yearly cycles. This means that total seagrass acreage will never be current for
the entire state in one year. The data will always be after the fact. Most mapping programs take one to two years
to be completed after the aerial photography was obtained.

As data become available in the future, changes in acreage of seagrass will be seen. This is significant because
seagrass can be used to characterize water quality. These are the most accurate data currently available. In
addition to the above limitations, it should be noted that seagrass mapping is done using aerial photography.
Typically, aerial photography can only penetrate water 30 to 45 feet in depth. Any seagrasses growing beyond
these depths are not mapped. In addition, water clarity can limit the amount of penetration, thus reducing the
accuracy of the mapping effort. Current mapping programs are structured in such a way as to maximize all
conditions pertinent to a successful program and enhance accuracy.

Data Analysis
The total acreage of seagrass the in Florida coastal counties that are surveyed is approximately 2,658,290 acres.
This estimate is derived by adding all of the acreage figures from the various seagrass mapping projects
conducted in coastal counties around the state. This figure does not include seagrasses in Duval, Flagler,
Nassau, and St. Johns counties. The figure includes hardbottom communities where seagrass coverage is
notable in addition to sparse seagrasses in the Florida Keys. This total should be used as a benchmark until
future data are available. It should also be noted that this figure may be a slightly conservative estimate, as there
are many regions where some species of seagrasses grow in deep water on a seasonal basis over large areas
and therefore may not have been detected when the area was being mapped. Over fifty percent of Florida's
seagrass acreage is in Monroe County.

While determining the trend of seagrass growth is not possible because of the lack of present data, examining the
different seagrass acreage for the four National Estuary Programs in the state should display a general direction of
seagrass coverage, if not a trend of total seagrass growth. The four National Estuary Programs in the state of
Florida are: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Sarasota Bay
National Estuary Program, and the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. The following charts show the
trends in seagrass coverage for the National Estuary Programs in Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-40 Florida Coastal Management Program

Seagrass Coverage Seagrass Coverage

in Tampa Bay in Charlotte Harbor

1950 40,400 1982 18,284
1988 24,681 -38.9% 1992 17,898 -2.1%
1990 25,235 2.2% 1994 18,615 4.0%
1992 25,827 2.3% Source: Kurz, Raymond C. (1997). Personal communication. Southwest Florida Water
1994 26,608 3.1% Management District.
1994 26,608 ~3.1%
Sources: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Technical Publication #07-93. 1995.
Kurz, Raymond C. (1997). Personal communication.
Southwest Florida Water Management District.

42,000 Acreage of Seagrass 24,000 Acreage of Seagrass
42,000 24,000
40,000 ' ......
~38,000 - - - - -----22.000 .
38.000 ~ ......
36,000 �-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -...20,000 - - - -......
34,000
32,000 18, - - - - - - -000 - - -
30,000 -
28,000 --- ----- -----16,000 - - - - ---
28,000�-
26,000 14.000 - - -
24,000 --
22,000 12,000
1950 1988 1990 1992 1994 1982 1992 1994
Year Year
Note: The graph is not equally distributed because of the lack of information Note: The graph is not equally distributed because of the lack of information
between 1950 and 1988. between 1982 and 1992.

Seagrass Coverage Seagrass Coverage throughout the

in Sarasota Bay Indian River Lagoon Complex

1988 8,650 1970-76 78,519
1994 9,264 7.1% 1986 83,170 5.9%
Source: Tomasko, David. (1997). Personal communication. Southwest Florida Water 1992 70,139 -18.6%
Management District.
Source: Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Historical Imagery Inventory and Seagrass
Assessment Indian River Lagoon, Indian River
Lagoon National Estuary Program. Melbourne Florida. 1994.
Note: In the report, other submerged aquatic vegetation beds were included
with seagrass beds.

12,000Acreage of Seagrass86,000 Acreage of Seagrass
12,000 86,000
84,000 ...........
82,000
80,000
10,000
78,000 '
76,000
74,000
8.000 - - - - - 72,000----
70,000
68,000
6,000 66,000
1988 1994 1970 1986 1992
Year Year
Note: The graph is not equally distributed because of lack of information.
The acreage representing 1970-76 is graphed as 1970.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-41 Florida Coastal Management Program

Tampa Bay

Tampa Bay is Florida's largest estuary, and it is an urban estuary. Urban areas within the watershed include the
metropolitan areas of Tampa and St. Petersburg. Dredge and fill activities "...have resulted in direct loss of
seagrass in Tampa Bay" (Janicki, et, al, 1995). It is likely that "...lncreased light attenuation due to elevated
chlorophyll and suspended solids in the water column has also contributed significantly to reduce seagrass growth
and eventual declines" (Janicki, et, al, 1995). These occurrences were determined to be the causes for the drastic
reduction of seagrass acreage between 1950 and 1988. Overall, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay has been
increasing steadily for the past several years due, in part, to improvements in wastewater treatment which has
resulted in a reduction in nutrient (such as nitrogen and phosphorous) loads to the bay ( Kurz, 1997).

Charlotte Harbor

Charlotte Harbor is the second largest open water estuary in the state created by the inflow of the Myakka, Peace
and Caloosahatchee rivers into the Gulf of Mexico. The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program was
established in July 6, 1995, so historical information is limited. Trends in Charlotte Harbor are probably less
impacted by eutrophication processes and more by the changes in water clarity associated with stream flow from
two major rivers emptying into the harbor (Kurz, 1997).

Sarasota Bay

There were two areas that experienced the biggest increase of seagrass acreage. In the area around the city of
Sarasota, there was an increase of 191 acres between 1988 and 1994. The other area that showed the majority
of the growth was surrounding Tidy Island. Tidy Island is in the northern part of the Sarasota Bay that is influenced
by the Manatee County Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant successfully reduced its wastewater-related
nitrogen loads, so seagrasses have flourished. Seagrass coverage around Tidy Island increased by 352 acres
between 1988 and 1994 (Tomasko, 1997).

Indian River Lagoon System

The Indian River Lagoon Complex covers from Ponce De Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm
Beach County. The area includes Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River, North Indian River, North Central Indian River,
South Central Indian River, and South Indian River. During the period from 1970 to 1992, a fairly consistent
pattern of submerged aquatic vegetation distribution has occurred in the Indian River Lagoon system. More than
70% of the vegetation occurs in the northern end of the system north of a line connecting Cocoa to Cocoa Beach
The seagrass acreage was higher in 1986 than in the preceding or succeeding period. Almost all of the apparent
decrease in acreage from 1986 to 1992 results from declines in the North Indian River just north of the south end
of Merritt Island (Woodward-Clyde, 1994). A large storm event in 1991 produced highly colored and turbid water
in much of this area for a period exceeding one month. Great mortality of above-ground submerged vegetation
biomass has been reported following the storm (Woodward-Clyde, 1994), and the 1992 decrease in acreage also
may be a result of the declines following that storm.

Assessment

While examining the four National Estuary Programs in Florida will not provide a trend of the total acreage of
seagrass, it does suggest a direction the acreage of seagrass is heading. Three of the four National Estuary
Programs have experienced increases in the total acreage of seagrass over the past years. This is probably the
result of these areas being part of the National Estuary Program. All of these areas are of critical state concern
and the programs in these areas are confronting the issue of seagrass loss. Positive steps are taking place now
and more data will be available in the future.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-42 Florida Coastal Management Program

Recommendations
Currently the data on acreage of seagrass are inconsistently and infrequently collected. The primary reason for
this infrequent collection is the expense of gathering the data. Currently, funding for data collection is provided by
the water management districts and/or by federal agencies. Collection of the data is done on a regional basis;
however these regions do not cover the entire state, and the timing cycle of collection varies among these regions.
It is recommended that the funding for these projects be increased so that coverage can be comprehensive. It is
also recommended that there is consistent funding for statewide analysis and coordination.

References
Kurz, Raymond C. (1997). Personal communication. Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Janicki, Anthony, D. Wade, and D. Robison. (1995). Habitat Protection and Restoration Tarciets for TamPa Bav.
Final Report to Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Coastal Environmental, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida.

Tomasko, David. (1997). Personal communication. Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Historical Imaaerv Inventory and Seaarass Assessment Indian River Laaoon. (1994). Final Technical Report to
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Woodward - Clyde Consultants. Tampa, Florida.
Sargent, Frank, T.J Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. (1995). Scarrina of Florida's Seaarasses: Assessment
and Manaaement Options. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-1. Florida Department
of Environmental Protection/ Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-43 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Number of Beach Closings and Advisories

Ma' n

From public health, environmental, and economic standpoints, coastal water quality is an important issue in the
state of Florida. The environmental impacts of coastal water pollution can be far reaching, including long-term
degradation of marine and benthic habitats as well as marine animal fatalities. Furthermore, every day a beach is
closed increases the adverse economic consequences, such as lost jobs, lost tourism dollars, and impeded
economic growth (NRDC, 1995).

The primary cause of beach closings is high levels of bacteria from human and animal wastes that enter coastal
waters from municipal sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, urban
stormwater systems, and as polluted runoff from land. Sewage-contaminated waters can contain a variety of
diseases, including gastroenteritis, dysentery, and hepatitis. Testing is conducted by measuring for "indicator
organisms" such as fecal coliform or enterococcus that indicate the presence of harmful pathogens. Other causes
of beach closings include heavy rain and oil spills. Heavy rain tends to increase pollution from overloaded sewage
and stormwater systems and increase polluted runoff from urban and rural areas. For Florida, pollutants and
debris causing beach closings are also attributable to the destruction caused by hurricanes.

The State of Florida does not explicitly require any monitoring of ocean and bay coastal waters; however, bacteria
standards have been set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) specifically for marine
waters designated for swimming. Of Florida's 34 coastal counties with swimming beaches, only eleven currently
conduct monitoring on an inconsistent basis for swimmer safety.

This indicator provides information on the number of days of beach closures and advisories. The Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) followed three guidelines in compiling these data: (1) Closings and
advisories are not differentiated in the data listings; (2) Permanent closings (beaches closed for an entire summer
or longer) and extended closings (beaches closed for six weeks or more) are noted, but not included in the totals;
and (3) Closings or advisories issued for an individual beach for one day are counted as one closing/advisory.
Starting with the 1994 data, the reason for the beach closure/advisory is included with the data.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
This information is found in Testing the Waters, published annually by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Copies of these reports may be obtained by contacting the Natural Resources Defense Council Publications
Department, 40 West 20th Street, New York, New York 10011, or at (212) 727-4486.
ACQUISITION
Previous years of the Testing the Waters reports are available in hard copy format for a cost of $7.50 plus shipping
and handling. The most recent report, Testing the Waters VI, marks the first time a Testing the Waters report is
available via the Internet. It may be accessed at: http:llwww.nrdc.orglnrdcprolttwltitinx.html The hard copy
cost is $10.50 plus shipping and handling. Testing the Waters VII is scheduled for release via the Internet in July
1997.
COLLECTION
The NRDC data are collected from coastal state and local governments through the use of questionnaires and
from state 305(b) reports. The NRDC compiles this information annually; however, each reporting unit's frequency
of collection varies.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 1
PressurelState/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-44 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
There are several limitations evident in using the data to establish a trend. The data presented herein reflect only
eleven of the 34 coastal counties in Florida with swimming beaches. The data received are sometimes incomplete
and inconsistent among reporting units. The data may also be for the previous year, since some respondents do
not return the information in time for inclusion in the current annual report. In some cases, a beach is closed and
remains closed until the next sampling date (which may be the following month or longer). More frequent
samnpling might reduce the number of closing/advisory days in these instances. At the present time, there is no
uniform bacteria standard or testing procedure to monitor coastal water pollution. Therefore, each state or local
municipality adopts its own standards and testing procedures. Since beach water monitoring is not required, the
data presented only reflect a portion of Florida's coastal areas that do monitor. Since monitoring and closure
practices vary between different parts of the state, it is difficult to know whether a locality with a high number of
closings has more vigilant health officials or more coastal pollution.

Data Analysis
The data for the number of days of beach closures/advisories do not indicate any clear trend in coastal water
quality for the Florida counties represented. However, the most immediate element noticeable is the connection
between beach closings and hurricane-related weather. The years of Hurricane Andrew (1992) and Hurricane
Opal (1 995) posted the highest number of beach closure/advisory days. The data for the number of days of beach
closures/advisories came from eight coastal counties in 1995, one less than in 1994. The majority of the beach
closings/advisories came from Okaloosa County (475), primarily from debris and other pollution attributable to
Hurricane Opal. Dade County had 145 closings, due predominately to sewer-line breaks. The total number of
beach closures/advisories reported for 1995 was the highest recorded in Florida this decade. The 830 closings
were nearly four times the 1994 total of 215.

Beach Closure/Advisory Days

Number of days

100083
773
800

600

400 299
234 ~~~~~~~~215

200 101 f

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year

Note: Permanent closings (beaches closed for the entire summer or longer) and extended closings
(beaches closed for six weeks or more) are not included in the totals.

As mentioned previously, the principal reasons for closing or placing advisories on beaches in 1995 were sewer-
line breaks and debris and pollution from Hurricane Opal. Closings due to stormwater runoff dropped from the
1994 high of 126 to 67. Many Florida areas that monitor coastal water quality still do not have stormwater
management practices adequate to prevent pollution. Furthermore, the absence of historical data makes it
impossible to ascertain whether the reporting areas have improved their stormwater management practices. The
noted rise in closings due to hurricane debris may be a sign of overdeveloped beach areas and/or a lack of
building code enforcement adequate for resistance of some hurricane-force winds.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-45 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Days by Reason for Beach Closures/Advisories,
1994 and 1995

Heavy RainfalllSewer Overflow 1 24
Rainfall (preemptive) 55 23
Stormwater Runoff 181 67
High Bacteria 208 100
STP Malfunctions 220 12
Septic Tank Discharge 261 NIA
Polluted Runoff 302 NIA
Hurricane Related N/A 469
Sewer Line Leak/Break N/A 135

Note: The values presented in the above graph do not add to the totals reported for each year because of double counting
(i.e., some beaches were listed with two reasons for closure, and both reasons are reflected in the above graph). N/A
means there were no closures reported in this category. STP means sewage treatment plant.

Recommendations
Local officials in Florida have cited a lack of funds as the major impediment to instituting routine water monitoring
programs (NRDC, 1996). Additionally, simply monitoring coastal water quality and closing beaches when there is
a public health threat will not solve Florida's coastal pollution problem. The reasons for closing the beaches need
to be analyzed so that the sources of coastal pollution can be addressed and remedied in order to prevent future
problems.

References
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1995. Testing the Waters V: Politics and Pollution at U.S.
Beaches. New York: NRDC.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1996. Testing the Waters VI: Who Knows What You're Getting
Into? New York: NRDC.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-46 Florida Coastal Management Program

DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

Acreage of shellfishing waters bv classification

Management

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section classifies
shellfishing waters into six categories based on sanitary, hydrographic, meteorological, and bacteriological
surveys. The categories are 1) approved; 2) conditionally approved; 3) restricted; 4) conditionally restricted; 5)
prohibited; and 6) unclassified.

Approved Area Normally open to shellfish harvesting; may be temporarily closed under extraordinary
circumstances such as red tide, hurricanes and sewage spills.

Conditionally ApDroved Area Periodically closed to shellfish harvesting based on pollution events, such as
rainfall or increased river flow.

Restricted Area Normally open to relaying or controlled purification, allowed only by special permit and
supervision; may be temporarily closed under extraordinary circumstances such as red tides, hurricanes
and sewage spills.

Conditionally Restricted Area Periodically, relay and controlled purification activity is temporarily
suspended based on pollution events, such as rainfall or increased river flow.

Prohibited Shellfish harvesting is not permitted due to actual or potential pollution. This classification is
least desirable, and is used only when standards are exceeded for Approved, Conditionally Approved,
Restricted and Conditionally Restricted classification management schemes.

Unclassified Shellfish harvesting is not permitted pending bacteriological and sanitary surveys.

Because monitoring for all human pathogens discharged into coastal water is not feasible, an indicator group of
bacteria is used to assess the likelihood that human pathogens are present. Fecal coliform is the indicator group
of bacteria used by DEP. Few fecal coliform are pathogenic; however, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria in
coastal waters indicates feces from warm-blooded animals is present and human pathogens are also likely to be
present. The numbers of bacteria are expressed in the units of Most Probable Number (MPN) per 100 milliliters
(ml). There are two bacteriological standards for shellfish harvesting areas classification. For areas to be
classified Approved or Conditionally Approved, the level of fecal coliform in sub-surface water must have the fecal
coliform median or mean not exceed 14 MPN/100 ml, and no more than ten percent may exceed 43 MPN/100 ml.
For areas to be classified Restricted or Conditionally Restricted, the fecal coliform median or mean must not
exceed 88 MPN/100 ml, and no more than ten percent may exceed 260 MPN/100 ml.

Many of Florida's shellfishing waters have been affected by increased urbanization along the shoreline, and some
of these waters have been closed to harvesting of shellfish because of degraded water quality conditions.
Waterbodies that have restricted or prohibited classifications pose risks to the economic well being of coastal
communities, and possibly to environmental health. Tracking the numbers of shellfishing waters in each
classification can provide an indication of water quality trends in waters that are regularly used for shellfishing.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-47 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The information is compiled by Bob Thompson, Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, who can be contacted at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 205,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-5471.

ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The bacteriological water quality of shellfish areas in Florida is monitored at least monthly, and annual reports
summarize sanitary conditions. Hydrography, meteorology, pollution source, and bacteriological surveys are
documented in comprehensive reports written every five years. These comprehensive reports are the basis for
updating shellfish harvesting area classifications in the Florida Administrative Code. Physical, chemical, and
bacteriological water quality data are available for all shellfish harvesting areas currently open. AutoCAD, a
computer mapping system, is used to make maps that illustrate the six shellfish classification categories.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 4
Pressure/State/Response: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The term "shellfish" in this context is limited to oysters, clams and mussels. Shellfishing waters classifications
represent the condition of only those portions of coastal waters that support shellfishing, not all state waters.
Shellfish classifications are determined by water quality, which is affected by both human (e.g., stormwater runoff)
and natural (e.g., rainfall) activities. Thus, restrictions do not always indicate that a human source of pollution is
the cause of a problem, since natural events such as high river events or Tropical storms where there is excessive
rainfall can have as much influence as discharges from anthropogenic sources.

Data Analysis
By February, 1997, a total of 1,679,512 acres of shellfish harvesting areas were classified statewide. This was
99,750 more acres than were classified in 1992, a 6.0 percent increase. Only 220,007 acres, or 13.1 percent of
the classified waters, were approved for harvesting as of February, 1994. While in 1992, there were 263,550
acres, which comprised of 16.7 percent of the classified waters. There was a decrease in the amount of acres
approved for harvesting, and a decrease in the percentage for the category. As of February, 1997, there were
820,294 acres, or 47.91 percent, in a conditionally approved category; this was an increase from the 704,421
acres conditionally approved in 1992. The acreage of restricted shellfishing waters has decreased since 1992.
Where as, the conditionally restricted areas have sharply increased. Roughly 29 percent, or 478,954 acres, were
classified as prohibited in 1997.

It is apparent that even though the total acreage of classified shellfishing waters has increased, the number of
approved acres has decreased. The two categories which have increased since 1992 are conditionally approved,
and conditionally restricted. This increase of the conditional classifications is indicative of major river events and
storms having more of a role in degrading water quality in an area due to non-point stormwater runoff.The data are
from the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, which was conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory at Florida State
University. For further information or data from the survey, contact the Florida Coastal Management Program,
Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, or at (850)
922-5438.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-48 Florida Coastal Management Program

Acres of Shellfishing
Waters By Classification

Approved 263,550 (16.7%) 222,604 (13.6%) 220,007 (13.1%)
Conditionally Approved 704,421 (44.6%) 785,228 (47.9%) 820,294 (48.8%)
Restricted 94,982 ( 6.1%) 80,274 ( 4.9%) 72,819 ( 4.3%)
Conditionally Restricted 27,261 (1.7%) 46,646 ( 2.9%) 87,438 ( 5.2%)
Prohibited 489,548 (31.0%) 504,189 (30.8%) 478,954 (28.5%)
Total Acreage 1,579,762 1,638,941 1,679,512

Acreage of Shellfish Harvesting
Areas by Classification
Acres
900,000 /

750,000 -.

600,000

450,000 ,'

300,000

150,000

0
Approved Conditionally Restricted Conditionally Prohibited
Approved Restricted

Classifications

]March 1992 ?July 1994 EFebruary 1997

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-49 Florida Coastal Management Program

-~~~~~ ~DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION OF COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS

onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems

installed Managemnt

Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems are facilities constructed on individual sites used to provide
wastewater disposal where municipal sewerage is not available. Such systems usually consist of a septic tank
and a subsurface infiltration system. Within the septic tank, sedimentation and some anaerobic digestion of solids
occur. The remaining partially treated wastewater, referred to as septic tank effluent, is then discharged to the
subsurface infiltration system and percolates through the surrounding soil. As the effluent moves through the soil,
it is further treated by naturally occurring chemical, biological, and physical processes.

In many cases, when septic tanks are properly planned, designed, constructed, and operated, onsite systems are
effective wastewater treatment systems. As the number and density of septic systems increase throughout
Florida, however, there are serious concerns that the use of onsite systems is having adverse impacts on ground
and surface waters in the state. In fact, there is the potential for contamination of ground and surface waters when
onsite systems do not remove enough of the nutrients, toxics, and pathogens that exist in the wastewater.

The potential for ground and surface water contamination is of particular concern in coastal counties, due to the
fact that some areas surrounding the coast have a significant portion of the population utilizing septic tanks in soils
with limited capacity for this use.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on the number of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems installed can be obtained from Kevin
Sherman, Florida Department of Health, Onsite Sewage Program, 1317 Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida
32399, or at (850) 488-4070.

ACQU ISITION
The installation data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
Information on the number of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems installed is available on an annual
basis by county since 1971.
TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 2
PressurelStatelResponse: State
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and is accessible.

Data Limitations
A limitation inherent in the data is the lack of consideration of soil suitability and septic tank density. This makes it
difficult to definitively determine the impacts of increasing or decreasing septic tank use. For example, relatively
high numbers of systems in suitable soil may equal a low impact, while relatively low numbers in unsuitable areas
may equal a high impact. Furthermore, the number of septic tanks installed does not give an accurate picture of
the total number of septic tanks in use over the years because it does not account for septic tank abandonments.
The number of septic tank abandonments in coastal counties is believed to be small; however, as a consequence
of municipal sewage expansion, septic tank abandonments may become a significant issue.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-50 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The number of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems installed in coastal counties have decreased from
1980 to 1996. There were, however, some fluctuations over the years, most likely due to economic factors which
influence construction starts. The percentage of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems installed in
coastal counties compared to Florida has also decreased. In 1980, installation of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems in coastal counties comprised about 65 percent of the total installations throughout the state. In
1996, the percentage dropped to approximately 58 percent.

Total Number of Onsite Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems Installed

1980 30,408 (.65) 16,314 (.35) 46,722
1981 28,126 (.64) 15,591 (.36) 43,717
1982 24,372 (.62) 14,765 (.38) 39 137
1983 37,544 (.61) 23,743 (.39) 61,287
1984 39,120 (.61) 24,869 (.39) 63,989
1985 38,831 (.61) 24,827 (.39) 63,658
1986 37,274 (.63) 21,969 (.37) 59,243
1987 38,624 (.62) 23,630 (.38) 62,254
1988 38,409 (.64) 22,037 (.36) 60,446
1989 33,828 (.61) 21,866 (.39) 55,694
1990 30,822 (.58) 21,890 (.42) 52,712
1991-92 25,791 (.59) 18,079 (.41) 43,870
1992-93 21,327 (.59) 14,997 (.41) 36,324
1993-94 25,063 (.62) 15,591 (.38) 40,654
1994-95 22,611 (.58) 16,181 (.42) 38,792
1995-96 21,425 (.58) 15,796 (.42) 37,221
The numbers in paranthesis represent the percentage of the total installations.

Total Number of Onsite Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems Installed
Number of systems
70,000
60,000
~i - ~ , =~ I

40,000 :T !'o'im�'
40,0100
30,00 0
20,000
10,000
0 -
O9o ace dR$b 0p R9 9p^b e 5p (P0 0

Year
| CCoastal Counties IoNon-coastal Counties

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends D-51 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section E
Managing Fresh Water Allocation

I-

MANAGING FREsH WATER ALLOCATION

Management

Florida is characterized by abundant ground and surface water resources. Indeed, the obvious predominance of
water resources may cause some to erroneously conclude that the state's water supply is largely untapped.
Contrarily, demand for water resources often exceeds supply; metropolitan areas increasingly must rely upon the
import of water resources from adjacent communities. As Florida continues to grow, expanding urban areas will
attempt to secure water resources throughout the state. Transfer of water resources between water management
districts is a legally permissible, yet, highly controversial alternative. The use of water resources, if not thoughtfully
managed, can degrade aquatic communities and their surrounding environment.

Florida has experienced dramatic population growth since the middle of this century; withdrawals of water have
concomitantly increased. During the period of growth, the state's tourism industry has flourished. The tourism
industry is dependent upon the state's attractive, healthy natural systems. The future management of water in
Florida must address a critical question: how to provide a sufficient water supply to facilitate economic growth
without compromising the integrity of the state's unique environment.

This chapter considers two issues: (1) the withdrawals of water by particular users, and (2) measures that have
been initiated to provide additional water resources. The state's lucrative agricultural industry is a primary water
user. Industry, commercial activities, and potable water supply are other users that demand large quantities of
water. Innovative conservation methods have been implemented to optimally use water; for example, Florida's
water management districts encourage the reuse of treated wastewater. Reuse of water is likely to increase as
the use of extensive tertiary wastewater treatment becomes more financially feasible. Advanced irrigation
techniques also can reduce a significant proportion of Florida's water consumption. The following lists identify: (1)
the indicators that are examined in this chapter, and (2) indicators in other chapters that relate to water
management.

Managing Fresh Water Allocation Indicators:

* Total fresh water withdrawals
* Discharge of treated domestic and industrial wastewater
* Reuse of reclaimed water
* Public supply water withdrawals
* Domestic self-supplied water withdrawals
* Per capita water supply withdrawals
* Number of potable water treatment facilities
* Commercial-industrial water withdrawals
* Thermoelectric power generation water withdrawals
* Agriculture water withdrawals

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Absolute population growth (Section A)
* Change in strategic habitat conservation areas (Section D)
* Change in existing upland habitat and conservation lands (Section D)
* Change in existing wetland habitat and conservation lands (Section D)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-1 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FRESH WATER ALLOCATION

Total Fresh Water Withdrawals

Management
Program

Water resources in Florida support the state's economy; they provide potable water to the state's growing
population and satiate the demands of agriculture and industry. In addition, water resources provide critical habitat
for Florida's diverse flora and fauna. Satisfying the demands of all water users is perhaps Florida's greatest
challenge.

This indicator includes fresh water withdrawn in coastal counties for the following uses: public supply, self-
supplied domestic, commercial-industrial self-supplied, agriculture, and thermoelectric power generation. Most of
the saline water withdrawn for commercial-industrial uses and thermoelectric power generation is not consumed
but is used as non-contact cooling water. Therefore, it is not included in these figures. Some saline water is used
for public water supply after treatment; these figures are included in the data. The change in total water withdrawn
reflects changing demands on water resources.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts, and it
is compiled and published by USGS every five years.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Data are compiled and published only for every fifth year. If an interim year has above or below normal
precipitation, the year's water use value may be skewed. Data used to calculate this information are not always
based on actual meter readings but reflect consumptive use permit files, monthly operating reports, direct
contacts, advanced modeling, and other indirect methods. For example, indvidual wells need not have a
consumption use permit or a meter. Thus, the amount of water withdrawn in these instances is merely an
approximation.

Data Analysis
Total fresh ground water withdrawals have increased since 1965. In this same time period the population in
Florida's coastal counties has increased dramatically. Ground water usage steadily increased from 1,399 million
gallons per day (mgd) in 1965 to 2,855 mgd in 1990, (a 104 percent increase). In 1995, however, fresh ground
water withdrawals decreased slightly to 2,794 mgd. The use of surface water has fluctuated during the period of
record, with the greatest use of surface water occurring in 1975 when 2,139 mgd were withdrawn. Total fresh
water withdrawals decreased from 4,866 mgd in 1990 to 4,776 mgd in 1995. This may be because of more
precise accounting measures or water conservation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Total Fresh Water Withdrawals
in Coastal Counties by Source

1965 1,399.49 1,458.17 2,857.66
1970 1,784.63 1,474.59 3,259.22
1975 1,911.98 2,139.71 4,051.69
1980 2,344.55 1,882.57 4,227.12
1985 2,550.22 1,611.74 4,161.96
1990 2,855.52 2,011.47 4,866.99
1995 2,794.33 1,972.34 4,776.67

Total Fresh Water Withdrawals in Coastal Counties
Million gallons per day

6,000 /

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
IEGround Water OSurface WaterI

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FREsH WATER AttoeRTON

Discharge of Treated Domestic

and Industrial WastewaterA

Florida is characterized by productive aquifers and abundant surface water resources. Water resources in
Florida's coastal counties provide drinking water and support agriculture, tourism, industry, and the state's varied
biotic systems. Florida's population has increased dramatically during the past few decades; the increased
population demands additional water resources. As a result, many water resources have decreased in quantity
and quality. Florida's population is expected to grow at a rate of three percent annually; most of this growth will
occur in coastal counties. Diminished water resources may be further stressed.

Identification of the location and amount of wastewater being discharged to ground and surface waters in coastal
Florida can aid in the assessment of the quantity and quality of water resources. Due to technological advances,
wastewater discharges can be viewed as a potential resource for coastal communities. To ensure that the
discharge of treated wastewater does not compromise the integrity of water bodies, water managers must
thoughtfully manage the resources. For example, in regions where the aquifer is shallow and unconfined, the
discharged water must be of a quality that does not result in contamination of ground water.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles this information. USGS
has published a report, Estimated Discharge of Treated Wastewater in Florida, 1990, which contains the data.
The publication was prepared by Richard L. Marella, who can be contacted at USGS, 227 North Bronough Street,
Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004. The Water Resources Division
also has 1995 data, however, the most recent iteration of Estimated Discharge of Treated Wastewater in Florida is
not yet available. The report will be available later this year.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. Data are made available through
a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts. The
data are compiled and published by USGS every five years.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Discharge data are provided only for every fifth year. Data on the discharge of treated wastewater effluent were
obtained from the monthly operating reports that are submitted to DEP by the treatment facilities. These data are
based on an inventory of 1,062 of the 5,096 domestic and industrial wastewater facilities that are regulated by
DEP. The treatment systems inventoried were estimated to account for more than 90 percent of the discharge of
treated wastewater during 1990.

Data Analysis
In 1985 domestic wastewater discharge in coastal areas was 968 million gallons per day (mgd), and industrial
wastewater discharge was 200 mgd. By 1990 domestic wastewater withdrawals increased to 1,123 mgd, while
industrial wastewater discharges fell to 173 mgd. In 1995, wastewater discharges were highest: domestic
wastewater discharge was 1,285 mgd, and industrial wastewater discharge was 212 mgd.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

Coastal County Treated Wastewater Discharge
Million gallons per day
1,400 1,285
1,400 1
1,123
1,200 968
1,000
800
600
400 200 173 212
200 / 1

1985 1990 1995
Year
IlDomestic mIndustrial

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FRESH WATER ALLUCATION

Reuse Of Reclaimed water

Management
prorm

Water is a limiting resource throughout a large portion of Florida. Many communities either import their drinking
water from other communities or employ expensive desalinization treatment on local water resources. As
Florida's population increases, the demand for fresh, potable water also increases. Without proactive planning
and management, this could lead to more widespread, severe, and prolonged water shortages. Almost So percent
of the twelve million residents in Florida live near the coast; further growth along the coast is expected in the
future. Near the coast, ground water supplies are vulnerable to overdraft, contamination, and saltwater intrusion.

Florida does not have large, rapidly flowing streams that can assimilate large discharges of wastewater. The
state's many streams tend to be small, slow flowing, warm water bodies. They flow into lakes or coastal waters
that are prone to excessive growth of algae and exotic aquatic plants. Florida's surface water resources are a
critical component of the state's tourism industry; to maintain and expand Florida's economy, the integrity of
surface water resources must be maintained.

Advances in the technology of wastewater treatment facilities protect Florida's surface waters. With limited
opportunities to discharge treated wastewater into surface waters, many communities are implementing programs
that seek to reuse reclaimed water. Reclaimed water has undergone, at a minimum, secondary treatment.
Florida promotes reuse of reclaimed water and water conservation as major state objectives. Reuse can aid in the
effort to meet the water requirements of Florida's growing population.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on amounts of reused treated wastewater by county can be obtained from the Annual Reuse Report
that is produced by each of the five water management districts in the state. The contacts for each of the water
management districts follow.

� Southwest Florida Water Management District: Mark Hammond at (904) 796-7211
� South Florida Water Management District: Mark Eisner at (407) 686-8800
� Suwannee River Water Management District: Bill Kirk at (904) 362-1 001
* St. Johns River Water Management District: Donald Brandes at (904) 329-4126
� Northwest Florida Water Management District: Guy Gowen at (904) 539-5999

Additional information on statewide wastewater reuse is available in the 1990 and 1992 Reuse Inventory reports.
These reports contain data broken down by facility, reuse category, and other parameters. Data are available for
each facility, and the facilities are grouped by county; however, data are not totaled for each county. These
reports may be obtained from David York, Domestic Waste Section, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), Twin Towers, 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS-3540, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, or at (850)
488-4524.

ACQUISITION
Data can be obtained at no cost.

COLLECTION
The water management districts collect data on the amount of reused treated wastewater from each facility by
county within their respective districts. This information was initiallly collected for the period from October 1993 to
September 1994. The water management districts are now required to collect this information annually. DEP
collects data on the number and type of known reuse facilities. This information is collected statewide and
disaggregated by individual facility. Appendix B of the Reuse Inventory reports shows the existing flow of reuse
water by facility. To date, this inventory was conducted in 1990 and 1992. Beginning this year, DEP intends to
conduct the inventory on an annual basis.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The water management districts' flow data are collected by polling facility owners/operators, and DEP's Reuse
Inventory data are derived from questionnaires mailed to reuse facility owners and/or operators. Therefore, the
data are subject to the inherent limitations of all survey methods of data collection. In addition, only facilities with
capacities of at least 0.1 million gallons per day (mgd) are included in the summary data. Furthermore, prior to
1994, these data were not collected annually.

Data Analysis
The coastal counties in the South Florida Water Management District (Broward, Collier, Dade, Lee, Martin,
Monroe, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie) had the largest amount of water reuse. Total plant flow was about 756 mgd
in 1996. The coastal counties in the Southwest Florida Water Management District (Charlotte, Citrus, Hernando,
Hillsborough, Levy, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota) had the second largest amount of water reuse; total
plant flow was approximately 309 mgd in 1996. The coastal counties in the St. Johns River Water Management
District (Brevard, Duval, Flagler, Indian River, Nassau, St. Johns, and Volusia) had the third highest water reuse
with a total plant flow of 159 mgd. The coastal counties in the Northwest Florida Water Management District (Bay,
Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Jefferson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, and Walton) had the fourth highest water
reuse; total plant flow was nearly 104 mgd in 1996. In 1996, the coastal counties in the Suwannee River Water
Management District (Dixie, Levy, and Taylor) had the lowest amount of water reuse with a total plant flow of about
11 mgd.

Reuse of Wastewater by Water Management District, 1994-1996

South Florida 669.78 772.52 755.79
Southwest Florida 260.36 314.75 309.15
St. Johns River 159.17 286.13 281.49
Northwest Florida 52.40 71.09 104.73
Suwannee River 1.68 10.63 10.53

Reuse of Wastewater by Water Management District, 1994-1996

1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
O '
1994 1995 1996
Year
r-South Florida IESouthwest Florida FISt. Johns River
*INorthwest Florida :ESuwannee River

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FREsH WATER ALLOCATION

Public Supply Water Withdrawals

Manemn

Water resources in Florida's coastal counties provide potable water to the state's population, and support the
state's agriculture, industry, and biotic systems. Demand for water has increased substantially over the past few
decades; Florida's water resources have often diminished in quality and quality as a result of efforts to provide an
adequate supply. Florida's population is expected to grow at a rate of three percent annually, and most of the
growth will likely be concentrated in coastal areas. This anticipated growth underlies the primary challenge of
water management in the future: to supply water for economic development and preserve the integrity of Florida's
environment.

Public supply refers to water supplied by a public or private water system that is distributed for:
domestic/residential purposes, commercial-industrial uses, firefighting, and other uses. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) considers a water system a public supplier if it serves more than 25 people or has
15 year-round service connections. For the purposes of data collection, however, the United States Geological
Survey's (UISGS) public supply withdrawal data reflect systems that serve 400 or more people or withdraw at least
1 0,000 gallons per day.

The increase in water withdrawals for public supply purposes is a direct indicator of increasing demand on water
resources. If withdrawals exceed water recharge, the potential for saltwater intrusion and low flows in surface
water bodies increases. Low flows in surface water bodies may have significant impacts on surrounding
communities. For example, competition for dissolved oxygen and habitat will increase as the water level drops.
Depending on the depth and rate of flow in a waterbody, the water temperature may change; this could impair the
ability of water to hold dissolved oxygen. As a result, the aquatic community may lose species intolerant of
environmental changes. Species that thrive in the altered ecosystem may displace intolerant species.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of UISGS compiles this information. Every five years USGS publishes a report,
Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, which contains these data. The report is prepared in cooperation
with DEP and Florida's water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard L. Marella, who can
be contacted at USGS, 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500,
extension 3004.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The data are collected statewide throughout the year by DEP and the water management districts; UISGS
compiles and publishes the information every five years. Some of the public supply water use values have been
adjusted or modified from previously published data. Most of the modifications were a result of either eliminating
double counting of water withdrawals or adding utilities that were missed in the original inventory.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
USGS collects data annually for public supply water withdrawals; however, the data are published only every fifth
year. Anomalies during interim years may be apparent. If a given year has above or below normal precipitation,
the year's water use value may be skewed. Another limitation is that data do not reflect the import and export of
water. Many coastal counties import water from neither adjacent coastal counties or inland wellfields.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Public supply fresh water withdrawals in 1965 totaled approximately 561 million gallons per day (mgd). Public
supply fresh water withdrawals have steadily increased since 1965; withdrawals peaked in 1995 at nearly 1,607
mgd.

Public Supply Fresh Withdrawals in Coastal Counties

1965 495.79 64.80 560.59
1970 582.86 225.88 808.74
1975 766.99 155.15 922.14
1980 992.11 173.77 1,165.88
1985 1,159.24 189.08 1,348.32
1990 1,274.74 213.76 1,488.50
1995 1,410.52 196.09 1,606.61

Public Supply Fresh Water Withdrawals in Coastal Counties
Million gallons per day

2,000

1,500 ''......

1,000

500

O ~ ~~I l l I I I
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year
JIGround Water -aSurface Waterl

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FRESH WATER ALLOCATION

Domestic Self-Supplied Water Withdrawals '

Program

Florida's coastal counties depend on their water resources for drinking water, agriculture, industry, and to support
the state's diverse ecological communities. Self-supplied domestic water use is water provided by individual
domestic wells or by small utility systems serving less than 400 people. Essentially all water withdrawn for self-
supplied domestic use is from ground water, primarily because this source more likely provides high quality water.
Excessive withdrawals have the potential to adversely affect the quality and quantity of ground water.

The demand for large quantities of high quality water increases as population grows. A decrease in water
consumption may reflect efficient use of resources. By evaluating trends in domestic self-supplied water
withdrawals, water resource managers will be better able to ascertain which areas are under the greatest
pressure. In addition, water use trends can provide resource managers and policy makers information needed to
prioritize funding for capital improvements and public education programs.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles this information. Every
five years USGS publishes a report, Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, which contains these data.
The report is prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Florida's
water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard L. Marella, who can be contacted at USGS,
227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts, and it
is compiled for the above-mentioned publication every five years by USGS.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data are compiled on a statewide basis every five years. Data on quantities of water withdrawn are displayed
only for every fifth year; anomalies may exist for a given year. If a particular year has above or below normal
precipitation, the water use value may be skewed for that year. A major limitation of the data provided is that
individual self-supplied domestic wells are not metered and need not obtain a consumptive use permit.
Withdrawal figures are estimates.

Data Analysis
Between 1965 and 1975, self-supplied domestic fresh water use followed a generally increasing trend. This may
be attributable to migration into rural areas not served by public utilities. Between 1975 and 1980 withdrawals
decreased by over 13 percent; total withdrawal again followed an increasing trend during the period between 1980
and 1995.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-10 Florida Coastal Management Program

Self-Supplied Domestic Fresh Water Withdrawals
in Coastal Counties

1965 78.11 0.00 78.11
1970 147.65 0.00 147.65
1975 156.20 1.20 157.40
1980 136.15 0.00 136.15
1985 142.04 0.00 142.04
1990 165.63 1.50 167.13
1995 172.92 0.00 172.92

Self-Supplied Domestic Fresh Water Withdrawals
in Coastal Counties
Million gallons per day

200 /

150

100

0 ' i I l-l I I
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
E ITotal Water Withdrawals

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-11 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAG1NG FRESH WATER AIOCA1TUN

Per Capita Water Supply Withdrawals

Mana.genent

This indicator considers the amount of water that is used per capita per day (in gallons per day (gpd)). The
indicator summarizes the total withdrawals for public supply and domestic self-supplied uses. Populations in
coastal counties are used to determine the per capita water supply withdrawals over time. Changes in per capita
withdrawals over time may delineate the degree to which conservation measures have been incorporated in
Florida's coastal counties.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles information regarding
fresh water withdrawals per day. Every five years USGS publishes a report, Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends
in Florida, which contains the data. The report is prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and Florida's water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard
L. Marella; he can be contacted at USGS, 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or
at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004. Information regarding Florida's population is available in the Florida
Stateistical Abstract, which is produced annually by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of
Business Administration, University of Florida, 221 Matherly Hall, P.O. Box 117145, Gainesville, Florida 32611, or
at (352) 392-0171. The document is available at most libraries. It may be purchased from the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research.

ACQUISITION
The water withdrawals data can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS; data are made
available through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP. Population data are available from the
Bureau of Business Research. The Florida StatisticalAbstract may be purchased for $39.95.

COLLECTION
The water wifhdrawals data are collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management
districts. Water withdrawals data are compiled and published by USGS every five years. Population data are
based on decennial U.S. Census figures.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data display general per capita water use for all coastal counties. Individual coastal counties may be
characterized by either higher or lower per capita water use. Withdrawals data are compiled and published only
for every fifth year. If an interim year has above or below normal precipitation, the year's water use value may be
skewed. Data used to calculate this information are not always based on actual meter readings but reflect
consumptive use permit files, monthly operating reports, direct contacts, advanced modeling, and other indirect
methods. Although census data are the most precise information regarding population, the data are imperfect.
The collection methodologies and analysis of the population figures may lead to some double counting,
undercounting, or misrepresentation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Per capita water withdrawals have decreased from 177 gpd in 1970 to 164 gpd in 1990. This is likely due to the
incorporation of conservation measures and advances in technology.

Per Capital Water Supply Withdrawals

1970 177.49
1980 169.87
1990 164.47

Per Capita Water Supply Withdrawals
Million gallons per day

200 177.49
164.47

150 -

100 --

0 "' I I-
1970 1980 1990
Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FRESH WATER ALLOCATION

Number of Potable Water Treatment Facilities

oManag ment

The majority of Florida's residents reside in coastal counties. Fresh water resources support Florida's population,
agriculture, industry, and biotic systems. The quality of water resources in Florida varies. For example, ground
water resources in north Florida are generally higher quality than ground water resources in south Florida. South
Florida ground water resources tend to be higher in pH and organics. These differences in water quality are, for
the most part, naturally occurring; however, human activities such as excessive aquifer withdrawals can further
reduce water quality.

All fresh water resources that are used for potable water supply require some degree of treatment (i.e.,
disinfection). The amount of treatment required depends on the ambient quality of the resource. Reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, nanofiltration, and electrodialysis are treatment processes that are used to improve the
quality of water resources. Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are membrane processes; these treatment
technologies reduce the amount of organics in water. Organics contribute to water taste and are a precursor of
trihalomethane, which is a carcinogen. Reverse osmosis and electrodialysis are used to decrease salinity;
electrodialysis can also decrease the amount of iron in water. Ion exchange is a chemical treatment process that
reduces the hardness of water.

An increase in the number of potable water treatment facilities may be caused by a variety of factors. Possible
causes include increased water quality standards and increased water treatment technology (and decreased
costs). Treatment of water resources is also used to supplement groundwater withdrawals in locations where
demand exceeds aquifer productivity. Population growth generates the demand for additional treatment facilities.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Data were obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's drinking water database. For
information regarding specific treatment facilities, individuals should contact the local water program and/or water
supplier in the region of interest.

ACQUISITION
Interested individuals should contact either the local water program and/or water supplier in the region of interest.
Local drinking water programs permit particular treatment methods and inspect the facilities.

COLLECTION
These data are collected in the state throughout the year.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 2
Pressure/State/Response: Response
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
This indicator delineates the number of potable water treatment facilities in coastal counties of Florida. However, it
does not explain the ambient quality of water prior to treatment. Individuals interested in obtaining this information
should contact the local drinking water programs in particular regions of interest.

Data Analysis
Currently, there are 117 reverse osmosis facilities, 396 ion exchange facilities, 13 nanofiltration facilities, and 1
electrodialysis facility in coastal counties.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FREsH WATER ALLOCATION

Oonmmercial-lndustrial Water Withdrawals

ogriam

Florida's coastal counties depend on their water resources for drinking water, agriculture, industry, and to support
the state's varied environments. Burgeoning population growth in Florida's coastal communities has occurred
during the past two decades. Commercial and industrial activities have increased concurrently with the population.
To accommodate the growth, Florida's water resources have been siphoned; in some cases, water resources
have decreased in quantity and quality. The state is expected to grow at a rate of three percent annually, with
most of the growth concentrated in coastal areas. Water resources that have been diminished and degraded
must be managed to guard against further deterioration.

Increases in water withdrawals for commercial-industrial purposes are a direct indicator of increasing demand on
water resources. If withdrawals exceed water recharge, the potential for saltwater intrusion and low flows in
surface water bodies increases. Low flows in surface water bodies may have significant impacts on riparian and
aquatic communities. Depending on the depth and rate of flow in a waterbody, the water temperature may
change, affecting the ability of water to hold dissolved oxygen. As a result, the aquatic community may lose
species that are intolerant of environmental changes. Opportunistic species that can readily adapt to
environmental changes may displace other species.

Commercial-industrial water withdrawals include surface and ground waters used by the military, government,
schools, prisons, hospitals, recreational entities, manufacturers, mining facilities, and processing facilities. For the
purposes of this indicator, information on all these users is included. Decreases in total water withdrawal may
reflect the ability to more efficiently conserve and use limited resources. It may also indicate the availability of
water resources for other uses (e.g., in-stream flows).

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles this information. Every
five years USGS publishes a report, Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, which contains the data. The
report is prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the state's
water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard L. Marella, who can be contacted at USGS,
227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts, and it
is compiled for the above-mentioned publication every five years by USGS.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Data on quantities of water withdrawn are only displayed for every fifth year; anomalies may exist for any interim
years. For example, if a given year has above or below normal precipitation, the water use value may be skewed
for that year.

Data Analysis
From 1965 to 1970, commercial-industrial self-supplied water withdrawals increased, and then declined until 1985.
Withdrawals again increased between 1985 and 1990. In 1990 the commercial-industrial self-supplied withdrawal

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

of water for the entire state was 770 million gallons per day (mgd), or about 11 percent of the fresh water used
daily. The commercial-industrial self-supplied withdrawal of water in coastal counties was 425 mgd. The increase
in commercial-industrial self-supplied water withdrawals from 1985 to 1990 may be attributable to expansion of
existing facilities or the opening of new facilities. Total self-supplied commercial-industrial fresh water withdrawals
in coastal counties fell from 425 mgd in 1990 to 388 mgd in 1995. Decreases in commercial-industrial self-
supplied water withdrawals could be attributed to several factors. First, many commercial and industrial facilities
once had their own private wells, but have switched over to public supply systems. Second, the larger commercial
and industrial facilities are using water more efficiently and have adopted better conservation measures. Third,
there has been a general change in Florida's economy from the industrial-commercial sector and toward the
service sector.

Self-Supplied Commercial-lndustrial Fresh Water
Withdrawals in Coastal Counties by Source

1965 330.8 105.9 436.7
1970 350.5 125.7 476.2
1975 325.9 130.4 456.3
1980 301.0 61.3 362.3
1985 291.4 53.9 345.3
1990 297.0 128.3 425.3
1995 265.8 122.7 388.5

Self-Supplied Commercial-Industrial Fresh Water
Withdrawals in Coastal Counties

Million gallons per day

500

400

300

200

100

0
0O I I I I II
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year
IlGround Water ESurface Water]

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-16 Florida Coastal Management Program

|- 0 am' f 0 : )f: MANAGING FRESH WATER ALLOCATION

Thermoelectric Power Generation

Water Withdrawals

Thermoelectric power generation uses water for cooling and other plant operation and maintenance requirements.
Water is used in the once-through cooling process, and also is used to augment existing cooling ponds. Water
that is used at these facilities is supplied by surface water resources or a public-supply water system.
The demand for electricity increases concomitantly with population growth. This could lead to increased
withdrawals of water for thermoelectric power generation. Water supplies used for power generation typically are
sent through the plant and then returned back to the source waters. The water returned is at a higher temperature
than the source waters; this can alter the composition of species within the aquatic system. As more water is used
for cooling purposes, the area impacted by returned water may increase. The effects of water returned to source
waters should be examined carefully in order to identify and implement optimal mitigation methods.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles this information. Every
five years USGS publishes a report, Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, which contains these data.
The report is prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Florida's
water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard L. Marella; he can be contacted at USGS,
227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004.

ACQUISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts, and it
is compiled and published by USGS every five years.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Withdrawals data are provided only for every fifth year. Anomalies may occur during interim years. If a given year
has above or below normal precipitation, the year's water use value may be skewed. Withdrawal estimates
represent only the amount of water withdrawn, not the amount of water consumed that is no longer available to the
environment.

Data Analysis
In 1995, thermoelectric power generators withdrew 519 million gallons of fresh water per day (mgd).
Approximately 266 mgd were in coastal counties. This figure includes surface and ground waters used for non-
contract cooling power generators. Between 1965 and 1985 thermoelectric power generator water withdrawals
declined by 37 percent. This trend may be linked to increased efficiency and reuse of cooling waters. By reducing
the amount of water withdrawn for thermoelectric power generation processes, associated adverse environmental
impacts also decrease.
Fresh water withdrawals for thermodynamic use from ground water increased from less than 6 mgd in 1965 to
nearly 14 mgd in 1995. These withdrawals accounted for less than 0.5 percent of the total amount of ground
water used in 1995. Fresh water withdrawals from surface waters decreased significantly between 1975 and
1995. This reduction in water use was attributed to technological innovation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

Thermoelectric Power Generation Water
Withdrawals in Coastal Counties

1965 5.75 610.00 615.75
1970 2.59 611.00 613.59
1975 11.57 604.40 615.97
1980 12.80 533.60 546.40
1985 8.33 379.66 387.99
1990 13.84 412.11 425.95
1995 13.68 252.42 266.10

Thermoelectric Power Generation Water
Withdrawals in Coastal Counties
Million gallons per day

700 ..
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year
EITotal Thermoelectric Water Withdrawals

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-18 Florida Coastal Management Program

MANAGING FREsH WATER AILOCATION

Agriculture Water Withdrawals

Managmn

Water resources in Florida provide drinking water and support agriculture, industry, and the state's unique
ecological systems. Agricultural water withdrawals comprise the largest proportion of total water withdrawals.
Advances in irrigation techniques can diminish the amount of water required to support Florida's lucrative
agricultural industry.

Best management practices can reduce the deleterious effects often associated with agricultural runoff.
Agricultural water uses include the irrigation of grasses, ornamentals, and commercial crops. Non-irrigation uses
include providing drinking water for livestock and fish farming.

Increases in water withdrawals for agricultural purposes are a direct indicator of increasing demand on water
resources. If withdrawals exceed water recharge, the potential for saltwater intrusion and reduced flows in surface
water bodies increases. Low flows in surface water bodies may have significant impacts on riparian species, and
aquatic communities may lose species intolerant of environmental changes. Opportunistic species that can readily
adapt to environmental changes may displace intolerant species.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Water Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) compiles this information. Every
five years USGS publishes a report entitled Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida which contains these
data. The report is prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
Florida's water management districts. The publication is prepared by Richard L. Marella, who can be contacted at
USGS, 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, or at (850) 942-9500, extension 3004.

ACQU ISITION
This information can be obtained from the Water Resources Division of USGS. The data are made available
through a cooperative agreement between USGS and DEP.

COLLECTION
The information is collected statewide throughout the year by both DEP and the water management districts, and it
is compiled by USGS for the above-mentioned publication every five years.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Data are compiled on a statewide basis approximately every five years. Anomalies may exist for during interim
years. For example, if a given year has above or below normal precipitation, the year's water use value may be
skewed. Data for this indicator are calculated by multiplying the number of acres irrigated by the quantity of
irrigation water required to optimally grow each crop; values are then adjusted by computer modeling. Though
these figures are estimates, they are believed to be quite accurate. For earlier years the figures are somewhat
less accurate, primarily because the methods of data collection and modeling have improved over the years.
Another limitation is that the data do not indicate the amount of water saved due to conservation efforts and
technological advance. Finally, not all water management districts require irrigators to meter and record their
water use. Because data collection is not required by all water management districts, the data do not reflect all
agricultural withdrawals.

Data Analysis
Total agricultural water supply withdrawals more than doubled between 1965 and 1990, increasing from over
1,166 million gallons per day (mgd) to nearly 2,405 mgd. During this period, ground water withdrawals increased

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-19 Florida Coastal Management Program

133 percent and surface water withdrawals increased nearly 87 percent. In 1995, however, the total agricultural
water supply withdrawals decreased to 1,815 mgd; this total is lower than 1975 total withdrawals. The most
dramatic change observed between any two consecutive periods was for surface water withdrawals between 1970
and 1975; during this period, withdrawals increased 104 percent.

Agricultural Fresh Water Withdrawals
by Coastal Counties

1965 489.22 677.47 1,166.69
1970 701.75 611.88 1,313.63
1975 651.35 1,248.55 1,899.90
1980 902.18 1,113.93 2,016.11
1985 941.37 989.73 1,931.10
1990 1,140.54 1,264.41 2,404.95
1995 765.56 1,015.45 1,815.01

Agricultural Fresh Water Withdrawals
by Coastal Counties
Millon gallons per day

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year
IElGround Water IMSurface Water|

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends E-20 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section FI
Sustaining the Human Uses of the Coast

Sustaining Human Uses of the Coast

Management

Florida's coast is one of its most valued resources and visitors and residents make enormous investments each
year in activities oriented toward it. These activities also create a great deal of pressure on its fragile ecosystems
and other resources. Commercial and recreational fishing, boating, beach visits, and other coastal-dependent
activities all add up to take their toll. Should Florida's coast deteriorate, its recreational and commercial uses
would be compromised and Florida's long-term health and productivity will be adversely impacted. At the same
time, access to these resources must be balanced with their preservation in a manner that will provide enjoyment
and productivity for future generations.

With over 78 percent of Florida residents living in the 35 coastal counties, it is evident that the quality of life and
economic opportunities offered by the coast are of great importance. The demands on the coast for recreational
activities and economic uses require close monitoring of the ability of the coast to support these activities.

The indicators in this section address the importance of safeguarding the attributes which are most valued for
coastal activities. The primary concerns are maintenance of recreational value and sustaining economic use. The
maintenance of recreational values is important for activities such as boating, diving, fishing, swimming, and
bathing. Sustainable economic use focuses on maintaining properties important for commercial use such as
tourism, commercial ports, transport of goods, commercial fishing, and cruise boat sailings. The following list
identifies the indicators that are examined in this section.

Sustaining Human Uses of the Coast Indicators:

* Coastal recreation activity by residents
* Coastal recreation activity by tourists
* Recreational saltwater fishing trips
* Registered recreational vessels
* Number of marina boat slips
* Number of boat launches
* Public access areas along sandy beaches
* Revenue generated by the tourist development tax
* Cargo handled at seaports
* Number of cruise boat passengers
* Registered commercial vessels
* Value of foreign trade through seaports
* Saltwater fish landings
* Catch per angler day on headboats
* Value of commercial marine fisheries landings

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Absolute population growth (Section A)
* Acreage of shellfishing waters by classification (Section D)
* Management status of coastal habitats (Section G)
* Beach visits by residents (Section 1)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-I Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

0 ~Coastal Recreation Activity by Residents

e~~~~~~~~fl jl i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mangent

An increase in leisure time and a rise in disposable income have allowed more Americans to spend time at the shore.
Florida's residents place a high value on coastal recreation. Among the numerous activities enjoyed along the coast
are boating, fishing, swimming, walking, beachcombing, sunbathing, sightseeing, and surfing (Beatley et al., 1994).

Coastal recreation activity by residents is one indication of the value residents place on the recreational aspects of the
coast. This indicator also reflects the pressures exerted on the coastal resources due to human use. These measures
allow the state to determine how much money should be invested in the state's coastal areas for improvement.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
A survey of coastal recreation activity is presented in the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and its
predecessor documents which have been published in 1965, 1971, 1976, 1987, 1981, 1989, and 1994. Copies of these
reports are available from Lew Scruggs or Lyle Fowler at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Recreation and Parks, Office of Park Planning, MS 525, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-3000, or at (850) 488-2300.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy at cost of duplication. Availability of electronic format data is limited and should be
discussed with staff.

COLLECTION
Data is collected by survey prior to development of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, which should be
issued on a five-year schedule in the future. Survey methods have varied considerably and are discussed further
below.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
As is evident from the data presented below, the survey methods and structure have changed considerably over time.
To further complicate the situation, the survey methods and structure are not documented in every publication and what
documentation is presented is often inadequate for determining the comparability of the data points. For instance, in
1970 the survey is described as follows:

In order to accurately ascertain the magnitude of these two sources of demand in Florida, during 1970
randomly selected interviews of over 3,000 residents (adults and children) and tourists (automobile
and plane) were conducted in relation to all aspects of outdoor recreation participation. In addition,
residents were asked for their estimates of future (one year) recreation participation. From these
interviews, a resident and a tourist per capita participation rate was established, which, when coupled
with population and tourist projections to 1975 and 2000, produced reasonably accurate demand
projections for those years. (DNR, 1971)

In 1992-93, 3,169 residents were contacted by telephone and asked abut the number of times they participated in 26
selected outdoor recreation activities during the previous two months, and in which county the activity had occurred.
(DNR, 1994) This survey method probably produces reliable data (at least for the purposes of trend evaluation) since it
is examined to ensure that respondents accurately reflect the age, sex, race and ethnic composition of each region's
actual population. In comparison, the tourist survey may not reflect the actual tourist population or properly adjust for
survey biases. This methodology was also used in the 1985-86 survey of 6,937 residents. (DNR, 1987) This survey
data was evidently reused for the 1987 estimate, but adjusted for a different estimated population. (DNR, 1989)
Previous surveys used mail-back surveys (DNR, 1981) and one-month surveys of annual activities (DNR, 1976) which
are considerably less reliable due to problems with response rates and recall by interviewees.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Furthermore, as demonstrated below, the categories of outdoor recreation varied from year to year until being
standardized in the 1978-79 survey. Given the enormous variation in "RV/Trailer Camping" and other categories, it is
likely that changes in survey wording and methods affected the results significantly.

Further information about the surveys was not available from the Office of Park Planning because the surveys are used
to generate recreation facility demand estimates and have not been maintained for other uses. Although the data
provide poor trend data, they may be useful for some purposes. The Office of Park Planning considers the 1978-79
survey and more recent surveys to be comparable in methods and results and thus those are presented as trend data.
The user is cautioned to recognize that changes illustrated by these data may in fact reflect changes in methodology
rather than actual trends.

Data Analysis
Considering the limitations in the data presented above, evaluation of trends cannot be considered prior to the 1978-79
survey. In general, the data suggest an increase in coastal recreation user-occasions by residents. A user-occasion
occurs each time an individual participates in a single outdoor recreational activity.

Among the various coastal recreation activities, beach activities are consistently recorded as the most popular type of
resident activity through all surveys. Boat fishing is apparently more popular than shore fishing. Other boating activities
are not as popular as fishing. Natural and cultural appreciation is somewhat more popular than fishing, with visits to
historical and architectural sites, nature study, and hiking being of roughly equal importance. Natural and cultural
appreciation activities may be increasing in popularity, although it should be noted that an unknown percentage of these
activities are non-coastal in nature since these data cannot be separated by coastal and non-coastal activities.
Camping figures are difficult to interpret (considering that a "user-occasion" may or may not represent several days of
camping), but evidently tent camping may be less popular than RV/trailer camping.

Comparing tourists to residents, it is apparent that greater use of coastal recreation activities is made by tourists than by
residents, although the earliest surveys suggest that prior to 1 978 residents made greater use of coastal recreation than
tourists. Furthermore, when comparing types of coastal activities, it is evident that while beach activities are most
important to tourists, for residents beach activities are roughly equal to other coastal recreation activities. Residents
make greater use of more developed coastal activities such as hiking, camping (particularly tent camping), and boating
activities which often require public facilities.

Coastal Recreation Activity by Residents
Thousand resident user-occasions

Saltwater Recreation
Beach Activities 30,512 40,634 38,001 28,127 146,206 102,499
Swimming 64,234 63,600
Sailing 7,350
Surfing 5,755 9,773
Fishing 55,685 40,531 32,500
Boat 8,162 12,697 11,926 5,918
Non-Boat 4,652 6,855 6,390 4,988
Boat Ramp Use' 5,237 7,202 6,780 3,690 16,895 20,234
Partially Coastal Recreation
Nature Study 6,859 4,900 4,559 3,513 31,207 28,532 5,100
Hiking 8,887 5,612 5,263 3,482 15,542 22,229 3,000
Visiting Arch/I-ist Sites 8,943 3,228 3,042 2,860 6,037 6,191 5,400
Camping2 5,104 4,200
RV/Trailer 8,651 1,485 1,384 1,905 4,477
Tent3 2,086 1,612 1,508 1,085 5,206 269
Boating 27,300
Total 83,989 84,225 78,853 55,568 294,360 299,596 141,100

References
Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna K. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Island Press.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

coastal Recreation Activift bv Tourists

Mana~gmenit

An increase in leisure time and a rise in disposable income have allowed more Americans to spend time at the
shore. Each year, thousands of tourists come to Florida to vacation. Most of these tourists will visit the beach to
take advantage of coastal recreational activities. Among the numerous activities enjoyed along the coast are
boating, fishing, swimming, walking, beachcombing, sunbathing, sightseeing, and surfing (Beatley et al., 1994).

Coastal recreation activity by tourists indicates the value that tourists place on the recreational aspects of the
coast. This indicator also reflects the pressures exerted on the coastal resources due to human use. These
measures allow the state to determine how much money should be invested in the state's coastal areas for
improvement and for the purpose of attracting visitors.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
A survey of coastal recreation activity is presented in the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and its
predecessor documents which have been published in 1965, 1971, 1976, 1987, 1981, 1989, and 1994. Copies of
these reports are available from Lew Scruggs or Lyle Fowler at the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Office of Park Planning, MS 525, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-2300.

ACQU ISITION
The data are available in hard copy at cost of duplication. Availability of electronic format data is limited and
should be discussed with staff.

COLLECTION
Data are collected by survey prior to development of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, which
should be issued on a five-year schedule in the future. Survey methods have varied considerably and are
discussed further below.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
As is evident from the data presented below, the survey methods and structure have changed considerably over
time. To further complicate the situation, the survey methods and structure are not documented in every
publication and what documentation is presented is often inadequate for determining the comparability of the data
points. For instance, in 1970 the survey is described as follows:

In order to accurately ascertain the magnitude of these two sources of demand in Florida, during
1970 randomly selected interviews of over 3,000 residents (adults and children) and tourists
(automobile and plane) were conducted in relation to all aspects of outdoor recreation
participation. In addition, residents were asked for their estimates of future (one year) recreation
participation. From these interviews, a resident and a tourist per capita participation rate was
established, which, when coupled with population and tourist projections to 1975 and 2000,
produced reasonably accurate demand projections for those years. (DNR, 1971)

The tourist survey of 1974-75 isolated 500 tourists each in August and February. (DNR, 1976) The survey
coverage improved in 1978-79, including 6,000 tourists intercepted in six bi-monthly waves. These data were
evidently adjusted for estimated tourist visitation rates by counties. (DNR, 1981) In 1985-86, 9,020 tourists were
interviewed over a 12-month period at airports and highway exit points. This survey data was evidently reused for
the 1987 estimate, but adjusted for different estimated tourist visitation rates. (DNR, 1987; DNR, 1989) In 1992-

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

93, 2,500 tourists were interviewed over a 12-month period at airports and highway exit points (somewhat different
sites than in previous surveys) and was adjusted for estimated tourist visitation rates. (DNR, 1994) Thus, many
important factors varied from survey to survey and thus make it difficult to compare the figures from one year to
the next.

Furthermore, as demonstrated below, the categories of outdoor recreation varied from year to year until being
standardized in the 1978-79 survey. Given the enormous variation in "RV/Trailer Camping" and other categories,
it is likely that changes in survey wording and methods affected the results significantly.

Further information about the surveys was not available from the Office of Park Planning because the surveys are
used to generate recreation facility demand estimates and have not been maintained for other uses. Although the
data provide poor trend data, they may be useful for some purposes. The Office of Park Planning considers the
1978-79 survey and more recent surveys to be comparable in methods and results and thus those are presented
as trend data. The user is cautioned to recognize that changes illustrated by these data may in fact reflect
changes in methodology rather than actual trends.

Data Analysis
Considering the limitations in the data presented above, evaluation of trends cannot be considered prior to the
1978-79 survey. In general, the data suggest a decline in coastal recreation user-occasions by tourists. A user-
occasion occurs each time an individual participates in a single outdoor recreational activity.

Among the various coastal recreation activities, beach activities are consistently recorded as the most popular type
of tourist activity through all surveys. Fishing is apparently of roughly equal popularity from shore or boat. Other
boating activities are not as popular as fishing. Natural and cultural appreciation is probably equally as popular as
fishing, with visits to historical and architectural sites being roughly equal in number to nature study and hiking.
Camping figures are difficult to interpret (considering that a "user-occasion" may or may not represent several
days of camping), but evidently tent camping is considerably less popular than RV/trailer camping.

Comparing tourists to residents, it is apparent that greater use of coastal recreation activities is made by tourists
than by residents, although the earliest surveys suggest that prior to 1978 residents made greater use of coastal
recreation than tourists. Furthermore, when comparing types of coastal activities, it is evident that while beach
activities are most important to tourists, for residents beach activities are roughly equal to other coastal recreation
activities. Residents make greater use of more developed coastal activities such as hiking, camping (particularly
tent camping), and boating activities which often require public facilities.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

Coastal Recreation Activity by Tourists
Thousand tourist user-occasions

Saltwater Recreation
Beach Activities 74,616 78,048 93,931 87,214 114,320 92,091
Swimming 61,705 64,400
Sailing 3,789
Surfing 3,590 3,085
Fishing 18,680 27,924 11,600
Boat 19,877 5,144 5,991 4,983
Non-Boat 4,405 3,973 4,848 8,049
Boat Ramp Use' 1,610 1,903 2,216 2,040 1,892 8,416

Partially Coastal Recreation
Nature Study 2,215 2,984 3,543 7,650 7,517 5,447 5,100
Hiking 3,668 2,730 3,644 8,561 7,790 12,137
Visiting Arch/Hist Sites 5,379 5,525 6,715 11,875 13,151 14,522 5,500
Camping2 25,568 300
RV/Trailer 5,659 8,619 10,170 38,549 15,272
Tent3 825 1,546 1,927 2,795 8,756 1,346
Boating 5,500

Total 118,254 110,472 132,985 171,716 194,757 252,241 92,400
'in 1970, category named "saltwater boating."
2In 1970, category named "designated site camping."
3In 1970, category named "primitive site camping."

References
Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna K. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management.
Island Press.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

0 ~~~ Recreational Saltwater Fishing Trips

4&flrfg a

Florida has an abundance of both fresh and salt waterbodies for recreational or sport fishing. The availability of
water and its virtually unlimited access from any point within the state allow almost anyone who wants to fish the
opportunity to do so. Those who engage in fishing use a variety of methods. Recreational fishing includes
conventional methods such as rod and reel casting and highly specialized forms such as cast-netting,
spearfishing, floundering, crabbing, and gathering oysters and other shellfish.

Sport fishing has significant impacts on the state's economy through the creation of other industries to support
sport fishing. Some of the industries created include fish camps, individual boat rentals and related services,
luxurious charter boats, and piers (some of which charge for admission). Additionally, local tackle shops and other
businesses generate substantial revenue by selling fishing equipment.

A saltwater fishing license is required for certain types of fishing, such as individuals fishing in a private boat.
However, the compliance rate is low. According to a Florida Sea Grant study, an estimated 860,000 resident
anglers should have purchased saltwater licenses in 1991 -92 (Milon & Thunberg, 1993). However, only 540,000
licenses (63 percent) were sold. Likewise, an estimated I million tourists should have purchased licenses (Bell,
1993) but only 270,000 licenses (27 percent) were sold. Furthermore, the Florida Sea Grant study estimated 2.3
million total resident anglers (Milon & Thunberg, 1993). Thus, the 540,000 licenses sold actually represents only
23 percent of total Florida saltwater anglers (many of whom are not legally obligated to purchase a license, e.g. for
beach fishing).

Data on the number of marine recreational fishing trips were not collected in a systematic manner on a continuing
basis until 1979. The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) actually includes two independent,
but complementary, surveys: a telephone survey of households in coastal counties and an intercept (i.e.,
interview) survey of anglers at fishing access sites. The telephone survey is primarily used to collect reliable data
on recreational fishing effort. However, information on the actual catch such as species identity, number and size
of fish caught can not be reliably collected by telephone. These data are obtained from anglers intercepted by
trained interviewers stationed at fishing access sites. Data from the two surveys are combined to produce
estimates of fishing effort, catch, and participation.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) is available from the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12340, Silver Spring, MD,
20910, or via internet at hftp:/lremora.ssp.nmfs.gov/mrtss/index.html. Headboat data are available from
Robert Dixon, Research Fisheries Biologist, Beaufort Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, 101 Pivers
Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516-9722, or at (919) 728-8719.

Information on recreational fishing licenses may be obtained from Virginia Vail, Chief, Office of Fisheries
Management, Division of Marine Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 3900
Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-240, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 922-4340.

ACQU IS ITION
The data are available via internet at no cost.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

COLLECTION
The MRFSS is updated annually and available about half a year later. Headboat data are available on a similar
schedule.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 2
Pressure/State/Response: Pressure
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Annual saltwater recreational fishing trips data are estimated using a combination of a telephone survey of
households in coastal regions and an intercept survey of anglers at the end of fishing trips. These limitations are
discussed in detail at the MRFSS web site. The MRFSS does not include trips from private piers, shoreline, or
docks. It is, therefore, an underestimate of total trips. Headboat trips are estimated from mandatory reporting by
headboat operators. The data is available as angler days and a factor of 1.5 angler trips per angler day was used.
This number was derived from 1995 data and is not believed to vary significantly. Since headboat trips are a small
portion (2 to 3 percent) of total recreational trips, the error is not significant when compared to the statistical error
in the MRFSS.

Data Analysis
The number of angler trips is not a measure of effort, because trip length may vary and the targeted species may
change from year to year. Thus, these data cannot be used with the total catch weight to determine a catch per
unit effort because such a comparison would require a more detailed data set including time, fishing method, and
catch of targeted species. Such a comparison is possible with the headboat data set and is presented in a
separate indicator.

Estimated Annual Saltwater
Recreational Fishing Trips

1981 15.5 11.0 %
1982 17.5 5.7
1983 23.2 8.1
1984 26.0 5.9
1985 21.9 5.5
1986 25.0 3.6
1987 23.8 4.4
1988 27.0 2.2
1989 23.6 2.8
1990 18.8 2.3
1991 26.0 2.2
1992 24.8 1.4
1993 23.2 1.2
1994 25.7 1.1
1995 24.2 1.1

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Estimated Annual Saltwater
Recreational Fishing Trips
Millions of trips
30 30

25 - -- - - 25

20 20
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20

15 ---.- -- ------------- ----------- 15

10 - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 10

5 ------- --.-- --------------------- 5

0 0
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
Gray lines indicated 95 percent confidence interval of statistics.

The statistical accuracy of the MRFSS has improved dramatically since the early 1980s, as indicated by the
decline in percentage standard error. However statistically accurate the survey may be, other studies suggest the
actual number of fishing trips may be significantly different from the MRFSS estimates. Thus, although the
MRFSS is a useful measure of the trend (particularly as its statistical accuracy has improved), it may not be a
correct estimate of the actual number of fishing trips.

The MRFSS is combined with the headboat data to include both residential and tourist fishers. According to two
studies of recreational fishing in Florida, the number of saltwater fishing trips are expected to increase gradually to
about 51.7 million by 2010 from 31.9 million trips in 1991 (note that these two studies use different methods and
estimate about six million more fishing trips than the MRFSS and headboat data). Most of the increase is
expected to be accounted for by tourists: the number of fishing trips by tourists is projected to increase from 11.9
to 23.7 million days and the number of fishing trips by residents is projected to increase from 20.0 to 28.0 million
trips between 1991 and 2010 (Bell, 1993; Milon and Thunberg, 1993).

References
Milon, J. Walter and Eric M. Thunberg. 1993. A Regional Analysis of Current and Future Florida Resident
Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Sea Grant
College Program. Gainesville, Florida.

Bell, Frederick W. 1993. Current and Projected Tourist Demand for Saltwater Recreational Fisheries in Florida.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Sea Grant College Program. Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Registered Recreational Vessels

Florida offers an abundance of navigable waters which range in size and character. The Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic Ocean provide unlimited coastal and deep sea waters, and there are also numerous intracoastal and
inland waterbodies throughout the state. This abundance of navigable waters has provided many opportunities for
commercial and recreational boating. Thousands of people have registered boats with the state, and boating has
become one of the most popular recreational uses of the coast. Although commercial boating accounts for a
significant portion of boating activity, only recreational boating will be considered here.

In addition to a one-time titling requirement, recreational vessels must be registered every year if they are
operated on the waters of the state. The number and size of recreational vessels registered with the state are
excellent reflections of the demand for recreational boating, which has several impacts on the economy and
environment. The direct economic impact of boating was $330 billion in gross sales for 1994 (Bendle, 1995).
Boating also has indirect economic impacts via the jobs created to support the industry (e.g., trailer manufacturing,
marinas and shipyards, marine services, and boating equipment and accessory manufacturing). Environmental
impacts associated with boating include oil and gasoline spills, sewage discharges, and chemicals released during
painting and sanding operations.

Recreational boating can require a substantial investment in equipment, and considerable time and effort are
necessary to maintain the equipment and acquire boating skills. Thus, many people are unable to purchase a
boat, and somne who do purchase a boat buy a small to mid-sized craft because those require less investment and
training and do not need to be docked at a marina. In addition, some people who have the resources to purchase
a larger boat buy mid-sized vessels because these are best-suited for their activities (e.g., water sports).

Each size of boat requires different capital investments. Larger boats (26'+) are more difficult to move by car and
may require docking facilities and marina services. Often, larger boats also require channel dredging and
navigation aids such as charts and maps. Mid-sized boats also require some capital investment; boats over 12'
must have access to a boat ramp and also require some marina services. Canoes and boats under 12'have very
few capital requirements, as they are easily transported and do not require boat ramps.

This information will help the state in its decision to invest in capital improvements needed for various sizes of
boats. The state will be able to invest in those capital improvements most demanded because it can link demand
to trends in the number and size of boats registered. Thus, the state can maintain opportunities for recreational
boating by supplying the services most needed to facilitate recreational boating.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information about the number and size of registered boats is available through Sally Cole at the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Vessel Titles and Registrations, Neil Kirkman
Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0618, or at (850) 488-1195.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The information is continually updated and tabulated annually by county.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-i 0 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The data are quite accurate in reflecting the numbers of boats that are registered in the state each year. However,
non-motor powered boats and vessels used exclusively on private lakes and ponds are exempt from registration.
While the number of registration-exempt vessels is unknown, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
estimates that statewide, 300,000 to 400,000 boats fall into this category. Most of those boats would be
characterized as recreational, although the estimate does include some commercial vessels.

In addition to the registration-exempt vessels, a few boats which should be registered with the state may be used
on the waters even though they are not registered.

Data Analysis
The following data pertain only to the five smallest size categories of boats. Two additional size categories also
exist (65' - 109'11" and 110'+), but since those vessel registrations comprise such a small percentage of the total,
those figures are not displayed here. In addition, a final category (canoes over 16' or motorized) is not included
here. Dealer registrations, which tend to comprise less than 1% of all vessel registrations, have also been
excluded from these figures.

The data for coastal counties show a general upward trend in the number of vessels registered for the period
reflected below. The data show that 16' - 25'11" boats are favored by coastal county boat owners and the 12' -
15'11" boats are also popular, though the gap between the two sizes has been increasing (the larger boats being
favored). The number of registered 16' - 25'11" vessels increased rapidly from 1985 to 1990, remained fairly
constant for several years, and increased again between 1993 and 1996; in contrast, the number of 12' - 15'11"
boats showed little overall change from 1985 to 1996, and actually decreased nearly 12% between 1989 and
1996. The reason for the increase in 16' - 25'11" boat registrations is not known, though it may be due to a rise in
income and, consequently, purchase power. Because of the limitations of 12' - 15'11" vessels in open water (i.e.,
they usually cannot safely venture far beyond protected bays and coves, the mouth of rivers, and the "flats"),
vessels in this size category cannot be expected to rise in popularity as much in coastal counties as in non-coastal
counties.

The data for non-coastal counties show a decisive upward trend for boats 16' - 25'11": registrations increased 81%
between 1985 and 1996 for this category. For boats historically favored by non-coastal counties (12' - 1511"), the
numbers of registrations have fluctuated and reflect an overall decrease of 6% from 1985 to 1996. The non-
coastal counties reflect a trend which is opposite that evident for coastal counties: the gap between 12' - 1511'"
boats and 16' - 25'11" has been closing since 1985; for those two size categories, the numbers of larger vessels
have been getting closer and closer to the registrations for the smaller vessels. The increased demand in non-
coastal counties for 16' - 25'11" vessels may possibly reflect a shift in the use of vessels: water sports requiring
the power of mid-sized boats (e.g., water skiing) may be becoming more popular than traditional activities such as
fresh water fishing, as boats become increasingly viewed as "toys."

Registered Recreational Vessels in Coastal Counties

1985 31,873 162,914 179,874 23,667 3,384 401,712
1986 34,550 164,154 190,231 25,842 4,044 418,821
1987 37,318 169,201 204,399 28,662 4,585 444,165
1988 40,773 170,604 218,353 31,457 5,118 466,305
1989 46,590 172,768 232,736 34,271 5,671 492,036
1990 50,355 167,554 238,167 36,147 6,082 498,305
1991 53,482 161,492 237,392 37,154 6,363 495,883
1992 56,101 158,478 236,065 38,059 6,597 495,300
1993 59,495 154,921 235,012 38,270 6,621 494,319
1994 66,629 154,980 240,474 39,509 6,795 508,387
1995 74,227 153,702 247,140 41,028 6,958 523,055
1996 81,711 152,505 252,767 42,384 7,101 536,468
*The years listed represent the end of the respective fiscal years (e.g., 1985 represents the fiscal year from July 1, 1984 to
June 30, 1985).
**Totals do not include figures for three additional categories of boats. See first paragraph under Data Analysis for
explanation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-1 1 Florida Coastal Management Program

Registered Recreational Vessels in Coastal Counties

Thousands of vessels

600
500 . .
400
300
200

0 I I I I I I ! I I

Year

IC<12' E12'-15'11" E116'-25'11" :.26'-39'11" *40'-64'11" I

Note: Data for three additional categories of vessels are not displayed here due
to the comparatively small numbers of registered vessels in those categories.

Registered Recreational Vessels in Non-Coastal Counties

1985 13,248 85,278 42,495 1,819 209 143,049
1986 13,819 88,287 46,450 2,056 252 150,864
1987 14,108 90,139 51,491 2,225 281 158,244
1988 14,693 91,296 57,143 2,410 331 165,873
1989 15,728 92,164 63,353 2,649 340 174,234
1990 15,926 89,232 66,682 2,859 370 175,069
1991 16,622 87,011 68,197 3,056 427 175,313
1992 17,025 84,952 69,110 3,081 464 174,632
1993 17,768 83,118 70,234 3,142 508 174,770
1994 19,499 82,476 72,724 3,245 524 178,468
1995 21,437 81,167 74,646 3,353 533 181,136
1996 24,495 80,322 76,923 3,558 545 185,843
*The years listed represent the end of the respective fiscal years (e.g., 1985 represents the fiscal year from July 1, 1984 to
June 30, 1985).
**Totals do not include figures for three additional categories of boats. See first paragraph under Data Analysis for
explanation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

/ Registered Recreational vessels in Non-Coastal Counties

Thousands of vessels

200

150 . .

100

.I I I I I I I I I

Year

|C3<12' E121'-15'11" ===16'-25'11" m26'-39'11" C40'-64'11" |

Note: The data for vessels 40' - 64'11" do not show on graph because of the small
numbers of vessels in this category. In addition, data for three additional categories of
vessels are not displayed here due to the comparatively small numbers of registered
vessels in those categories.

Recommendations
The method of data collection merely counts the number and size of boats registered in each county; the data do
not reflect where the boats are used. This information could be very helpful to the state in its decision of where to
invest in capital improvements for recreational boating. While those who own boats in coastal counties are more
likely to use the coast, those who own boats in non-coastal counties may also use their boats in the coastal
counties and vice versa. Thus, the state is not currently obtaining accurate information pertaining to where the
capital investments should be made.

Some direction could be provided via a survey conducted by the state. This survey could be conducted each year
by asking boaters their favored spots and where they anticipate using their boats. The survey could be attached to
the registration form and could be sent in with the registration fee. The data could then be tabulated by county.

References
Bendie, Bradley J. 1995. Presentation during a public workshop regarding boating and marina discharge,
sponsored by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and the Florida Coastal Management Program,
February 24, 1995. Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

,~~~w. ~Number of Marino Boat slips

Mana~gement

Marinas have been found to contribute 4,580 jobs and $452 million to Florida's economy (Bendle, 1995). As
boating increases in popularity, the need for marinas increases. Many large boats require docking facilities
because it is too costly or not possible to pull the boats by automobile to a launch site or boat ramnp. As more
people purchase and use larger boats, the demand for marina boat slips will increase. As the number of marinas
increase, so will the economic impact of these facilities. The number of marina boat slips can be used as an
indirect indicator of the economic impact of the state's marinas on Florida's economy.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The numbers of marina boat slips in the state are available from Lew Scruggs or Lyle Fowler at the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Office of Park Planning, MS 525, 3900
Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-2300.

ACQUISITION
Availability and format of data should be discussed with staff.

COLLECTION
A statewide inventory of recreational facilities has been conducted on an irregular schedule (usually every two
years) to support the planning process for the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and other needs.
The method and level of effort have varied some what over the past several surveys. The last update was
completed in the summer of 1995. The data are included in the Florida Recreation and Parks Facility Inventory,
and the information is maintained as part of an inventory of outdoor recreation resources and facilities throughout
the state. Data are broken down by type of facility, agency (federal, state, county, municipality, corporation, private
club, or non-profit organization), statewide planning region, and county. Figures for both public and private
facilities are available.

Data from 1982 are available in a report (Table 3.15: Capacity for Wet Slips and Dry Racks by Region and County
of Florida, 1982, Column 1: Wet Slips) in the Division of Recreation and Parks, Office of Park Planning (Bell and
Leeworthy, 1984).

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data were supplied by each site's administering agency or manager, and users of the data are cautioned that
site-specific information may not accurately reflect the existence of the site or its features. In addition, the
administrations of some agencies overlap; thus, some sites could possibly be counted twice (although that is less
likely for this indicator than with some of the other data available from the database).

In 1995, a more extensive effort was made to survey private facilities. Thus, it is difficult to compare previous
years' data with those from 1995.

Data Analysis
Considering the changing type and level of effort made to collect data on private boat slips, it is not possible to
determine whether the number of boat slips has changed. Public boat slip data is considered more reliable, and if
public and private boat slip supply is correlated, then the data suggests that the number of boat slips has
increased between 1988 and 1995. However, the higher figures reported by the 1982 survey suggests that a
number of boat slips may remain uncounted by the Florida Recreation and Parks Facility Inventory.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

Boat Slips in Coastal Counties

1982 58,457 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1988 53,448 6,312 326 42,989 3,821
1993 49,393 6,463 396 38,716 3,818
1995 54,645 7,355 462 41,644 5,184
Note: Data from 1980 is from a separate source and may not be comparable to more recent data.

Boat Slips in Coastal Counties
Thousands of vessels

60
50
40
30
20
10
7

Year
JOPublic OPrivate I

References
Bendle, Bradley J. 1995. Presentation during a public workshop regarding boating and marina discharge,
sponsored by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and the Florida Coastal Management
Program, February 24, 1995. Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, Florida.

Bell, Frederick W., and Vernon R. Leeworthy. 1984. Estimation of the Demand and Supply of Marina Services in
the State of Florida. Bureau of State Lands Management, Florida Department of Natural Resources:
Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-15 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

0 ~~~~Number of Boat Launches

Boating in Florida is a year-round pastime for approximately four million residents and tourists. Boaters access
the water through marinas, private docks, and boat ramps. Marinas and private docks are addressed in a
separate indicator. Studies suggest that boat ramps are used by about two-thirds to three quarters of Florida's
registered boat owners. However, over fifty percent of those surveyed believe there is a need for more public
ramps and that existing ramps need improvements (Sell, 1995).

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The numbers of boat launches in the state are available from Lew Scruggs or Lyle Fowler at the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Office of Park Planning, MS 525, 3900
Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-2300.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy at no cost. Availability of electronic format data is problematic and should be
discussed with staff.

COLLECTION
A statewide inventory of recreational facilities has been conducted on an irregular schedule (usually every two
years) to support the planning process for the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and other needs.
The method and level of effort have varied some what over the past several surveys. The last update was
completed in the summer of 1995. The data are included in the Florida Recreation and Parks Facility Inventory,
and the information is maintained as part of an inventory of outdoor recreation resources and facilities throughout
the state. Data are broken down by type of facility, agency (federal, state, county, or municipal), owner
(corporation, private club, or non-profit organization), statewide planning region, and county. Figures for both
public and private facilities are available.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

In 1995, a more extensive effort was made to survey private facilities. Thus, it is difficult to compare previous
years' data with those from 1995.

Data Analysis
Between 1988 and 1995, the number of boat ramp lanes in coastal counties increased by about 6 percent. The
increase can be attributed entirely to an 1 1 percent increase in public boat ramp lanes as the number of private
boat launch lanes in the inventory actually decreased. One study projects that Florida will need 2,729 boat lanes
by the year 2000 (using the 30-minute scenario; Bell, 1995).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-i16 Florida Coastal Management Program

Boat Launch Lanes in Coastal Counties
Number of boat lanes

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 7
1988 1993 1995
I|Public O PrivateI

Boat Launch Lanes in Coastal Counties

1988 2,025 727 586 504 208
1993 2,142 777 608 501 256
1995 2,150 836 624 471 219

References
Bell, Frederick W. 1995. Estimation of the Present and Projected Demand and Supply of Boat Ramps for
Florida's Coastal Regions and Counties. Florida Sea Grant College Program publication TP-77.
Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Public Access Areas Along Sandy Beachesasta

~~~~~~~~~~~~~fl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mang;et

Although the public owns the beaches up to the high tide mark, access to the beach is often restricted by privately
owned property above the beach. Public access points, such as parks, trails, boardwalks, or street ends may be
the only feasible means for the public to access the beach. Such public access areas are often (but not always)
recreational amenities, including parking, restrooms, picnic areas, or other facilities. Information on public access
to the beach is used in determining whether public funds should be used for beach protection and restoration
projects and could be used to guide coastal development to ensure adequate public access to the beach.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information concerning public access points can be obtained from Phil Flood, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 487-1262.

ACQUISITION
The data on number of access points are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The information was collected statewide in 1993. The data are available for each coastal county. The study
conducted in 1993 could be repeated for approximately $100,000. A more in-depth study to determine the
percentage of beach frontage which may be reached by the public through existing public access points is
estimated to cost about $200,000.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
This inventory provides information about the location and beach frontage of publicly owned properties in Florida.
However, it does not provide the detailed information that would be needed to determine how much beach is
actually accessible to the public. For instance, a street end provides access to at least 1/2 mile of beach frontage
under ideal conditions. In some communities, however, there may be several street ends per mile of beach
frontage. Thus, the actual amount of beach frontage accessible from each site cannot be reliably estimated from
this data. Furthermore, the quality of the access area may not be sufficient to permit realistic access for most
people. For instance, a public access point in a private neighborhood with no public parking may only be useful for
people who live within walking distance.

Data Analysis
The 1993 inventory of beachfront properties under public ownership by the Division of Beaches and Shores,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, determined that nearly 1,700 public owned properties contain
over 343 miles of shoreline representing nearly 42 percent of all sandy beaches found within Florida. However,
the vast majority of these sites are small areas such as street ends and pedestrian walkways containing little or no
support facilities.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-18 Florida Coastal Management Program

Beachfront Properties Under Public Ownership

Street end 897 54,322
Pedestrian walkway 313 5,394
Public park 295 1,468,738
Undeveloped lot(s) 135 86,252
Other 52 198,633
Total 1,692 1,813,339

The 343 miles of public owned beachfront properties suggests that the public has recreational access to
approximately 42 percent of the 825 miles of sandy beaches in Florida. Some portion of those miles of access are
of limited use to the public if parking is unavailable in the vicinity or obstacles are present along the beach. As
noted above, many access points provide the public with reasonable access to beach frontage which is much
greater than the actual frontage of the property itself. Therefore, the actual amount of beach which is reasonably
accessible to public use is probably significantly greater than 343 miles, but cannot be reliably estimated.

References
Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna K. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management.
Island Press.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-19 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Revenue Generated by the
alrida
Tourist Development Tax astal
i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Managementt

Florida's economy is greatly dependent on activities related to tourism. The tourist dollars generated and brought
into the state each year account for a significant portion of the state's revenue. Many businesses, particularly
along the coast, are tourist-oriented and rely on revenue generated from tourists as their primary income.

Currently, there is no tax in the state that is levied specifically and exclusively on tourists. The general sales tax
applies to goods and services that tourists and residents consume. Florida Statute 125.0104, otherwise known as
the Local Option Tourist Development Act, gives counties the option to levy a tax on lease or rental charges from
hotels, motels, rooming houses, and apartments. Currently 41 counties in Florida levy this "bed tax," which ranges
from one to five percent (above the established sales tax rate) of each dollar spent. The money generated from
this tax is then distributed to various sectors of the state; some of the funds go to beach enhancement, roads, and
police protection. Thus, the revenue generated by this tourist development tax represents a portion of the money
available to coastal counties to improve their beaches and coastal areas.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information about the tourist development tax may be obtained from Chip Coggins, Senior Market Research
Analyst, who can be reached at the Florida Tourism Industry Marketing Corporation, P.O. Box 1100, Tallahassee,
Florida 32302-1100, or at (850) 488-5607.
ACQUISITION
Data from 1995 and prior years can be found in the Annual Florida Visitor Study. This was a publication of the
Florida Department of Commerce, which terminated operations in December 1996. Some of the data reporting
responsibilities have been absorbed by the Florida Tourism Industry Marketing Corporation. New publication
schedules were not available at the time this analysis was prepared.
COLLECTION
The data are tabulated monthly for each county and updated annually.

Data Limitations
Currently it is impossible to separate the revenue generated by tourists from that generated by residents or
business travelers; therefore, these data overestimate the amount of money generated by tourists in the state's
lodging facilities. Concurrently, these data underestimate the total amount of money generated by tourism since
they do not include other activities that tourists pursue while vacationing in Florida, such as amusement parks,
boat rentals, and other recreational activities. This indicator represents only the amount of tax revenue generated
by hotels, motels, rooming houses, and apartments in the state.

Data Analysis
The number of counties levying the tourist development tax has been increasing in recent years. This factor may
account for the majority of the upward trend in revenue generated by coastal counties from the tourist tax. Tax
collections have gone from $66,862,457 in 1989 to $109,052,899 in 1995, a 64 percent increase or roughly $7
million dollars in additional revenue a year. Other factors contributing to the steady increase may include an
increase in the numbers of tourists visiting coastal areas, an increase in the number of accommodations, or an
increase in the tax to a higher percentage by participating counties. In 1995, there was a 0.4 percent increase in
the number of hotel and motel rooms and the occupancy rates increased 2.1 percent (Coggins, 1996). Bay (+10
percent), Volusia (+7.6 percent), Dade (+13.2 percent), and Broward (+15.4 percent) each reported significant
increases in tourist development tax revenues over 1994. According to the 1995 Visitor Study, these counties
were some of the top destinations reported in surveys of air and auto visitors to Florida. Duval reported the largest
increase (+80.6 percent) over the previous year's bed tax revenues.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-20 Florida Coastal Management Program

Tourist Development Tax Collections
Millions of dollars

120.00 109.05
94.14 98.45
100.00 84.01 87.35 -
75.65 '
80.00 66.86
60.00
60.00

20.00

0.00 / I I I i [
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year

References
Coggins, Chip (editor). 1996. Florida Visitor Study 1995. Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-21 Florida CQastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Cargo Handled at Seaports

Maaemental
Program

The state of Florida is particularly attractive to the shipping industry because of its proximity to foreign markets and
waterways. These amenities have attracted a significant amount of port business which has had a decisive effect
on the state's economy. At recent levels of activity, it is estimated that the ports (including trade and cruise
activity) and port-dependent businesses create over 300,000 jobs and generate $600 million in state and local tax
revenues (FSTEDC, 1994).

There are currently 14 publicly-owned, deepwater seaports in the state. The current ports are:

The South Atlantic Ports The Gulf Coast Ports

� Port of Fernandina * Port of Pensacola
� Port of Jacksonville � Port of Panama City
� Port Canaveral * Port St. Joe
� Port of Fort Pierce � Port Manatee
* Port of Palm Beach � Port of St. Petersburg
* Port Everglades * Port of Tampa
* Port of Miami
* Port of Key West

Historically, several other ports have operated and been recorded in statistical histories. This indicator measures
the weight of cargo handled at Florida seaports and is an indirect indicator of the trend of port activity in Florida.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on waterborne commerce is available from Peggy Galliano or Thomas G. Mire, Chief, Quality Control,
Products, and Services Office, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box
61280, New Orleans, LA 61280 or (800) 362-3412, ext. 1424. Further information can be obtained from Nancy
Leikauf, Director of Communications, Florida Ports Council, P.O. Box 10137, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, or at
(850) 222-8028.

ACQUISITION
The data was provided at no cost in hard copy.
COLLECTION
The data are collected and compiled by each port on different schedules.
TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data reflects cargo handled at the largest seaports in the United States and may not include cargo at smaller
seaports in Florida. The seaports included in the data vary from year to year depending on their relative ranking
against other seaports in the U.S. The error caused by this incomplete data set is not likely to be significant. Data
from 1962 is lost and unavailable.

Data Analysis
Florida's largest seaports have handled hundreds of millions of tons of cargo since 1953, the earliest year for
which data is available. Total cargo increased from about 30 million tons in the mid-1950s to over 100 million tons
in the mid-1990s. In the late 1950s, domestic cargo accounted for about 70 percent of all cargo by weight, with
the remainder divided roughly equally between imports and exports. By the mid-1990s, however, foreign trade
accounted for over 40 percent of all cargo handled by Florida's largest seaports.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-22 Florida Coastal Management Program

Tons of Cargo Handled at Florida's Largest Seaports

1953 20,157,091 2,413,835 2,539,609 1975 49,457,587 13,270,840 16,427,853
1954 21,224,013 2,387,663 3,302,508 1976 51,063,815 15,217,137 16,026,892
1955 22,023,470 3,634,110 3,397,726 1977 52,980,564 14,142,239 21,265,529
1956 22,811,159 4,417,666 4,272,591 1978 54,319,829 15,028,052 22,107,069
1957 23,018,657 5,172,342 4,685,575 1979 54,092,891 14,400,007 24,312,701
1958 26,125,265 5,161,740 4,052,357 1980 57,325,358 12,293,917 25,000,050
1959 25,556,666 5,733,202 4,709,429 1981 55,755,832 11,441,277 20,796,738
1960 24,889,118 4,990,300 5,590,282 1982 47,224,843 9,258,086 18,879,218
1961 23,977,033 5,406,116 5,404,130 1983 45,938,353 10,692,109 21,537,977
1962 no data no data no data 1984 47,203,040 13,282,861 21,661,140
1963 25,779,253 6,592,287 6,005,570 1985 46,926,289 14,296,874 21,126,258
1964 25,955,726 7,521,859 7,724,199 1986 47,802,918 15,803,782 16,382,916
1965 27,463,550 8,855,615 8,397,456 1987 50,726,850 16,625,939 19,796,066
1966 29,646,647 9,067,532 9,874,852 1988 58,419,862 14,402,788 21,894,789
1967 31,451,537 9,482,528 11,369,837 1989 54,551,519 17,684,626 22,342,427
1968 32,732,299 10,982,284 14,131,457 1990 55,521,035 18,246,340 21,897,153
1969 35,286,791 12,315,941 13,523,891 1991 57,412,710 18,206,077 23,456,511
1970 38,789,226 13,610,100 14,376,417 1992 57,175,293 16,619,357 21,788,816
1971 41,613,238 14,194,067 15,093,028 1993 59,561,809 21,277,836 18,684,356
1972 47,115,615 20,854,623 16,790,287 1994 63,273,433 22,325,743 21,383,354
1973 47,963,269 23,405,155 16,888,111 1995 58,938,009 21,621,931 22,292,813
1974 47,448,676 20,113,804 16,894,306

Tons of Cargo Handled at Florida's Largest Seaports
Millions of tons

120

100 Do

20 I I I I

0 / I T I I
1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993

Cargo handled at Florida's largest seaports, as well as at many of its smaller seaports, has risen between 1953
and 1995. Among the various seaports, the distribution of cargo has remained relatively stable. The share carried
by Miami has remained between 3 and 6 percent since 1956; Everglades' share has remained between 13 and 18
percent since 1956. Tampa's share (50 percent in 1995) has risen by an average of 0.4 percent per year since
1953, Jacksonville's share (15 percent) has decreased by about 0.15 percent per year, and the share handled by
Florida's other large ports (10 percent) has decreased by about 0.25 percent per year.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-23 Florida Coastal Management Program

Tons of Cargo Handled at Selected Seaports

1953 4,992,309 2,621,899 2,471,191 9,061,058 5,964,078 25,110,535
1954 5,267,749 2,619,778 2,884,258 9,812,962 6,329,437 26,914,184
1955 6,475,480 2,881,301 3,341,908 10,656,046 5,700,571 29,055,306
1956 6,588,181 1,922,490 5,104,537 11,927,530 5,958,678 31,501,416
1957 7,095,751 1,861,493 5,810,903 12,579,555 5,528,872 32,876,574
1958 7,736,879 1,809,167 6,465,413 12,989,979 6,337,924 35,339,362
1959 7,698,212 1,882,484 5,313,810 13,334,688 7,770,103 35,999,297
1960 7,450,977 1,611,638 4,693,240 14,786,470 6,927,375 35,469,700
1961 7,915,238 1,262,000 4,877,968 13,509,626 7,222,447 34,787,279
1962 no data no data no data no data no data no data
1963 8,220,899 1,327,267 5,535,906 15,305,570 7,987,468 38,377,110
1964 9,281,866 1,357,616 6,121,862 17,389,921 7,050,519 41,201,784
1965 9,755,088 1,399,514 6,937,119 19,829,071 6,795,829 44,716,621
1966 10,295,556 1,377,514 7,135,333 23,915,622 5,865,006 48,589,031
1967 10,113,722 2,132,029 7,710,806 25,607,506 6,739,839 52,303,902
1968 11,199,240 3,112,600 8,058,561 27,436,709 8,038,930 57,846,040
1969 11,413,072 2,943,535 9,077,656 27,921,404 9,770,956 61,126,623
1970 11,563,807 2,798,916 9,572,271 31,356,522 11,484,227 66,775,743
1971 12,448,895 2,643,596 10,065,815 34,975,145 10,766,882 70,900,333
1972 14,885,935 4,483,676 11,182,662 43,230,138 10,978,114 84,760,525
1973 15,513,590 5,569,009 12,541,730 41,923,222 12,708,984 88,256,535
1974 14,794,938 4,141,407 11,556,518 40,918,807 13,045,116 84,456,786
1975 13,495,764 3,585,001 10,522,161 39,857,660 11,695,694 79,156,280
1976 14,397,951 3,708,755 12,020,700 39,904,415 12,276,023 82,307,844
1977 15,108,032 3,504,543 11,828,434 45,619,951 12,327,372 88,388,332
1978 15,712,893 3,667,050 11,963,825 47,077,047 13,034,135 91,454,950
1979 15,278,008 3,576,771 13,030,616 47,884,590 13,035,614 92,805,599
1980 15,644,000 3,929,398 13,287,691 48,625,160 13,133,076 94,619,325
1981 15,843,690 3,626,326 12,031,182 44,978,668 11,513,981 87,993,847
1982 12,892,163 3,160,063 11,487,539 38,079,856 9,742,526 75,362,147
1983 11,760,221 3,651,093 11,463,317 41,434,462 9,859,346 78,168,439
1984 11,849,955 3,443,090 11,822,277 46,517,226 8,514,493 82,147,041
1985 11,332,178 3,254,256 11,648,543 46,904,727 9,209,717 82,349,421
1986 12,441,812 4,481,641 11,536,078 39,909,011 11,621,074 79,989,616
1987 13,483,675 4,260,060 14,045,487 44,303,389 11,056,244 87,148,855
1988 15,805,551 4,341,902 14,207,239 50,252,299 10,110,448 94,717,439
1989 15,002,231 4,492,466 14,684,674 49,280,790 11,118,411 94,578,572
1990 15,119,932 4,295,555 14,144,648 51,577,974 10,526,419 95,664,528
1991 16,320,800 4,719,717 14,498,908 49,548,191 13,987,682 99,075,298
1992 17,208,707 6,451,331 14,507,888 46,434,233 10,981,307 95,583,466
1993 18,849,849 6,695,979 16,297,269 44,992,777 12,688,127 99,524,001
1994 18,910,150 6,514,924 18,135,257 51,902,190 11,520,009 106,982,530
1995 15,692,999 6,578,860 18,367,389 51,911,335 10,302,170 102,852,753

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-24 Florida Coastal Management Program

Tons of Cargo Handled at Selected Seaports
Millions of tons

120 /

100 .........

60 ........ .

1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993
|-Other Large DMiami mEverglades EaIJacksonville ,lTampa|

References
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTEDC). 1994. A Five-Year Plan to
Accomplish the Mission of Florida's Seaports. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-25 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

� L Number of Cruise Boat Passengers

Mangement

Florida's seaports contribute to the state's economic vitality through trade and tourism. The most notable tourist
activity is the operation of cruise boats, which is a major component of Florida's port activities. The cruises offered
to passengers include transatlantic crossings, multi-day cruises, weekend cruises, and one- and two-day cruises.
Florida's cruises are quite popular; with the world's three busiest cruise ports, Florida serves about 79 percent of
all North American homeport passenger movements. (FSTEDC, 1996)

With additional investment in capacity underway, Florida's ports expect to see a further increase in cruise boat
activity. Thus, tracking the number of cruise boat passengers is a good indicator of the usefulness of port
expansion to meet this demand as well as reflecting the economic value of the state's ports.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on cruise boat passengers may be obtained from Nancy Leikauf, Director of Communications, Florida
Ports Council, PO Box 10137, Tallahassee, Florida, 32302; (850) 222-8028.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data are collected on a regular basis and tabulated annually by individual ports.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Passengers are counted as the embark and disembark. This makes it difficult to accurately estimate the total
number of passengers served by the cruise boats as passengers who take a round-trip cruise are counted twice,
but those who take a one-way cruise are counted only once. The Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic
Development Council presented passenger data for several years, but does not currently provide such data.
Passenger embarkments and disembarkments is a better indicator for some purposes since it reflects the level of
service effort on a per person basis. This data better reflects the services required for passengers who spend
time in more than one Florida port, such as Key West, a popular stopover point for cruises with terminals
elsewhere in Florida.

The data distinguish between one-day and multi-day trips, but otherwise do not adjust for the price or length of the
trip. This is useful for indicating the level of services required by cruise boats (multi-day trips require more
extensive services) but does not provide a reliable estimate of the economic impact of the cruise industry.

Data Analysis
From 1989 through 1995, the number of embarkments and disembarkments by cruise boat passengers increased
by about 7 percent, with a peak in 1993. However, for the more lucrative multi-day cruise segment, the increase
has been about 37 percent. Some of this change may be attributable to changes in the passengers included in
the survey (Key West seems to have only been included since 1993).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-26 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Cruise Passenger Embarkments and Disembarkments,
Statewide

1989 2,978 3,844 6,822
1990 2,512 3,959 6,471
1991 2,293 4,440 6,733
1992 2,019 4,849 6,868
1993 2,061 5,418 7,479
1994 2,073 5,051 7,124
1995 2,004 5,268 7,272

Number of Cruise Passenger Embarkments and Disembarkments, by Port

1989 767 2,333 1,200 700 370 590 258 20 383 11 190
1990 468 2,267 1,446 672 142 807 257 67 200 80 65
1991 500 2,535 1,500 800 65 1,004 228 46 55
1992 186 2,910 1,534 754 10 1,073 287 39 2 73
1993 2,843 1,570 820 151 910 340 65 299 476
1994 376 2,599 1,441 774 940 257 64 276 398
1995 403 2,649 1,278 850 1,115 322 69 192 393
- St. Petersburg, 1989-92; Manatee, 1993-1995.

Number of Cruise Boat Passengers
Millions

2 ;

O _ /
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
I:One-day IMulti-day

Reference
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTEDC). 1996. A Five-Year Plan to
Accomplish the Mission of Florida's Seaports: 1996/1997-2000/2001. Tallahassee, Florida. (Also used material
from 1991-95 reports provided by the Florida Ports Council).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-27 Florida Coastal Management Program

$ ~~~~~~SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Registered Commercial Vessels

Florida offers an abundance of navigable waters that range in size and character. The Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
Ocean provide unlimited coastal and deep sea waters, and there are also numerous intracoastal and inland
waterbodies throughout the state. This abundance of navigable waters provides many opportunities to
commercial and recreational boaters. There are thousands of boats registered with the state, and commercial
boating has become a major force in Florida's economy. Although recreational boating accounts for a substantial
number of registered boats in the state, only commercial boating will be considered here.

Commercial boating includes boats used for fishing and boats which are rented to tourists. Aside from charter
boats, most of the larger commercial boats are used for fishing. The larger commercial vessels require
permanent docking facilities, and most require some dredging and navigational aids. Even the smaller
commercial vessels may require docks because an enterprise may own more than one vessel; thus, the vessels
are not transported to and from the area of business.

In addition to a one-time titling requirement, commercial vessels must be registered every year if they are operated
on the waters of the state. The number and size of commercial boats registered with the state are excellent
indicators of the demand for commercial boating. This information will help the state in its decision to invest in
capital improvements needed for various sizes of boats. The state will be able to invest in those capital
improvements most demanded because it can link demand to trends in the number and size of boats registered.
Thus, the state can maintain opportunities for commercial boating by supplying services most needed to facilitate
this activity.

Commercial boating has both direct and indirect impacts on the economy. Environmental impacts include oil and
gasoline spills, sewage discharges, chemicals released during painting and sanding operations, and impacts on
fish species populations from commercial fishing.

ACQ UISITION
The data can be obtained in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The information is continually updated and tabulated annually.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility. Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data are quite accurate in reflecting the numbers of boats that are registered in the state each year. However,
non-motor powered boats and vessels used exclusively on private lakes and ponds are exempt from registration.
While the number of registration-exempt vessels is unknown, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
estimates that statewide, 300,000 to 400,000 boats fall into this category. Most of those boats would be
characterized as non-commercial, although the estimate does include some commercial vessels. In addition to
the registration-exempt vessels, a few boats which should be registered with the state may be used on the waters
even though they are not registered.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-28 Florida Coastal Management Program

A limitation of this indicator is that the method of data collection merely counts the number and size of boats
registered in each county; the data do not reflect where the boats are used. Though those who own boats in
coastal counties are more likely to use the coast than those who own boats in non-coastal counties, those who
own boats in non-coastal counties may use their boats in the coastal counties and vice versa. Thus, the state is
not given accurate information pertaining to where the capital investments should be made. Also, since boats
which are rented to tourists for recreational activities are counted as commercial boats, the figures may
underestimate the demand for recreational boating and overestimate the demand for commercial-oriented boating.
Hence, the state might be less inclined to invest in amenities attractive to tourists and recreational boaters such as
public restrooms and park areas near docks.

During the period from 1985 to 1996, there was an overall increase in the numbers of commercial vessels
registered in coastal counties for all the sizes displayed below except the 12' - 15'11" vessels. The increase was
13.1% for the 16' - 25'11" vessels, 14.7% for the 26' - 39'11" craft, and 23.8% for the 40' - 64'11" boats. The
number of registered vessels decreased 11.0% for the 12' - 15'11" vessels and increased 208% for watercraft
smaller than 12'. The boats located in coastal counties are likely to be fishing vessels which represent businesses
that might be reluctant to sell their vessels because the boats may be their primary capital investment. The boats
in coastal counties also tend to be larger than the boats in non-coastal counties: in 1996 there were nearly twenty-
two times as many 26' - 39'11" vessels in coastal counties than in non-coastal counties, and over twenty-eight
times as many 40' - 64'11" vessels in the coastal counties. These larger vessels require a substantial investment
and cannot be sold as quickly as other smaller, more moveable vessels.

The vessel registration in non-coastal counties differs significantly from that of coastal counties. The most popular
size vessel is 12' - 15'11", in contrast to the 16' - 25'11" vessel size favored in coastal counties. In non-coastal
counties, the total numbers of boats sized 26' - 39'11" and 40' - 64'11" comprise less than 7% of the total numbers
of registrations represented here, whereas these vessels account for more than 26% of the registered commercial
vessels in the coastal counties. Most vessels in non-coastal counties probably serve tourists who wish to rent a
boat.

Registered Commercial Vessels in Coastal Counties

1985 1,175 4,969 12,020 4,421 1,896 24,481
1986 1,221 5,069 12,207 4,689 2,053 25,239
1987 1,218 5,313 12,115 4,712 2,132 25,490
1988 1,332 4,808 12,467 4,585 2,157 25,349
1989 1,782 4,670 12,417 4,623 2,241 25,733
1990 1,892 4,361 12,341 4,698 2,244 25,536
1991 2,170 4,176 12,836 4,729 2,181 26,092
1992 2,468 4,150 13,166 4,786 2,179 26,749
1993 2,784 4,106 14,021 4,985 2,160 28,056
1994 3,099 4,287 14,340 4,979 2,188 28,893
1995 3,408 4,354 14,198 5,125 2,279 29,364
1996 3,615 4,420 13,600 5,070 2,348 29,053
*The years listed represent the end of the respective fiscal years (e.g., 1985 represents the fiscal year from July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985).
**Totals do not include figures for three additional categories of boats. See first paragraph under Data Analysis for explanation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-29 Florida Coastal Management Program

Registered Commercial Vessels in Coastal Counties
Thousands of vessels
35
30
25
20
15

Year

Note: Data for three additional categories of vessels are not displayed here due to
the comparatively small numbers of registered vessels in those categories.

Registered Commercial Vessels in Non-Coastal Counties

1985 418 3,309 1,147 159 45 5,078
1986 239 2,574 1,172 172 41 4,198
1987 298 2,321 1,261 155 57 4,092
1988 246 2,409 1,430 209 72 4,366
1989 294 2,289 1,529 240 72 4,424
1990 301 2,310 1,666 249 70 4,596
1991 288 2,062 1,606 243 84 4,283
1992 318 2,086 1,624 241 91 4,360
1993 322 1,923 1,575 249 96 4,165
1994 354 1,888 1,615 238 97 4,192
1995 336 1,818 1,616 249 92 4,111
1996 296 1,761 1,552 240 102 3,951
The years listed represent the end of the respective fiscal years (e.g., 1985 represents the fiscal year from July 1, 1984 to June 30,1985).
**Totals do not include figures for three additional categories of boats. See first paragraph under Data Analysis for explanation.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-30 Florida Coastal Management Program

Registered Commercial Vessels in Non-Coastal Counties
Thousands of vessels
6

4
3
2
1

0 i) I I ~i I I I Year

Year

111<12' W12'-15' 11" m16'-25' 11" ,26'-39' 11" *40'-64' 11"

Note: Data for three additional categories of vessels are not displayed here due to
the comparatively small numbers of registered vessels in those categories.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-31 Florida Coastal Management Program

SwSamNN THE HMAN USES OF THE COAST

Value of Foreign Trade Through Seaports

Manpgmn

Florida is particularly attractive to the shipping industry because of its proximity to foreign markets and waterways.
These amenities have attracted a significant amount of port business, which has had a decisive effect on the
state's economy. There are fourteen seaports in Florida, including: (1) Port of Fernandina. (2) Port of Jacksonville,
(3) Port Canaveral, (4) Port of Fort Pierce, (5) Port of Palm Beach, (6) Port Everglades, (7) Port of Miami, (8) Port
of Key West, (9) Port'of Pensacola, (10) Port of Panama City, (I11) Port St. Joe, (12) Port Manatee, (I13) Port of St.
Petersburg, and (14) Port of Tampa.

These fourteen seaports trade in both domestic and international cargo. The value of foreign trade is relatively
easy to estimnate because of customs regulations; it is more difficult to estimate the value of domestic cargo-

The value of foreign trade through seaports is an indirect indicator of the magnitude of seaport activity on the
state's economy. However, it should be recognized that goods exported through Florida's seaports are not
necessarily produced in the state and goods imported through Florida's seaports are not necessarily used in
Florida. Thus, an increase in trade value may or may not reflect an increase in trade-related businesses for the
state.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on Florida's seaports may be obtained from Nancy Leikauf, Director of Communications, Florida Ports
Council, P.O. Box 10137, Tallahassee, Florida, 32302 or at (850) 222-8028.

ACQUISITION
The data was provided in hardcopy free of charge.

COLLECTION
The data are collected on a regular basis by port and compiled annually by the Governor's Office of Tourism,
Trade, and Economic Development (formerly the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis).

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The data reflect foreign trade only; domestic trade value is not easily measured. The source notes that these data
differ considerably from the dollar values of cargo reported by the individual ports, which are often much higher.

Data Analysis
In years with comparable data, Florida's waterborne foreign trade has increased 10-20% in value each year. This
rate of increase substantially outpaces inflation and national economic growth, reflecting healthy and growing
seaports.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-32 Florida Coastal Management Program

Dollar Value of Florida's
Waterborne Foreign Trade

1990. 12.6 10.8 23.4
1991 12.8 14.1 26.9
1992 13.7 18.6 32.3
1993 18.6 16.8 35.4
1994 15.6* 16.3* 31.9*
1995 18.0 17.4 35.3
Billions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
* - Data source or methodology apparently changed in 1994.

Dollar Value of Florida's Waterborne Foreign Trade
Billions of dollars

10
20

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994* 1995
Dlmports n Exports|
- Data source or methodology apparently changed in 1994.

References
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTEDC). 1996. A Five-Year Plan to
Accomplish the Mission of Florida's Seaports: 1996/1997-2000/2001. Tallahassee, Florida. (Also used
material from 1991-95 reports provided by the Florida Ports Council.)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-33 Florida Coastal Management Program
F-33 FoiaCatlMngmn rga

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Saltwater Fish Landings

Man'egn

Commercial and recreational marine fishing in Florida is an indicator of the health of Florida's marine resources as
well as a potential stress on those resources. Commercial fishing has always been an important aspect of the
state economy. Florida's expansive coastline provides a multitude of diverse and rewarding saltwater fishing
experiences for recreational anglers, residents and tourists alike. Pursuit of the social, psychological, and physical
benefits of recreational fishing has created an industry focused on supplying the goods and services necessary to
meet angler demand as well as ensuring satisfying recreational experiences. The expenditures of anglers have a
significant economic impact, affecting local, state, and national economies. Finfish are caught by both commercial
and recreational fishers, historically in roughly equal amounts. Shrimp and other invertebrates are primarily
harvested by commercial fishers and are considered in a separate indicator.

In order to maintain an understanding of the health of marine fisheries, state and federal agencies monitor the
amount of fish caught. The collection of U.S. commercial fisheries landings data is a joint state and federal
responsibility. In Florida, all sales of seafood products from Florida waters be reported to the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) by sales transaction on a monthly basis. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Fish Commission and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
began collecting fisheries landings data in 1880. Landings data were collected during surveys of a limited number
of states and years between 1880 and 1951. Comprehensive surveys of all coastal states have been conducted
since 1951. Annual commercial fish landings reflect, to a certain degree, the public's demand and preference for
specific types of seafood. Annual landings also represent a pressure on coastal fisheries that impacts the entire
coastal system.

Data on marine recreational fisheries were not collected in a systematic manner on a continuing basis until 1979.
The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) actually includes two independent, but
complementary, surveys: a telephone survey of households in coastal counties and an intercept (i.e., interview)
survey of anglers at fishing access sites. The telephone survey is primarily used to collect reliable data on
recreational fishing effort. However, information on the actual catch such as species identity, number and size of
fish caught can not be reliably collected by telephone. These data are obtained from anglers intercepted by
trained interviewers stationed at fishing access sites. Data from the two surveys are combined to produce
estimates of fishing effort, catch, and participation.

Fishing may be a leading factor behind the decline of several fish species populations in Florida's waters.
Assessing trends in fish landings helps management efforts aimed at reducing the pressures on marine fisheries.
The data presented in this indicator includes a large part of, but by no means all, of fish affected by fishing.
Several key species (or species groups) are important members of marine food webs and are highlighted in this
indicator. Some species, like the spotted seatrout, inhabit nearshore grass flats and estuarine areas, whereas
king and Spanish mackerel are nearshore pelagic (ocean going) species. Bluefish are a pelagic species that
come into beach areas to feed.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Fisheries Statistics Section of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI) collects and analyzes information on commercial fishing. These data are stored in the FMRI
Marine Fisheries Information System and are available at 100 8th Avenue, S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-
5095, or at (813) 896-8626 or SUNCOM 523-1011. Commercial fishing data are also available from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
12340, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, or via internet at http://remora.ssp.nmfs.gov/commerciall
landingslindex.html.

FMRI provided data from 1986 to present. Commercial fisheries data at NMFS are available from 1951 to
present, but only 1951 to 1985 were used in producing this report. Cross-checking the data for 1986 and 1987

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-34 Florida Coastal Management Program

is not known, but as the difference was not considered significant to this study the problem was not further
investigated.

Individual species data in the NMFS database are not consistently organized from 1951 to present; at times, some
species names changed or were classified into general categories. Thus, individual species data could not be
consistently extracted from the database from 1951 to present. The cutoff date of 1981 was chosen because
recreational fisheries data is not available prior to that date.

The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey is available from the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12340, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, or
via internet at http:llremora.ssp.nmfs.govlmrfsslindex.html. Headboat data are available from Robert Dixon,
Research Fisheries Biologist, Beaufort Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, NC 28516-9722, or at (919) 728-8719.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy and electronic formats at no cost.

COLLECTION
Commercial landings data are computerized from trip ticket information submitted to DEP by Florida wholesale
and retail dealers, and the figures are compiled into annual reports providing summaries for each species by
coast, county, and month. Florida's Marine Fisheries Trip Ticket Program is funded primarily through license fees
paid by commercial fishers. Annual data is often incomplete until four to six months into the following year.

Recreational landings data are estimated by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) based
on two complimentary surveys conducted in "waves" covering the entire year. One survey intercepts anglers at
the dock or shore, the other is a random phone survey of coastal counties. Data on headboat (large partyboats)
landings is collected separately. The Southeast Headboat Survey is a catch-effort census collected in mandatory
trip reports filled out by the ship operators. Headboat landings represent a relatively small portion of the total
landings (3 to 7 percent of recreational catch).

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
This indicator is an indirect measure of the impacts that fishing activity has on the marine environment. It is
difficult to estimate the level of effort made by most recreational and commercial fishing activity, so calculating
catch per unit effort requires further analysis.

Commercial marine fisheries landings data depend on self-reporting by the regulated community and are subject
to various sources of error and inaccuracy. The data are subject to change as revised or additional data are
received. Complete 1996 data is not expected until late 1997. As federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of
landings (or other information) that would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a
competitive disadvantage, landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to
data confidentiality. Landings are reported in pounds of round (live) weight for all species or groups except
univalve and bivalve mollusks, such as clams, oysters and scallops, which are reported as pounds of meats
(excludes shell weight). Landings do not include aquaculture products except for clams and oysters.

For recreational fishing, the total number of fish caught is estimated (by state, time period, mode, and area) from
the estimated number of fishing trips and the mean number of fish caught per trip. The estimated number of
fishing trips is derived from telephone interviews with residents of coastal counties. The fish catch data is derived
from interviews with anglers at the end of fishing trips. A number of assumptions are then used to estimate the
total number of fishing trips (including residents of non-coastal counties), the total catch (including fish caught but
not available for inspection during the interview), and otherwise account for difficulties that arise due to the sample
size and interview limitations. These limitations are discussed in detail at the MRFSS web site.

Headboat data are a relatively small portion of total data. Compliance with the reporting requirements has
decreased in recent years, requiring the survey to estimate the missing data, which could result in errors.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-35 Florida Coastal Management Program

Landings are not the same as total catch. Bag limits plus catch and release fishing are becoming more common.
This may obscure the trends in species abundance.

Data Analysis
During the 1970s and 1980s, saltwater fish landings by the commercial fishing industry remained relatively stable
(actually increasing slightly) at about 115 million tons per year. The recent trend for recreational fishing catch is
more difficult to determine because the survey had significant uncertainty during its early years and there has been
wide variation from year to year over the past decade. Total fisheries landings from 1981 through 1992 averaged
about 190 million tons per year and showed a slight increasing trend prior to the net ban; since 1992 total fisheries
landings have been decreasing at an annual rate of about 13 percent. This decrease is notable in the commercial
fisheries landings, but any indirect effect of the net ban on recreational fisheries is unclear.

Saltwater Fish Landings
Thousands of pounds

1951 156,970 1974 116,302
1952 209,595 1975 110,736
1953 138,490 1976 108,050
1954 109,978 1977 110,939
1955 109,294 1978 106,959
1956 144,196 1979 90,921
1957 99,719 1980 118,252
1958 103,335 1981 122,899 62,687
1959 150,547 1982 120,075 70,409
1960 114,651 1983 104,514 71,440
1961 127,180 1984 100,689 85,045
1962 132,600 1985 95,530 74,556
1963 125,229 1986 121,624 92,018
1964 113,401 1987 124,420 73,031
1965 131,904 1988 118,204 76,921
1966 134,630 1989 138,728 74,999
1967 144,615 1990 127,359 56,538
1968 129,054 1991 113,212 86,055
1969 119,109 1992 113,007 72,773
1970 121,929 1993 105,980 61,901
1971 117,899 1994 97,612 66,051
1972 117,338 1995 63,943 69,312
1973 117,444 19962 51,960 54,590
'No data available prior to 1981.
2Preliminary figures (2/26/97) and no headboat data.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-36 Florida Coastal Management Program

Saltwater Fish Landings
Pounds (millions)

250

200

150

100

50 _

O /I I I I I I I I
1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
|-Commercial E:Recreationall

The general decline in the total fish landings is reflected in each of the selected species (or species groups)
presented in this indicator, with the exception of king mackerel. Trends evident from the data include the net ban
(which explains the sudden decrease in commercial mullet harvests), and the increase in demand for shark fins in
Asian markets (note the reduced recreational landings which closely follow the increase in commercial landings).
Note that the recreational landings data from the early 1980s is less statistically valid than in later years.

Recreational and Commercial Fish Landings, Selected Species
Thousands of pounds

1981 6,190 2,934 2,251 658 3,123 2,709 851 31,650 4,329 11,002 4,124 7,931 1,770 7,724
1982 3,137 3,166 1,585 692 247 2,742 3,575 26,848 4,901 13,279 5,804 6,615 842 7,046
1983 3,801 2,223 1,566 910 4,879 2,352 2,694 24,285 8,706 10,615 6,893 4,448 957 8,035
1984 3,128 678 869 1,362 6,993 1,918 6,073 20,078 12,138 10,380 5,314 3,531 860 5,873
1985 1,362 1,200 3,023 1,573 4,152 1,501 5,114 19,809 11,468 11,074 3,183 3,404 702 6,160
1986 1,656 1,623 2,448 2,649 7,783 1,568 4,994 23,599 9,840 12,477 3,246 4,128 6,505 6,329
1987 2,044 1,993 1,703 4,859 4,637 1,665 1,873 23,687 6,776 12,621 4,591 3,115 2,509 6,161
1988 2,374 2,024 1,740 5,603 6,255 1,679 2,740 24,260 9,380 9,663 4,894 3,011 2,354 5,210
1989 2,511 1,511 1,149 7,209 7,123 1,364 1,523 27,939 8,646 13,343 4,556 2,054 1,428 5,845
1990 771 1,464 1,959 7,501 2,418 1,005 1,381 26,983 4,676 10,623 4,982 2,706 1,981 4,364
1991 2,164 1,860 975 6,552 4,575 1,052 4,262 22,817 5,629 10,469 6,315 2,057 2,820 6,257
1992 1,605 1,407 943 6,021 3,366 924 4,012 21,363 6,458 10,065 6,305 2,544 3,452 5,625
1993 1,405 1,390 520 3,708 2,559 773 1,828 21,051 6,193 11,996 6,337 3,683 2,016 6,444
1994 757 1,171 813 5,048 2,765 893 2,398 15,535 5,775 10,190 6,140 2,440 1,849 5,517
1995 869 759 536 6,006 2,998 537 1,468 6,251 5,883 9,635 7,512 2,770 1,225 4,224
19962 481 192 556 4,751 1,901 71 1,210 6,024 3,793 8,864 7,881 3,369 1,672 2,454
Includes multiple species in one group.
2 Preliminary figures (2/26/97) and no headboat data.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-37 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

CatCh Per Angler Day on Headhoaft

Commercial and recreational marine fishing in Florida is an indicator of the health of Florida's marine resources as
well as a potential stress on those resources. Other indicators provide an indication of the scale of fishing by
measuring the quantity of seafood harvested, the commercial value of seafood harvested, and the number of
recreational fishing trips. This indicator provides limited data on the amount of effort required to catch fish in
Florida waters and is thus a unique indicator of the health of marine fisheries.

Headboats, also known as party boats, are commercial for-hire fishing boats which provide anglers with the
opportunity to fish offshore without having to use their own boats or hire a charterboat. Since 1981, the National
Marine Fisheries Services has surveyed headboat operators to determine the catch and effort. Although headboat
fishing is a small percentage of the total finfish harvest (3-7 percent by weight), this data set provides a catch
estimate and a relatively consistent measure of fishing effort.

Fishing may be a factor behind the decline of several fish species populations in Florida's waters. Assessing
trends in catch per angler day helps management efforts aimed at reducing the pressures on marine fisheries.
The data presented in this indicator include fish species which are caught from headboats, which are a significant,
but by no means complete, indicator of the health of marine fisheries in general.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The headboat survey data are available from Robert Dixon, Research Fisheries Biologist, Beaufort Laboratory,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516-9722, or at (919) 728-8719.

ACQUISITION
The data are available in hard copy or electronic format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The Southeast Headboat Survey is a catch-effort census collected in mandatory trip reports filled out by the vessel
operators. Headboat landings represent a relatively small portion of the total landings (3 to 7 percent of
recreational landings).

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicator: 6
PressurelStatelResponse: Pressure
Data Accessibility. Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Compliance with the reporting requirements has decreased in recent years, requiring the survey to estimate the
missing data, which could result in errors.

Data Analysis
The data indicate that the landings (by weight) per angler day has been steadily decreasing. According to Robert
Dixon, this is because total mortality rates (headboat, charterboat, private fishermen, and commercial combined)
have been steadily increasing. He believes that maximum sustainable yields have been exceeded for some
species, especially reef fishes, which are slow growing and genetically long lived. Until recently there were few
regulations to limit fishing and many of the present regulations may not be adequate to reverse the trend.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-38 Florida Coastal Management Program

Catch per Angler Day on Headboats

1981 3,393,369 298,883 11.4
1982 2,938,636 293,133 10.0
1983 2,725,417 277,863 9.8
1984 2,753,207 288,994 9.5
1985 2,269,025 280,845 8.1
1986 5,049,355 557,135 9.1
1987 5,255,018 550,090 9.6
1988 4,433,834 497,723 8.9
1989 4,501,234 525,189 8.6
1990 4,298,545 536,795 8.0
1991 3,301,292 454,334 7.3
1992 3,456,003 449,325 7.7
1993 3,674,404 444,871 8.3
1994 3,498,801 446,858 7.8
1995 2,830,020 392,476 7.2

The NMFS headboat survey covered only the Atlantic coast from 1981 through 1985. In 1986, the Gulf of Mexico
was added to the survey. This change does not seem to have had much effect on the trend of pounds per angler
day; if anything, it may have slowed the trend because it seems that the catch is higher in the Gulf of Mexico than
in the Atlantic.

Catch per Angler Day on Headboats
Pounds per angler day

10 . . . . .~--

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

It should be noted that "angler day" is a statistical term which reflects a full day of fishing. A typical day of fishing
includes 4-6 hours of fishing and transit time (so the total day may include 10-12 hours). Some trips are shorter
(or longer) and NMFS converts those trips into fractions of angler days.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-39 Florida Coastal Management Program

SUSTAINING THE HUMAN USES OF THE COAST

Value of Commercial Marine Fisheries Landings

Management

Commercial and recreational marine fishing in Florida is an indicator of the value of Florida's marine resources as
well as a potential stress on those resources. Commercial fishing has always been an important aspect of the
state economy. Finfish are caught by both commercial and recreational fishers, historically in roughly equal
amounts. Shrimp and other invertebrates are primarily harvested by commercial fishers and are considered in a
separate indicator. Recreational fishing is also an economic resource to Florida, but there is no ongoing survey of
recreational fishing value.

In order to maintain an understanding of the health of marine fisheries, state and federal agencies monitor the
amount of fish caught. The collection of U.S. commercial fisheries landings data is a joint state and federal
responsibility. In Florida, all sales (including sale price) of seafood products from Florida waters be reported to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by sales transaction on a monthly basis. The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Fish Commission and Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, began collecting fisheries landings data in 1880. Landings data were collected during
surveys of a limited number of states and years between 1880 and 1951. Comprehensive surveys of all coastal
states have been conducted since 1951. The value of commercial marine fisheries landings reflect an important
part of the value of Florida's coastal resources.

Landings data for fish is presented in another indicator, but total landings data is also presented here for
comparison to the value of landings. Landings data is also presented for shrimp and invertebrates as it is not
presented in the finfish landings indicator. Harvest of invertebrates, particularly shrimp, can result in large by-
catch. Commercial by-catch includes fish parts discarded after marketable parts are removed (i.e., shark fins) and
unwanted fish killed during the harvest (i.e., fish drowned in shrimp nets).

The Marine Fisheries Information System maintains a database including the species, weight, price, county of
landing, and month for each commercial fishing trip. Several key species are also highlighted in this indicator,
including bluefish, shark, spotted seatrout, mullet, groupertsea bass, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, blue crab,
spiny lobster, and pink shrimp. The role of these species varies, from apex predators like the shark to scavengers
and prey like the blue crab. Some species, like the blue crab and spotted seatrout, inhabit nearshore grass flats
and estuarine areas, whereas reef fish and lobsters are found mainly on offshore reefs. King and Spanish
mackerel are nearshore pelagic (ocean going) species, while sharks are found from inshore areas to the open
ocean. Bluefish are a pelagic species that come into beach areas to feed.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The Fisheries Statistics Section of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI) collects and analyzes information on commercial fishing. These data are stored in the FMRI
Marine Fisheries Information System and are available at 100 8th Avenue, S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-
5095, or at (813) 896-8626 or SUNCOM 523-1011. Commercial fishing data are also available from the National
Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12340,
Silver Spring, MD, 20910, or via internet at http:llremora.ssp.nmfs.govlcommerciall landingslindex.html.

FMRI provided data from 1986 to present. NMFS data are available from 1951 to present, but only 1951 to 1985
were used in producing this report. Cross-checking the data for 1986 and 1987 determined that the two
databases have almost, but not exactly, identical data. The source of the difference is not known, but as the
difference was not considered significant to this study the problem was not further investigated.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-40 Florida Coastal Management Program

ACQUISITION
The data are available in electronic (via internet from NMFS) and hard copy (FMRI) formats at no cost.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Marine fisheries landings data depends on self-reporting by the regulated community and is thus subject to various
sources of error and inaccuracy. The data are subject to change as revised or additional data are received.
Complete 1996 data is not expected until late 1997. As federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or
other information) that would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive
disadvantage, landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to data
confidentiality. Landings are reported in pounds of round (live) weight for all species or groups except univalve
and bivalve mollusks, such as clams, oysters and scallops, which are reported as pounds of meats (excludes shell
weight). Landings do not include aquaculture products except for clams and oysters.

Data Analysis
Due to increasing prices and the increasing harvest of some species (especially invertebrates other than shrimp),
the value of commerce marine fisheries landings has increased since 1951. The value of commercial marine
fisheries landings has increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent during the 1951-1996 time period, when
measured in constant 1995 dollars. In the 1950s, shrimping was the highest value fishery followed by finfish.
Invertebrate sales were quite limited. The three fisheries began to converge during the late 1960s. Since the
1980s, the three fisheries are roughly equal in market value (although the fluctuation has been considerable).
Over the entire period (1951-96), landings of invertebrates have increased at a rate of 1.7 percent per year.
However, the trend has apparently changed; since 1987 harvests have declined at a rate of 2.1 percent per year.
Increasing invertebrate harvests can probably be related most closely to price increases, although other market
and technological factors may be important.

Although prices and the total harvest value increased for both shrimp and finfish, the total landings for shrimp and
finfish decreased over the 1951-96 period. Except for a recent increase in landings, the decline in shrimp landings
has been relatively constant at about 1.4 percent per year from 1951-96. However, due to price increases, the
total harvest value increased somewhat but has been quite erratic at times.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-41 Florida Coastal Management Program
F-41 FoiaCatlMngmn rga

Weight of Commercial Marine Fisheries Landings
Pounds (millions)
200

100 - ~ ~ NI/ Finfish

Finfish ~~~~~~Inverterebrate*eShims

*Does Not Include Shrimp
-Includes Bait Shrimp

Value of Commercial Marine Fisheries Landings
Millions of constant 1995 dollars
$120

/,' \ Fnfish

$20 --------------------

$60 - - -r - -~ -f - _--_

1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
[Finfish - Invertebrates* - Shrimp-*
*Does Not Include Shrimp
*'Includes Bait Shrimp

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-42 Florida Coastal Management Program

Value and Weight of Commercial Marine Fisheries Landings
Weight in thousands of pounds.
Value in thousands of constant 1995 dollars, adjusted using the Producer Price Index for Food (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

1951 156,970 $36,031 12,918 $5,752 37,989 $36,083 $77,866
1952 209,595 44,093 10,941 4,105 44,025 49,171 97,369
1953 138,490 35,175 12,467 4,384 58,471 79,343 118,902
1954 109,978 35,434 12,830 4,957 50,878 54,831 95,222
1955 109,294 34,897 16,148 6,741 52,734 59,636 101,273
1956 144,196 35,024 16,393 7,860 54,810 76,465 119,349
1957 99,719 35,165 17,281 9,095 47,100 69,785 114,045
1958 103,335 32,623 21,259 8,227 51,111 65,456 106,306
1959 150,547 34,397 25,640 10,511 36,764 41,192 86,100
1960 114,651 33,331 31,039 12,128 51,257 52,030 97,489
1961 127,180 36,391 31,836 13,445 42,084 49,308 99,144
1962 132,600 39,465 27,885 15,659 37,334 61,786 116,910
1963 125,229 38,424 31,044 16,601 39,448 51,133 106,158
1964 113,401 40,295 28,990 16,103 44,457 55,730 112,127
1965 131,904 43,582 36,829 23,207 43,154 57,113 123,903
1966 134,630 43,612 35,057 19,722 33,918 49,867 113,202
1967 144,615 44,382 34,416 22,529 28,384 43,477 110,388
1968 129,054 47,461 29,764 28,351 32,077 50,694 126,505
1969 119,109 48,551 32,626 31,416 28,152 46,608 126,575
1970 121,929 49,100 39,613 31,925 31,172 46,395 127,420
1971 117,899 51,017 35,943 35,186 25,658 47,209 133,412
1972 117,338 52,520 34,605 46,637 27,169 57,945 157,102
1973 117,444 51,705 30,021 38,143 29,190 59,918 149,766
1974 116,302 52,523 35,330 40,169 32,453 49,551 142,244
1975 110,736 49,185 30,987 30,804 31,056 58,699 138,688
1976 108,050 56,845 29,109 31,825 29,852 77,204 165,874
1977 110,939 58,744 34,701 38,430 36,705 78,252 175,426
1978 106,959 57,912 31,204 39,129 34,096 70,787 167,828
1979 90,921 53,306 41,228 52,435 28,464 90,483 196,224
1980 118,252 64,996 41,835 51,923 26,758 66,453 183,372
1981 122,899 75,889 54,045 65,376 38,011 82,779 224,044
1982 120,075 85,853 44,759 59,359 28,074 74,361 219,572
1983 104,514 77,946 42,359 53,631 30,225 78,449 210,026
1984 100,689 70,318 81,982 81,858 34,310 69,708 221,884
1985 95,530 77,791 45,212 64,841 32,590 73,443 216,075
1986 121,624 85,007 25,584 52,820 28,245 70,232 208,059
1987 124,420 91,841 45,409 86,374 25,575 64,463 242,678
1988 118,204 94,362 43,003 81,271 22,473 67,635 243,268
1989 138,728 104,979 35,880 71,493 25,202 53,599 230,070
1990 127,359 97,412 30,921 65,952 23,104 48,461 211,825
1991 113,212 79,794 26,627 62,262 19,023 50,611 192,667
1992 113,007 84,627 32,217 56,480 22,515 45,477 186,584
1993 105,980 85,935 35,230 63,273 25,084 48,942 198,150
1994 97,612 82,522 39,788 82,522 27,373 57,082 222,125
1995 63,943 69,050 32,745 77,828 32,587 68,004 214,881
19963 51,960 61,347 36,450 74,207 53,967 76,537 212,092
'Excluding shrimp.
2 Including bait shrimp.
3 Preliminary figures (2126197).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-43 Florida Coastal Management Program

Weight of Commercial Landings, Selected Species
Weight in thousands of pounds.

1981 2,934 658 2,709 31,650 11,002 7,931 7,724 18,294 5,894 27,369
1982 3,166 692 2,742 26,848 13,279 6,615 7,046 14,318 6,497 17,688
1983 2,223 910 2,352 24,285 10,615 4,448 8,035 16,364 4,317 19,261
1984 678 1,362 1,918 20,078 10,380 3,531 5,873 19,678 6,252 22,695
1985 1,200 1,573 1,501 19,809 11,074 3,404 6,160 16,002 5,739 24,064
1986 1,623 2,649 1,568 23,599 12,477 4,128 6,329 11,248 5,029 14,036
1987 1,993 4,859 1,665 23,687 12,621 3,115 6,161 18,420 6,092 12,453
1988 2,024 5,603 1,679 24,260 9,663 3,011 5,210 15,299 6,798 9,294
1989 1,511 7,209 1,364 27,939 13,343 2,054 5,845 13,047 7,810 9,255
1990 1,464 7,501 1,005 26,983 10,623 2,706 4,364 14,173 5,994 8,422
1991 1,860 6,552 1,052 22,817 10,469 2,057 6,257 10,067 7,024 8,559
1992 1,407 6,021 924 21,363 10,065 2,544 5,625 15,101 5,337 8,077
1993 1,390 3,708 773 21,051 11,996 3,683 6,444 12,598 5,382 11,432
1994 1,171 5,048 893 15,535 10,190 2,440 5,517 14,014 7,104 9,721
1995 759 6,006 537 6,251 9,635 2,770 4,224 12,242 7,024 14,740
19961 192 4,751 71 6,024 8,864 3,369 2,454 17,939 7,743 19,574
Preliminary figures (2/26/97).

Value of Commercial Landings, Selected Species
Value in thousands of constant 1995 dollars, adjusted using the Producer Price Index for Food (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

1981 $710 $363 $2,708 $9,420 $15,220 $8,856 $3,196 $5,455 $19,166 $60,013
1982 849 378 3,094 7,769 17,398 8,140 2,924 4,706 20,080 50,746
1983 551 538 2,712 7,671 16,289 5,568 3,028 5,787 13,726 52,679
1984 161 692 2,146 6,371 17,435 3,468 2,079 6,549 19,194 49,453
1985 304 927 1,719 6,658 21,059 4,435 1,082 5,461 17,146 54,831
1986 379 1,258 1,843 9,224 21,182 5,019 2,385 5,301 16,079 41,403
1987 492 2,263 2,066 9,931 22,338 4,017 2,584 6,953 25,328 34,544
1988 542 2,638 2,028 12,326 16,973 3,568 2,720 6,534 21,444 31,943
1989 413 4,998 1,645 15,223 20,686 2,569 2,646 5,811 25,847 26,462
1990 437 4,861 1,407 13,781 17,481 2,872 1,853 7,564 24,876 22,551
1991 442 5,060 1,584 12,719 16,649 2,267 2,819 5,185 31,857 26,971
1992 374 6,744 1,161 14,032 17,653 3,161 1,933 7,113 21,616 18,031
1993 533 3,535 1,001 13,369 20,699 3,620 2,335 7,282 18,317 26,864
1994 478 5,016 1,093 12,231 18,947 3,526 2,373 9,309 30,960 23,509
1995 270 5,819 764 5,409 16,826 3,876 2,007 9,484 31,187 34,778
19961 84 4,416 129 5,607 16,539 4,048 1,173 12,157 28,336 36,822
1 Preliminary figures (2/26/97).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-44 Florida Coastal Management Program

Weight of Commercial Landings, Selected Invertebrate Species
Thousands of pounds
30

Pink Shrimp

20 - - - - \ / -.

Spiny Lobster

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Value of Commercial Landings, Selected Invertebrate Species
Millions of 1995 dollars
$60

Pink Shrimp

$40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........

Spiny Lobster
$20 - - - - - - - -

Blue Crab

$ 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Value of Commercial Landings, Selected Finfish Species
Milfos f 1995du2lars Millions of .SSudulars
~~~~$8 j \$25 ...........- - -~25
Grouper/Sea Bass
K king Mackerel $20

s2 0 '-_ $5 ..
/ 1 -_poed
$2 $- ----
i -----. Bluefish -- -

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 198l 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Three species of invertebrates were selected for analysis: blue crab, spiny lobster, and pink shrimp. Blue crab
shows the least interesting trend, with a gradually increasing value and erratic landing weights. Spiny lobster
shows an increasing value but generally flat landing weight trend. Pink shrimp shows the most notable features, a
decrease in landings value of more than 50 percent and a sudden drop in landings weight in the late 1980s. The
shrimp harvests may have begun rebounding in 1995.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-45 Florida Coastal Management Program
F-45 FoiaCatlMngmn rga

Finfish are presented in two graphs, divided into major and minor commercial species (or species groups). There
is no clear trend for weight or value for grouperlsea bass species. Mullet species landings fluctuated widely
through 1992 and the value of mullet harvests increased dramatically during the late 1980s. However, the net ban
has resulted in landings reduced by 75 percent or more, although the value of mullet landings has only fallen
slightly below the value of landings in the early 1980s.

Among the five minor commercial species presented, Spanish mackerel and bluefish show no clear trends.
Spotted seatrout and king mackerel show landings declining by value and weight, probably due at least in part to
regulations imposed in 1989 to protect those species. Shark landings have increased dramatically by weight and
value due to increased marketing efforts, acceptance of shark meat by consumers, and, to a greater degree, high
prices offered by the Asian market for dried shark fins.

Recommendations
No annual data are available to estimate the economic value of recreational fishing. Occasional data are available
from a variety of studies. Two recent studies funded by Florida Sea Grant estimated total annual expenditures for
saltwater fishing at $2.6 billion in 1991-92, divided approximately evenly between resident recreational anglers and
tourists (Bell, 1993; Milon and Thunberg, 1993). According to the authors of these studies, it would be possible to
update those figures on a regular basis at relatively little cost. If it is assumed that expenditures per trip or some
other factor remain unchanged except for inflation, annual data from the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical
Survey could be used to update the models without conducting a full survey. A full survey could be done
occasionally to verify that the models remain accurate. The U.S. Marine Fisheries Service will complete a study of
saltwater fishing value for southeastern states in 1998 which will be comparable to the Sea Grant studies.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends F-46 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section G
Balancing Public and Private Uses of Resources

Balancing Public and Private Uses of the Coast

Manlpgement-1

From the perspective of ecological sustainability, the coastal region is far more than a strip of sandy beach along
the shore. It involves a complex combination of very different ecosystems, including upland forests, coastal
wetlands, and sandy grasslands. These ecosystems are important because they are part of the physical and
biological system that protects the coast from hurricane damage, filters and cleans water, provides nursery areas
to marine fish and invertebrates, and provide beauty which is enjoyed by many along the coast.

Florida places enormous demands on its coastal resources, and these demands often come into conflict. Public
interests in recreation, sustaining the many economic benefits of the coast, and ensuring a sustainable coastal
ecosystem may come into conflict with private landowners' interests. By right of law, the public owns the water
and the beach up to the high tide line. A major point of concern is whether the public has practical access to those
coastal resources. The right to develop private land along the coast must be balanced with the public's right to
access publicly owned beaches. At this time, there is no reliable indicator of where this balance stands.

This issue addresses the rights of the general public to access the beach, the actions of the public to conserve
lands, and the rights of private property owners to build along the coast. As the state grows and the demand for
permits along the coast increases, it becomes increasingly more important for the state to become involved. The
primary concerns are private property issues and stewardship of coastal resources. Private property issues
pertain to development along the coast; however, no indicators have been developed for this sub-issue. The
stewardship of coastal resources refers to state lands and the many state programs adopted to acquire land for
public use and for public access points.

An additional area of competing interests along the coast is the use of offshore resources. The number of
submerged land leases suggests the potential for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, which is of concern due
to the potential for pollution, large spills, and aesthetic problems. The economic benefits of these activities must
be balanced with the public interests in a safe and healthy coast.

Balancing public and private interests is a difficult process which must ultimately produce a set of compromises.
Rights of the coastal landowner and access to coastal resources by others needs to be addressed in a fair and
open-minded way to ensure that the coast can be enjoyed by all for generations to come. The following list
identifies the indicators that are examined in this section.

Balancing Public and Private Uses of the Coast Indicators:

* Submerged Land Leases
* Management Status of Coastal Habitats

Other Indicators of Interest:

� Absolute population growth (Section A)
� Existing wetland habitat and conservation lands (Section 0)
� Existing upland habitat and conservation lands (Section 0)
� Public access areas along sandy beaches (Section F)
� Beach visits by residents (Section I)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-1 Florida Coastal Management Program

BALANCING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USES OF RESOUIRCES

Submerged Land Looses
Mran

Florida's sovereign submerged lands are those public trust lands below navigable water that the United States
Congress transferred to the state of Florida in 1845 as Florida was granted statehood. Lands below navigable
water means all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective states which are covered by tidal or non-tidal
waters that are navigable under the laws of the United States. Florida's sovereign submerged land area extends
three miles into the Atlantic Ocean and nine miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Submerged lands are held in trust for
the use and benefit of the citizens of the state, as set forth in the state constitution. The sale and private use of
such lands is allowable, as long as it is in the public interest. Florida's total land area is approximately 37.5 million
acres. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the state's sovereign submerged
land area totals approximately 7.7 million acres (DEP, 1994).

Some of the submerged lands in Florida have been designated as aquatic preserves because of their unique
biological, aesthetic, or scientific value. Aquatic preserves receive a higher level of care. The Florida Aquatic
Preserve Act of 1975 states that state-owned submerged lands that have special value will be permanently placed
in preservation status. Florida's 42 aquatic preserves comprise approximately 2.4 million of the estimated 7.7
million acres of sovereign submerged lands (DEP, 1994).

Public and private entities must obtain permission to conduct activities on submerged lands. The most commonly
requested uses are the construction of docking facilities for single-family houses, multi-family developments, yacht
clubs, marinas, and dredging and other activities that preempt public access, but occur on sovereign submerged
lands. Some types of activities require the applicant to pay a fee. The two primary types of submerged land fees
are lease application fees and annual lease fees (DEP, 1994).

It is believed that the fee rates do not reflect the true costs of managing these lands. The use of submerged lands
can have adverse environmental impacts. The effect of one permitted use may be insignificant; however, the
cumulative impacts are not. Furthermore, some submerged lands are used without the payment of any fees. It is
important to keep a record of the number of leases that the state gives out as well as the revenue generated
through the use of sovereign submerged lands (Rose, unpublished). The Division of State Lands is required to
maintain official records of all submerged lands leases issued and to collect lease fees associated with those
leases. Each lease carries a designated "type code" which identifies the primary use of the leased lands.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on the number of submerged land leases and area (square footage) of land under lease can be
obtained from Delmas Barber, Bureau of Land Management, Submerged Land Section, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-130, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, or at (850)
488-2297. Revenue figures may be obtained from Doris Brown at the above address and phone number.

ACQUISITION
The data can be obtained at no cost.

COLLECTION
The information is updated as leases are granted. Data reflecting several parameters (number of leases, area,
waterbody, primary use, county, etc.) are available upon request. Area of land under lease is available in square
feet and was converted to acres for the purposes of this indicator.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are electronically collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
Although the number of leases issued each year is available upon request, this indicator displays the total number
of leases existing each year (i.e., these acreage data are cumulative). For example, the acreage under lease in
1992 includes all new leases executed since 1991, plus all the acreage for leases granted prior to 1992 which
were not canceled or terminated by 1992. In addition, although acreage data are available for whatever periods
one requests (e.g., fiscal year, calendar year, etc.), the acreage figures below pertain to calendar years, not fiscal
years like the revenue data.

Data Analysis
In 1993, the total number of submerged land leases was 1,183. In 1995, this number was 1,419, and in 1996 it
was 1,499. This represents an increase of 316 leases (27 percent) between 1993 and 1996. Furthermore, of
1,280 applications for grandfathered "leases," approximately 617 will come under "lease" on January 1, 1998.

The total revenue generated also increased from fiscal year 1990-91 to fiscal year 1995-96, by $359,649. This
was an increase of 8.6 percent.

Total Revenue Generated
Through the Use of Sovereign Submerged Lands

Total revenue generated

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,0~~~~~~~~00 OO CD
00 ~ ~ ~ ~
$3,000,000 .0(

$2,000,000 C14

$1,000,000

7
$0 I I I ,
1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
Fiscal Year

Acreage of leased sovereign submerged lands for calendar years 1991 through 1996 is displayed below. It is
important to note that acreage for each year is cumulative: that is, each year's acreage is the sum of the acreage
of land whose lease was fully executed in that year, plus the acreage of all land leased prior to that year (as long
as the lease was not canceled or terminated in that year).

Acreage of sovereign submerged land under lease increased fairly steadily between 1991 and 1995 (an average
of 4 percent per year), and increased by over 15 percent between 1995 and 1996. The total acreage of land under
lease increased nearly 35 percent between 1991 and 1996.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

Acreage of Leased Sovereign Submerged Lands

Acres

1200/

1 0 0 0 - - - - - - - ----------

800

600 1158
~~QQ 860 903 ~-- 941 - -980 1005--

200

0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Calendar Year

Although the above acreage figures comprise only 0.015% of the state's total sovereign submerged land area,
these figures should be viewed in the context of the following additional information: the 7.7 million acres figure for
Florida's total sovereign submerged land area includes the area extending nine miles into the Gulf and three miles
into the Atlantic; in practice, however, only nearshore lands are leased, and very often leased facilities do not
extend far into the water; in addition, many hundreds of easements which do not require leases also occupy
sovereign submerged land area. Because of these and other factors, it is important not to draw the conclusion
that these data are an indicator of the amount of Florida's undisturbed coast.

References
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 1994. Performance Audit of Submerged Lands Program.
Tallahassee, Florida.

Rose, Pat. Unpublished manuscript. "Our Wonderfully Diverse Submerged Lands: We Own Them! But Will
They Be Worth Having?"~. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 1994. Performance Audit of Submerged Lands Program.
Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends GA4 Florida Coastal Management Program

BALANCING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USES OF RESOURCES

Management Status of Coastal Habitat

Prnram

Coastal areas are among the most crowded and developed in the world. Florida is no exception as rapid
population growth along the Florida coast threatens natural habitats by increasing development pressures in these
areas and fragmenting what remains of natural environments. Additionally, public access to beach areas is
threatened by private developments that do not provide access points.

One way to provide public access and protect habitat areas is to purchase, manage, and protect land in the
coastal areas. These lands may be purchased and managed for a variety of purposes; today, most projects are
managed for multiple uses, including recreation, habitat, and perhaps economic use. Some of these lands provide
additional public access to coastal resources by providing park facilities and public rights to cross land between
roads and the shoreline. In other cases, public acquisition of coastal land necessarily limits human uses of land.
Public land acquisition may not increase public access if the land is acquired to protect a sensitive species or
habitat area that needs to be protected from human interference (Chapter 259.032(l11)(a)).

Foreseeing the need to conserve land threatened by rapid growth, the state initiated a bold program to acquire the
most threatened areas through the Preservation 2000 Act of 1990. Preservation 2000 set aside $3 billion dollars
over a 10-year period for the purpose of land acquisition throughout the state. The annual funding of $300 million
is provided through the sale of state revenue bonds. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
(FDEP) Conservation and Recreation Lands Program (CARL) receives 50 percent of the funds. The Save Our
Rivers (SOR) program of the five water management districts receives 30 percent of the funds. The other 20
percent of Preservation 2000 funds are split between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other state
divisions and programs that have identified lands for purchase. In order to offset any local financial burden, the
Florida Legislature has also appropriated funds for qualifying counties who are eligible for reimbursement for
actual tax loss if the Preservation 2000 acquisition reduces the tax base and development options of coastal
communities. Some federal programs have also provided for acquisition and conservation of land in the state
through direct purchases, access to lands on military bases, and financial help to the state.

Acres of managed lands is an important indication of coastal lands available for public use and lands that have
been set aside for protection. The indicator addressed here includes acres of managed lands as well as a more
focused area of managed lands within a five mile buffer either side of the coastline. Aquatic preserves and
submerged lands are excluded from this analysis.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The data on the acres of managed lands, lands sought for acquisition and protection under CARL and SOR
programs, and Areas of Conservation Interest (ACl) can be obtained from Dr. Barbara Lenczewski or Sally Jue at
the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), 1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, or
at (850) 224-8207.

Information concerning state land acquisition can be obtained from Ruark Cleary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of State Lands, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 100, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-3000, or at (850) 488-6242.

ACQUISITION
The data on acres of managed land and land sought for conservation interest are available from the Florida
Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) in hard copy format and GIS (Geographic Information System) tapes with the price
(if any) determined by the nature of the specific data request.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

COLLECTION
Data on managed lands within each county are continually updated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI).
Boundary and acreage information is compiled by FNAI from the various federal, state, local and private managing
agencies. For a managed area to be tracked by FNAI, some portion of the property must contain significant
natural resources that may or may not be under active protective management. FNAI is the source of boundaries
for the State's CARL projects. Boundary information for SOR projects is compiled by FNAI from the individual
water management districts.

A five-mile wide strip on either side of the Florida coastline was analyzed for acreage of conservation land,
excluding aquatic preserves and submerged lands. The strip used a definition by the Florida Marine Research
Institute and followed the shoreline into bays, estuaries, and other tidal waters. No historical data for the five-mile
buffer is available from FNAI due to the nature of their database. In order for this indicator to be maintained over
time and for a trend to develop, a request for data must be made to FNAI each year to update the figures. FNAI
can provide county-by-county report of the acreage within the five-mile buffer depending on time and cost
considerations.

TECHNICAL
Hierarchy of Indicators: 1
Pressure/State/Response: Response
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Any listing of managed lands is quickly out of date due to new acquisitions. The FNAI data are comprehensive
and updated quarterly, yet each managing/purchasing agency may have the most up-to-date information on recent
purchases. Finally, the FNAI database includes some, but not all, lands owned by local governments. It is
important to remember that while these data are the best available and contain all major managed areas, they are
not exhaustive.

Data Analysis
It is estimated that about 1.6 million acres of land within five miles of the coast are good quality natural habitat. Of
these lands, approximately 816,000 acres are protected and managed for use by the public and/or for use as
natural habitat. By far the majority of these managed lands (768,344 acres) are held by local, state, and federal
land agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Department of Interior.
Most of these lands are protected from significant future development. However, about 44,000 acres of land are
held by the military and a portion of those lands may be developed or otherwise altered from their natural condition
if the need arises. About 4,000 acres are owned by private conservation groups and are considered within this
category because they are permanently dedicated to public purposes. About 121,000 acres of this land has been
acquired using CARL funds.

Almost as much valuable habitat along the coast is owned by private individuals or corporations. Over 800,000
acres of privately owned land within the five mile zone on either side of the coastline are considered to be Areas of
Conservation Interest (ACI) by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. This means that the land and its animal and
plant life remain sufficiently natural in composition to be considered worthy of consideration for conservation. For
instance, a plowed agricultural field would not be considered an area of conservation interest but a forest with a
variety of tree and other plant species meeting certain criteria would be so designated. About 290,000 acres of
natural land is being considered for acquisition by the state under the CARL program.

About 74,000 acres of land are categorized within the Save Our Rivers program and are included in the following
table under Total Managed and Protected Lands. However, privately owned lands within the project areas
which have not been purchased yet are also included in this category. This inflates the total acreage for managed
and protected lands.

Data on acres of non-conservation land were not available so it was not possible to calculate the total acreage of
conservation and non-conservation land within five miles of the coastline. Thus, it is not known what the
percentage of lands of natural interest are in proportion to all lands of the coastline. Land not measured in this
indicator includes developed land, agricultural land, and other land which is not considered to have significant
natural value for conservation (i.e., barren land previously seriously disturbed).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

Management Status of Habitat Within Five Miles of Coastline

Managed and Protected Lands
Public 768,344
Private 4,296
Military 43,855
Total Managed and Protected Lands' 816,495 (51%)

Private Unprotected Lands
Proposed for CARL Acquisition 289,838
Other Areas of Conservation
Interest (ACl)2 510,018
Total Private Unprotected Lands3 799,856 (49%)

Total Areas Of Natural Interest 1,616,351
As assessed by Florida Natural Areas Inventory in April, 1997 using recently updated data. Does not include aquatic
lreserves.
2Land not yet purchased within SOR projects is included within this total.
2As designated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
31-and proposed for acquisition by the Save Our Rivers program is not included in this total.

Further data available through FNAI on managed lands includes a summary of conservation lands for the entire
state. The Florida Conservation Lands (1997) includes the lands managed by federal, state, and local
governments as well as private entities. The federal and state categories of land management include the acres
managed by each primary managing agency (USDA Forest Service, DEP Division of Marine Resources, etc.),
allowing for a closer analysis of the agencies that are increasing management area and responsibilities. The
document contains information on each property in conservation as well as its location. A series of county maps
are included, making it easy for users to quickly assess which public conservation lands are in a specific area or
county.

The following table shows the conservation land managing agency, the acres being managed, and the change in
acres being managed from the previous year. The proportional responsibility of land management is comparable
between federal agencies with 4,198,968 acres (53 percent) and state agencies with 3,486,237 acres (45
percent). Local conservation lands represent roughly two percent of the total land being managed. However, as
noted in the data limitations, it is important to remember that the FNAI database is not exhaustive and does not
represent all local managed areas. Though these data are the best available, the percentage of local lands in
conservation could very well be larger.

Private conservation lands increased 427 acres since 1996 to nearly 99,000 acres. Total land management in the
state increased nearly 300,000 acres since 1996, primarily within state (+199,797 acres) and local (+41,953)
management agencies. The percent of Florida lands that are currently in conservation is 22.5 percent

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

Summary of Florida Conservation Lands, March 1997
(with change in acres since February, 1996)

Size in Acres of State of Florida 34,647,040

Federal Conservation Lands
USDA Forest Service 1,142,261 + 5,465
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 481,490 + 5,075
USDI National Park Service 1,886,732 + 3,264
US Dept. of Defenses 683,856 + 3,265
US Other 4,629 + 367
Total Federally Managed 4,198,968 + 17,436

State Conservation Lands
DACS Division of Forestry 676,604 + 80,467
DEP Division of Recreation and Parks 366,513 + 4,870
DEP Division of Marine Resources 125,287 + 20,092
DEP Office of Greenways and Trails 69,067 No change
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 1,307,876 + 74,703
Dept. of Military Affairs 62,340 No change
State Universities 11,524 + 300
Water Management Districts 867,026 + 19,365
Total State Managed 3,486,237 +199,797

Local (County & Municipal) Conservation Lands 121,493 + 41,953
Total State, Federal, and Local 7,806,698
Private Conservation Lands 98,679 + 427
Total Change in Acreage from 1996 +259,613
Percent of Florida in Public Conservation Lands 22.5%
--Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1997. Florida Conservation Lands, p. iv.
Acreages are counted once under the primary managing agency even though many times there are several owners
and/or managers. For example, if a property is owned by a water management district but the lead managing agency
is FGFWFC, then acres for this property are included under FGFWFC and are not included in the water management
district total.
2 Acreages listed include terrestrial wetlands such as the Everglades but exclude 3,375,658 acres of submerged
marine, lake, or river bottom (such as state aquatic preserves or Florida Bay) that are part of certain managed areas.
3 While the primary function of DOD lands is national defense, they can also be important conservation lands. This is
also true of Camp Blanding, which is managed by the Florida Dept. of Military Affairs.

Recommendations
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) has a large amount of data available. However, a consistent source of
funding is needed to expand data collection efforts, keep the data current, make the data readily available in
different formats, and provide an analysis of what the data mean. The Florida Coastal Management Program
should work with the Division of State Lands and FNAI to enhance the creation of published reports on coastal
land management, categories and quality of purchased and unpurchased land, as well as the management goals
for each acquisition. All Areas of Conservation Interest (ACI) within the state have now been documented,
primarily through the use of aerial surveying. The next step should be a series of field surveys of the ACIs in order
to get ground-truthed information on the remaining natural areas in the state. Classification of communities in
coastal uplands and wetlands with field surveys throughout the coastal counties would be valuable for further
tracking of biological indicators and trends.

References
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 1997. Florida Conservation Lands, Jon Blanchard and Sally Jue.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 1996. Managed Conservation Lands Report, Robert A. Hattaway, Ph.D.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends G-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section H
Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic Resources

gis-is

ft~~~~~
Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic

Resources
Coastal
~Mana.eroent

Throughout Florida there has long been an effort to combine protection of the environment, protection of cultural
and historical sites, and maintenance of vital economic growth. There are many reasons for a community to
actively preserve its cultural and aesthetic resources. Museums and cultural events serve as a connection from
the past to the present and allow for active participation. All create job opportunities, attract visitors, and add to
the mixture of an economy on both the local and state level. Additionally, many active citizens as well as
governmental entities have worked together not only to discover historical resources but to protect and restore
many of them through participatory activities such as grant writing.

Preserving the history and culture of coastal communities is important because of the effects that development
practices can have. Cultural representations are an expression of community and are vital to a strong social
fabric. Archaeological and historical sites destroyed by natural or human-induced alterations represent a loss of
irretrievable resources. Monitoring these sites can help minimize such losses as well as aid in planning for the
preservation of existing sites as well as sites that will be identified in the future. Living cultural resources and
coastal parks show the value that the community associates with natural vistas and historical or architecturally
important developments.

Indicators selected for this issue area should measure either directly or indirectly the public's desire to preserve
and maintain the state's historical, cultural, and aesthetic treasures. The state's resources include museums,
cultural events, archaeological discoveries, and historic buildings. Measures that determine the protection and
vitality of such resources are what is desired for supporting this issue area. The following list identifies the
indicators that are examined in this chapter.

Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic Resources Indicators:

. Number of archaeological sites discovered annually
� Number of sites placed on the national register of historic places
� Museums and cultural/historical events
� Amount of grant money awarded for restoration of historic properties

Other Indicators of Interest:

� Number of tourist visits to coastal areas (Section F)
� Revenue generated by the tourist development tax (Section F)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-1 Florida Coastal Management Program

PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC ESOURCES

Number of Archaeological Sites

Discovered Annually

Florida's historic structures and archaeological sites are major contributors to the quality of life enjoyed by the
citizens and visitors of the state. These places possess substantial economic value, contribute to urban
revitalization, serve as sources of recreation, and provide important tangible links to Florida's heritage. State and
federal laws mandate that the state maintain an inventory of all known historic structures and archaeological sites.
There are currently over 18,000 known archaeological sites contained in the Florida Master Site File. However,
these represent only a small part of Florida's heritage, since less than ten percent of the area of most Florida
counties has been surveyed by a qualified archaeologist.

Coastal areas were settled earlier than other parts of Florida, and a high proportion of the recorded sites are
located in the immediate coastal zone. Care should be taken to protect all potential historical resources, as they
can never be replaced. The recording of all newly-discovered sites is of prime importance since they can provide
archaeologists with new information. This indicator is to be used not as a site inventory but as an indirect indicator
of the public's desire to preserve and maintain the state's archaeological treasures.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
All information regarding archaeological and historic sites can be obtained by contacting the Florida Master Site
File, Division of Historical Resources, R.A. Gray Building, 500 Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250,
or at (850) 487-2299. Fax communication is possible to the Site File at (850) 921-0372, and e-mail should be
direct to [email protected]. Those desiring more details on current policies of the Florida Master Site
File can obtain a copy of the most recent two page flier, Guidelines for Users of the Florida Master Site File.
ACQUISITION
All information contained in the Site File, paper or electronic, is public. Much of the information is available only in
paper documents, and there is a charge of $0.15 per page for large amounts of photocopying. Electronic data can
be accessed by sorting according to various criteria, such as location or date of entry. Electronic data are
available at the cost of blank recording medium (for example, 3.5 inch diskette). Due to staffing limitations,
request involving substantial research may have to be done on a self-service basis.
COLLECTION
Most historic and archaeological data are gathered using surveys recorded during field visits. The information is
later transferred to a computer database.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
A limitation of the data is that not all archaeological sites present within the coastal counties are reported, because
not all of the sites are known. Another limitation is that the date a site is placed in the File does not necessarily
correspond to the date the site was discovered. Therefore, a site that was uncovered in 1980 may not show up in
the Master Site File until 1981. The Master Site File is the most complete source of accurate information
available; however, it is not a registry of sites officially determined to be historically or scientifically significant. It is
a list of known sites and historical structures that are documented to be 50 years old and which often deserve to
be considered when potentially damaging projects may cause a negative impact, or when scientific or heritage
values have been associated with the site.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-2 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The data show an average increase in the number of annual discoveries. The 1996 total (444) was the lowest
since 1992. The average of the 1990's has been 464, as compared to the 1980's average of 310. The largest
number of discoveries in a single year was 1988 (655). There are several reasons for the variable nature of the
data. The three most common ways a site is uncovered and placed on the list are development, academic
interest, and/or local government survey projects connected with state requirements for local government
comprehensive planning. Thus, in any given year there may have been more activity or research that led to a
greater number of site discoveries. While the data do not provide any information on the impact these sites have
on Florida's coastal counties, they do provide an inventory of known archaeological sites.

Number of Archaeological Sites Discovered Annually
Number of sites

700 -
600 -
500
400
300
200
100

Year

1970 12 1984 296
1971 18 1985 256
1972 93 1986 248
1973 52 1987 288
1974 162 1988 655
1975 145 1989 514
1976 174 1990 447
1977 159 1991 458
1978 150 1992 419
1979 137 1993 471
1980 122 1994 522
1981 120 1995 487
1982 340 1996 444
1983 265 TOTAL 7,454

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

0� ~ Number of Sites Listed in the National

Florida's historical structures, archaeological sites, and historical museums are major contributors to the quality of
life enjoyed by Florida residents. They are also of substantial economic value because they attract visitors to the
local area and the state in general, and they contribute to the urban revitalization of many local communities.
Likewise, many sites serve as sources of recreation for residents and tourists. Perhaps most significantly, they
provide important tangible links to learning about Florida's heritage.

Most areas of the state historically settled by humans are located in the coastal counties; therefore, a greater
number of the known historical sites are located in the coastal zone. Care has been taken to protect many of
these historical resources since they can never be replaced. In addition, the recording of all newly-discovered
sites is of prime importance since they can provide historians with new information and clues to Florida's past.

This indicator is to be used not as a site inventory but as an indirect indicator of the public's desire to preserve and
maintain the state's historical treasures. The National Register of Historic Places is an official listing of historically
significant sites and properties throughout the country. It is maintained by the National Park Service of the U.S.
Department of the Interior and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects identified as significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. To be listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, a site must be nominated and must meet specific quality criteria. This list is not a mere count; a
site must reflect significance and be of a certain age as well as meeting other requirements.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information regarding archaeological and historic sites in Florida proposed for or included in the National Register
of Historic Places can be obtained by contacting Barbara Mattick, Historic Preservationist Supervisor, at the
Florida Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation, R.A. Gray Building, 500 Bronough Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250, or at (850) 487-2333. Information on the National Register is also accessible
through the National Park Service Website. The Website allows users to search by state and by county. The
Website address is: http://www.nps.gov
ACQUISITION
Information contained in the National Register can be obtained in either hard copy format or through electronic
transfer. The data can be arranged by specific sorting codes such as location or date of entry. No cost is
associated with obtaining this information.
COLLECTION
Most historic data are gathered throughout the counties using surveys recorded during field visits. The information
is later transferred to a computer database.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
The National Register is one of the most complete sources of accurate information available on historic properties.
However, this registry is not a comprehensive assessment. Because a site must meet qualitative criteria, some
sites of historical value may not be nominated for inclusion in the registry.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The data show no definitive trend for the number of recorded sites. The most common practice by which a site is
nominated for inclusion in the Register is through academic interest and/or local government legislation. Thus, in
any given year there may have been more interest or research that led to a greater number of site nominations.
Between 1975 and 1996, 659 sites in Florida's coastal counties were listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. The year 1989 had the most activity with 75 historic sites registered. For the ten-year period from 1987 to
1996, there was an average of 39 sites registered per year. This is a substantial increase over the previous ten-
year period (1 977-1 986), which recorded an average of 23 historical sites registered per year.

Number of Sites Listed in the National Register
of Historic Places per Year in Florida's Coastal Counties
Number of sites
100/

60 51

40 3

20 14 15 1 81 14

Year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-5 Florida Coastal Management Program

PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

Museums and Cultural/Historical Events

Florida's museums and cultural/historical events (e.g., festivals) are major contributors to the quality of life enjoyed
by the citizens and visitors of the state. These attractions provide substantial economic benefits by providing local
jobs, being part of the local tax base, and bringing tourism dollars to the local economy. These activities
contribute to urban revitalization of many Florida cities. Museums and events also serve as sources of recreation
and provide Floridians with important tangible links to their heritage. Those links promote knowledge and
appreciation of Florida through the collection, presentation, exhibition and interpretation of objects related to
Florida's history and are also instrumental in interpreting Florida's social and cultural heritage to visitors.

Many of the state's cultural and historical events occur in the coastal counties where a majority of the state's
archaeological sites have been discovered. With the tremendous population growth of the state taking place in
coastal areas, it is becoming increasingly important to monitor and protect from destruction both existing and
undiscovered cultural and historical sites. Historical museums and events, through ticket sales and associated
indirect economic activity, substantially aid both local and state economies. Moreover, the preservation of
Florida's history adds to the quality of life of Florida's citizens. Interest in museums and events also may lead to
increased grant money available for historical preservation. The number of visitors to museums and events can
serve as an indicator of an increased appreciation of cultural resources and the public's interest in maintaining
these resources.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
A listing of non-profit museums, is compiled and published annually in The Official Museum Directory, by the
American Association of Museums, 1225 I Street, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005, or at (202) 289-1818. A
copy of the Directory can be obtained from Mr. Bob McNeal, Senior Curator at the Museum of Florida History, R.
A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, or at (850) 488-1484. The report is
currently in its 27th edition. The most comprehensive listing of festivals is available in Florida Festivals: Who,
What, When, and Where, which is published annually by the Pinellas County Arts Council (PCAC). The report on
Florida Festivals is available by writing them at 400 Pierce Blvd., Clearwater, FL, 34616, or calling (813) 464-3327.
A third source of information is the Florida Association of Museums (FAM) Directory, which publishes a directly
similar in content to The Official Museum Directory. The Florida Association of Museums (FAM) Directory is
available by contacting Malinda Horton, Executive Director, Post Office Box 10951, Tallahassee, Florida 32302-
2951 or at (850) 222-6028.
ACQUISITION
The Official Museum Directory is available in hard copy format. No costs are associated with its acquisition. The
report on Florida Festivals is available from the PCAC for $12.00 plus shipping and handling. The Florida
Association of Museums (FAM) Directory is available to non-members for a minor cost. The information is also
available via the Internet at Website: http://www.flamuseums.org/fam/florida.map?107,135
COLLECTION
The information on museums and cultural and historical events is updated continually and published annually.
Listings are by individual cities, thereby allowing collection by coastal areas. Visitation data are obtained from
each facility through ticket sales or entrance counters. The festival data is available by date and location and
includes estimates of attendance.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Limitations
The directory published by the American Association of Museums was chosen to measure the trends in this
indicator. Future efforts may need to compare the listings in all three publications for a more complete picture of
the number of events and museums and visitor attendance.

The American Association of Museums lists historic sites and non-profit museums. A museum for profit is not
included. In some instances the published attendance record represents an estimated number of visitors for that
facility for that calendar year. Additionally, the attendance records for some of the museums and events in coastal
counties were not given. Thus, the published total visitor data most likely errs on the side of omission and should
be treated as estimates.

Data Analysis
The number of coastal historical events and museums have been gradually increasing from 178 in 1992 to 198 in
1996, or 5 a year. The number of visitors to Florida's coastal museums and events have increased from nearly 11
million in 1992 to 14.5 million in 1996; an increase of 35% during the 4-year period. The increase in visitation may
be a result of a number of factors, including a change in admission pricing, inflationary factors, or longer periods of
favorable travel weather. The increase may simply be an improvement over previous years in reporting of visitor
estimates.

Annual Number of Events/Museums
Annual Number of Visitors
1992-1996

Visitors Events/Museums
Millions
16 250
14 - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- 2 00---
14
200
12 --- 20

10 --------------------------------------- 150

6 - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -100

0 0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
I-Events/Museums -Visitors

Events/ 178 186 188 189 198
Museums

Visitors 10,845,479 13,282,974 13,560,118 13,594,168 14,600,606

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

* ~~~~~~PRESERVATIN OF CULTURAL AND AESTHEEJI RESOURCES

Amount of Grant Monev Awarded for

Restoration of Historic PropertiesMag

Many historical landmarks in Florida are in danger of being lost through demolition because of a lack of funds to
assist their restoration or rehabilitation. Such properties include former courthouses, railroad stations, banks,
theaters, hotels, office buildings, residences, and other public and private structures that are of outstanding
historical or architectural significance. Since Florida's coastline has been densely populated earlier than other
parts of the state, the coastal counties contain many of the oldest and most historically important structures.
Coastal areas also remain under the greatest amount of development pressure today.

The existence of these irreplaceable local landmarks and their historic values contributes to the quality of life and
cultural awareness in the communities in which they are located. These places help connect the traditional values
reflected in many of Florida's small towns with the modern and fast-paced lifestyle of today. When rehabilitated as
community centers, theaters, museums, classrooms, government offices, and other places of public use, these
landmarks can directly benefit many people as well as contribute to the revitalization of older downtown areas and
neighborhoods. Without assistance, some of the listed historic buildings will further deteriorate and possibly be
lost. Additionally, many Florida residents and visitors would have less opportunity to learn about Florida's heritage
or to develop an understanding of the important events, realize the ethnic diversity, and share common
experiences which make up the history of our state. This indicator reflects the amount of funding that has been
granted to protect and preserve many of Florida's cultural resources.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
All information regarding the Historic Grant Program can be obtained from the Grants and Education Section,
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, R. A. Gray Building,
500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 323993-0250, or at (850) 487-2333.

ACQUISITION
The information on the amount of grant money distributed annually is available by electronic transfer and in hard
copy format. No cost is associated with the acquisition of the information.
COLLECTION
All information regarding the state's Historic Grant Program is continuously updated and entered into a
comprehensive database.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
Distribution of financial grants are dependent on local government activity. In order to be awarded any support
from federal, state, and non-profit funding sources, local agencies need to take the initiative of identifying
qualifying structures and preparing applications for financial support. There may exist many projects which would
qualify for and benefit greatly from financial support, but since application for funding is not made, these projects
are not included in the selection process.

Data Analysis
The demand for grant assistance reflects an important increase in interest and commitment on the part of local
governments, state agencies, and non-profit organizations toward the protection, preservation, and reuse of
significant historic structures. Since the beginning of the program, the amount of money awarded yearly to coastal
counties has increased from $323,046 in fiscal year 1983 to $9,556,338 in fiscal year 1996. The largest amount of
cumulative funds was in FY 1995 when $10.5 million was awarded. Annual funding activities have collected well
over $5 million dollars since 1987. The most significant increase in the amount awarded occurred in fiscal year

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

1987, when the legislature appropriated special project funds to the grant fund. The rise in the amount of money
awarded may be a result of several factors, including an increase in the number of applications and improvement
in the quality of applications. While the amount of money awarded is also a function of the amount of money
available, the data also provides an indication of the perceived importance of this program and the properties
themselves at both the state and local levels.

Amount of Grant Money Awarded for Historic Preservation
Activities in Coastal Counties, FY 1983-1996
Dollars (millions*)
/
12.0 10.5
9.6
10.0 7.6 7 .2 80
7.4 7.6 7.2
8.0 58 59 64
5.4
6.0

4.0

2.0 ).3 0.3 0.3 0.5

0.0 I1 L 1 i

Year
*figures have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million dollars

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends H-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section I
Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement

� ~Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement

- P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Uaroant"

The Florida coast has an abundance of natural resources. However, continued prosperity depends on our ability
to protect this natural heritage and learn to use it in ways that do not diminish it. Environmental stewardship calls
upon everyone to assume responsibility for protecting the integrity of natural resources and ecosystems. Without
personal and collective commitment, without an ethic based on acceptance of responsibility, efforts to sustain
natural resources, the environment, and the quality of life cannot succeed.

Public involvement is important because as the understanding of coastal issues increases, it is likely that more
protection will be afforded to coastal resources. This issue addresses the level of awareness of both residents
and tourists concerning coastal issues and people's level of participation in coastal issues. Public awareness
refers to educational programs regarding coastal issues and policy interest. Public awareness addresses the
attitudes of citizen involvement in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of coastal policy and the level of
participation in voluntary coastal interest groups, activities, and programs. The data for all of the indicators in this
section were from a survey constructed to gauge the general public's opinions, attitude, and knowledge about
coastal issues.

Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement Indicators:

* Public support for purchase of coastal lands
* Public concern for beach access
* Public preparedness for hurricanes
* Public concern for seafood safety
* Public participation in coastal policy
* Membership in coastal advocacy groups
* Beach visits by residents
* Participation in the Florida coastal cleanup

Other Indicators of Interest:

* Change in Strategic habitat conservation areas (Section 0)
* Change in existing wetland habitat and conservation lands (Section 0)
* Change in existing upland habitat and conservation lands (Section 0)
* Management status of coastal habitat (Section G)
* Museums and cultural/historical events (Section H)

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends -IFlorida Coastal Management Program

-~~~ $ ~~ENCOURAGING PUBIe AwARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT

0w Public Support for Purchase of Coastal Lands

Coastal lands are an important resource for Florida's residents, providing recreation opportunities and access to
wildlife and natural scenery, preservation of endangered species, and preservation of Florida's natural history.
The urbanization of Florida's coast has diminished the quantity of land that is available for these purposes. The
state has responded with the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Save Our Rivers, Save Our Coasts
and other programs which have acquired over 1.8 million acres of land, much of which has been coastal lands.
These programs are dependent on public support for investment of state funds in public land purchases.
Changes in the levels of support for purchases of coastal lands should be followed by appropriate governmental
fiscal actions.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The data are from the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, which was conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory at
Florida State University. For further information or data from the survey, contact the Florida Coastal Management
Program, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100,
or at (850) 922-5438.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data were collected during the summer and autumn of 1996, and future data collection via the survey is likely.
The results consist of 1,002 completed telephone interviews of randomly-selected adults (age 18 and older) living
in Florida. The data reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; this means that 95
times out of 100, the results of a question will fall within �8 percent of the answers that would have been given if
the entire population of Florida had been surveyed.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all coastal or
non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-2 ' Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Two of the survey questions addressed the issue of public support for the purchase of coastal lands. When asked
"Should Florida's government continue to use state funds to purchase coastal lands?", about half the sample
responded affirmatively, one quarter said "no," and one quarter stated that they didn't know. As displayed below,
the responses of the coastal and non-coastal county residents were very similar.

yes 51.5% 53.5% 52.0%
no 25.5% 27.3% 25.9%
don't know 23.0% 19.2% 22.1%

People who answered "yes" to the above question were asked a second one on this subject: "Do you feel the
level of funding for the purchasing of coastal lands should be increased, decreased, or kept at the same level?".
Again, the responses of coastal county residents were very similar to those of non-coastal residents: about one
third stated that funding should be increased, nearly half stated funding should be held at the same level, and only
a small percentage stated they felt the level of funding should be decreased. About one fifth of respondents who
supported continued state funding stated they did not know whether the level should be increased, decreased, or
kept the same.

increased 30.3% 30.5% 30.3%
decreased 3.1% 4.6% 3.5%
kept the same 44.6% 48.9% 45.7%
don't know 22.1% 16.0% 20.5%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-3 Florida Coastal Management Program

ENCOURAUBING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT

Ac7 Aim :;-: Public Concern for Beach Access

The beach is an important resource for Florida's residents, providing recreation opportunities and access to
wildlife and natural scenery. The urbanization of Florida's coast has resulted in decreased access due to shoreline
development. The public is facing increasing difficulty in finding access points to beach areas that traditionally
were easily accessible. Responses to the problem have included public purchase of land and public development
exactions for the preservation of access to the beach. Decision-makers are faced with the difficult task of
balancing the public's right to access the beach and private landowners' sovereignty over their land. Changes in
the level of concern for beach access should be followed by appropriate governmental regulatory and fiscal
actions.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data were collected during the summer and autumn of 1996, and future data collection via the survey is likely.
The results consist of 1,002 completed telephone interviews of randomly-selected adults (age 18 and older) living
in Florida. The data reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; this means that 95
times out of 100, the results of a question will fall within +8 percent of the answers that would have been given if
the entire population of Florida had been surveyed.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all coastal or
non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-4 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
When asked to describe their ability to get to and use the beach, about 80 percent of the Florida residents
surveyed responded that access was adequate or very adequate. Coastal county residents were more likely than
non-coastal residents to say that access was very adequate, but they were also slightly more likely to say that
access was very inadequate. Non-coastal county residents were more than twice as likely as coastal residents to
have no opinion on the matter. A summary of the responses is displayed in the table below.

very adequate 36.2% 24.1% 33.2%
adequate 46.1% 52.7% 47.7%
inadequate 8.3% 11.8% 9.2%
very inadequate 6.5% 4.9% 6.1%
no opinion 2.9% 6.5% 3.8%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends I -5 Florida Coastal Management Program

ENCOURAGING PUBICe MumENsS AND IN VMumma

Public Preparedness for Hurricanes

WPrgenram

Preparedness is a key component of emergency management. Considering the fact that 36% of all twentieth
century U.S. hurricanes have hit Florida (Hebert et al., 1995), hurricane preparedness is an important issue for the
state's residents and public officials.

With hurricane season occurring from June I to November 30 of each year, Florida residents face annual risks to
property and personal safety from hurricanes. These risks can be mitigated through appropriate preparation by
residents. Preparation includes finding out about evacuation routes and shelters, maintaining supplies such as
flashlights, radios, and batteries, and knowing the appropriate source for weather and emergency reports.
Moreover, these preparations should occur far in advance of any hurricane, preferably prior to the arrival of the
hurricane season.

There are additional actions residents should take when a hurricane watch is issued; however, this indicator
focuses on long-range preparation activities and does not reflect those more immediate activities.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
For information on the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, contact the Florida Coastal Management Program, Florida
Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumnard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, or at (850) 922-
5438.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are av ailable in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data were collected during the summer and autumn of 1996, and future data collection via the survey is likely.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Data Limitations
There are some limitations inherent in any survey methodology, although the Florida Coastal Issues Survey was
designed and implemented by professionals who specialize in ensuring the randomness and representativeness
of the sample, unambiguousness of the questionnaire, etc. Users of the survey data should be mindful of the
range of results applicable to each question based on the sampling error and confidence interval as described
below. A limitation more specific to this particular indicator is that the self-reported responses reflect individuals'
perceived preparedness and not necessarily their actual knowledge of their evacuation route or shelter (i.e., some
people may think they know how to evacuate or where to find shelter but in reality their ideas are based on
inaccurate information). Further, there are some limitations in interpreting awareness of evacuation routes and
shelters. Evacuation orders usually apply only to people who live in areas expected to flood due to a hurricane
and to people who live in mnobile homes. There are flood-free areas in all of Florida's coastal counties, so not
everyone in a coastal county needs to evacuate. Moreover, evacuation refers to leaving one's home to go
someplace safer, not necessarily leaving the coastal county and going well inland. Mobile home residents who
don't live in flood-prone areas might only go to a mobile home park clubhouse or across town or to a friend's
house. Thus, although knowing evacuation routes is important for some people, it may not be essential to all
(Baker, 1997).

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-6 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The Florida Coastal Issues Survey was conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory at Florida State University
during the summer and autumn of 1996. The survey results consist of 1,002 completed telephone interviews of
randomly-selected adults (age IS and older) living in Florida. The data reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a
sampling error of 4 percent; this means that 95 times out of 100, the results of a question will fall within �4 percent
of the answers that would have been given if the entire population of Florida had been surveyed.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of coastal or non-
coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

Two of the survey questions addressed the existence of long-range hurricane preparedness: "Do you know the
hurricane evacuation route for the area in which you live?" and " Do you know where the hurricane evacuation
shelter for your area is?". As displayed below, when asked whether they knew their hurricane evacuation route,
nearly two-thirds of coastal county residents responded affirmatively, as opposed to just over two-fifths of the non-
coastal county residents. About one-third of coastal residents and one-half of non-coastal residents stated they
did not know the hurricane evacuation route for their area. For the sample as a whole, about three out of every
five people stated that they knew their evacuation route.

yes 65.7% 42.9% 60.1%
no 30.6% 47.8% 34.8%
no evacuation route 2.8% 7.8% 4.0%
don't know 0.9% 1.6% 1.1%

In response to the question about knowledge of hurricane shelters, responses of coastal residents were much
more similar to those of non-coastal county residents: about 58 percent of coastal residents and 51 percent of
non-coastal residents stated that they did know the location of the hurricane shelter for their area. Overall, it
appears that over two-fifths of the state's residents do not know where their hurricane shelter is.

yes 57.6% 51.4% 56.1%
no 40.3% 44.9% 41.4%
no evacuation shelter 1.6% 3.7% 2.1%
don't know 0.5% 0.0% 0.4%

Given the numbers of respondents who stated they did not know their hurricane route and/or shelter, it is
interesting to note that, when the entire sample was asked whether they felt they needed more information on
hurricane preparedness and safety, both coastal and non-coastal county residents answered "yes" less than 25
percent of the time and "no" more than 75 percent of the time. The respondents who answered affirmatively were
asked three additional questions about the modes of information acquisition they would be interested in. Following
is a summary of those results.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-7 Florida Coastal Management Program

Interest in Information on Hurricane Preparedness and Safety by
Respondents Needing Additional Information

Printed information (e.g., pamphlet)
yes 90.5% 86.0% 89.3%
no 8.3% 10.5% 8.9%
no opinion 1.2% 3.5% 1.8%
Television or radio program
yes 85.1% 87.7% 85.8%
no 14.9% 10.5% 13.8%
don't know 0.0% 1.8% 0.4%
Public information session
yes 51.2% 49.1% 50.7%
no 48.2% 47.4% 48.0%
don't know 0.6% 3.5% 1.3%

As reflected in the above chart, coastal and non-coastal county residents indicated similar levels of interest in the
different forms of information. More people (89 percent) stated they would be interested in receiving printed
information than in watching a television program or listening to a radio program (86 percent), and only about half
the respondents stated they would be interested in attending a public information session on hurricane
preparedness and safety.

References
Baker, Jay, Ph.D. Personal communication. Department of Geography, Florida State University. May, 1997.

Hebert, Paul J., Jerry D. Jarrell, and Max Mayfield. 1995. "The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United
States Hurricanes of This Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts)." In Hurricanes...
Different Faces in Different Places (excerpts from the 17th Annual National Hurricane Conference).
Compiled by Lawrence S. Tait, National Hurricane Conference, Tallahassee, Florida. 104 pp.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-8 Florida Coastal Management Program

ENCOURAGING PUBICi AwARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT

PUbli1C ConCern for Seafood WOel Naent

Seafood is an important part of Floridians' diet, both nutritionally and culturally. Floridians enjoy fresh, easily
obtained, and inexpensive seafood whether they catch it themselves or purchase it from commercial vendors.
Changes in seafood quality can occur from natural or human-induced changes in water quality; in addition,
seafood quality can be affected by processing and shipping activities. These changes may be perceived by the
public, resulting in corresponding public responses such as demands for increased regulation and reduction of
seafood purchases. The perception of decreased safety could negatively affect the economy and could result in a
reduction of the quality of life for residents.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all coastal or
non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-9 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
The survey question that addressed public concern about possible adverse health effects from Florida's seafood
was "How concerned are you about bad health effects from eating Florida seafood? Are you very concerned,
somewhat concerned, or not concerned at all?". As displayed in the following table, the responses of coastal and
non-coastal county residents were very similar, and the distribution of responses was fairly even across the
response choices. About one-third of the respondents indicated that they were very concerned, one-third stated
they were somewhat concerned, and one-third indicated they were not concerned about the possibility of
experiencing bad health effects from eating Florida seafood.

very concerned 35.4% 31.4% 34.4%
somewhat concerned 32.5% 35.5% 33.2%
not concerned 30.5% 30.2% 30.4%
no opinion 1.6% 2.9% 1.9%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-10 Florida Coastal Management Program

....
.. ... ........ -IENHCOURAGING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND IHVOLVEMET

......... �....... Public Participation in Coastal Policy
:........................ orida
_Jrn....... ......anagement

Public participation in the policy-making process is important for several reasons. Public participation reinforces
the democratic ideals of our country, legitimizes the roles of government and decision-makers, and eases
implementation by creating a sense of ownership over policy. Public participation also creates the opportunity for
two-way education: decision-makers educate the public and the public educates decision-makers. Each of these
reasons serves to emphasize the importance of creating and fostering opportunities for the public to attend
meetings and make their voices heard.

Coastal policy-makers can take advantage of the benefits outlined above as long as an atmosphere of open
public participation exists. If public participation in coastal policy issues is lacking, however, it is likely that
coastal initiatives will suffer from lack of support and difficulty of implementation. Changes in the level of
participation by the public should be followed by appropriate government actions. Signs that participation is
decreasing should be followed by vigorous attempts to mobilize the public by informing them why their
participation is important and desired and by providing additional opportunities for the public to interact with
policy-makers. Signs that participation is rising should be reinforced by legitimization of the public's input and
the continued support of existing participation programs.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
The data are from the Florida Coastal Issues Survey, which was conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory
at Florida State University. For further information or data from the survey, contact the Florida Coastal
Management Program, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-21 00, or at (850) 922-5438.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

COLLECTION
The data were collected during the summer and autumn of 1996, and future data collection via the survey is
likely. The results consist of 1,002 completed telephone interviews of randomly-selected adults (age 18 and
older) living in Florida. The data reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; this
means that 95 times out of 100, the results of a question will fall within +8 percent of the answers that would have
been given if the entire population of Florida had been surveyed.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal
county residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide
figures, however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all
coastal or non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends I-11 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Survey respondents were asked either one or two questions pertaining to participation in coastal public policy.
When asked "During the last year [August 1995 - August 19961, how many public hearings, meetings, or other
forms of participation have you been involved with that deal with policies directly related to Florida's coast?", the
distribution of answers was similar for the coastal and non-coastal county respondents. Approximately 9 out of
every 10 people questioned stated that they had not been involved in any such activity during the past year. The
distribution of responses is summarized in the following table.

none 88.4% 92.7% 89.4%
I 3.0% 2.4% 2.9%
2 3.6% 2.4% 3.3%
3 2.0% 1.2% 1.8%
4 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%
5- 10 1. 7% 0.0% 1.3%
> I10 0.6% 0.4% 0.6%
don't know 0.4% 0.8% 0.5%

Respondents indicating a participation frequency of I or greater were asked a second question: "Which type of
activity were you involved in the most?". The distribution of responses is summarized below.

workshops 32.1% 25.0% 31.0%
community panels 23.8% 25.0% 24.0%
signed petitions 15.5% 12.5% 15.0%
phone calls 11.9% 6.3% 11.0%
marches/demonstrations 4.8% 12.5% 6.0%
letter writing 3.6% 6.3% 4.0%
teaching a class 1.2% 0.0% 1.0%
other 2.4% 12.5% 4.0%
don' t know 4.8% 0.0% 4.0%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-12 Florida Coastal Management Program

-~~~~~ ~ENCOURAGING PUI LIC AwARENEss AND INvoLmEN

U. ~~Membership in Coastal Advocacy Groups
,Jim ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Man~gmn

Florida is host to approximately 200 local, regional, national, and international organizations involved in education,
advocacy, and group activities concerning environmental issues. Determining the number of organizations that
address coastal issues is difficult, however. These organizations typically sponsor recreational and educational
events, engage in public policy debate, and provide technical assistance and specialized knowledge. Public
membership in these organizations indicates awareness of and concern for coastal issues. Specifically, public
membership shows the strength and breadth of support for coastal policy issues and physical resources, provides
an additional source of revenue for land purchase, research, education and other activities and actions usually
sponsored by the government, focuses public attention through activities and education, and affects public policy
by providing political support. An educated public is important for the successful development and implementation
of coastal policy. This indicator will show the change in membership in coastal advocacy organizations, which
affects the activities listed above.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age IS and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all coastal or
non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-13 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Survey respondents were asked one or three questions pertaining to membership in coastal advocacy groups.
When asked "Do you currently belong to any non-profit groups that are involved in coastal environmental,
educational or recreational activities?", a total of 79 people responded affirmatively. About 8 percent of the coastal
county and 7 percent of the non-coastal county respondents stated that they did belong to a group of that type.
Over 90 percent of the respondents indicated that they did not belong to any non-profit coastal-oriented group.

yes 8.3% 6.9% 8.0%
no 91.3% 93.1% 91.7%
don't know 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%

The 79 respondents who stated they belonged to a group were asked two additional questions. When asked
"How many groups of this type do you belong to?", about 65 percent of the respondents said they belonged to only
one group and 20 percent indicated they belonged to two groups. A summary of the responses is displayed in the
following table. Note that the frequencies are absolute numbers of respondents in each category, not percentages
of respondents.

1 37 14 51
2 15 1 16
3 4 2 6
4 1 0 1
.5-10 I 0 1
>10 2 0 2
don't know 2 0 2
total 62 17 79

The 79 respondents were also asked to give the name of the main group to which they belonged. A total of four
groups were named by more than 1 respondent: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Save the Manatees, and Manatee
Research Team. All other respondents named a group that was not named by any other respondent.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-14 Florida Coastal Management Program

ENCOURAGING PUBLIC AwAHENEss AnD INvoLVM N

47 ~~~~Bleach visits by Res-dents Mngmn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mn Program

The beach is an important resource for Florida's residents, providing recreation opportunities and access to
wildlife and natural scenery. This indicator differs from state estimates of beach visitations in that it uses self-
reporting of state residents and does not include tourist visits. This is important for understanding how residents
are using the beach resource and for assessing residents' potential support for programs to enhance beach
characteristics.

ACQUISITION
The survey data are available in hard copy format at no cost.

The sample consisted of 450 males and 552 females. There were 757 coastal county respondents and 245 non-
coastal county respondents. The sample is representative of Florida residents age 18 and older who are
accessible by telephone. Like the data for Florida residents statewide, the data for coastal and non-coastal county
residents reflect a 95 percent confidence level and a sampling error of 4 percent; unlike the statewide figures,
however, the data for the coastal subset or the non-coastal subset are not truly representative of all coastal or
non-coastal county residents, because sampling was not designed to be representative at those levels.

TECHNICAL
Data Accessibility: Data are manually collected and are accessible.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends I-is5 Florida Coastal Management Program

Data Analysis
Survey respondents were asked two questions pertaining to beach visits: "How many times have you visited a
Florida beach within the last year [between August 1995 and August 1996]?" and "What is your favorite activity at
the coast?". Actual numbers of beach visits were recorded for each respondent, but for the purposes of this
indicator, numbers of visits were grouped into the ranges reflected in the following table.

none 14.3% 21.6% 16.1%
1 - 5 28.2% 43.0% 31.8%
6 - 10 13.4% 17.5% 14.4%
11 - 20 14.1% 9.4% 13.0%
21 - 40 8.8% 4.4% 7.8%
41 - 99 9.2% 0.4% 7.2%
> 100 9.8% 2.4% 8.1%
don't know 2.0% 1.2% 1.8%

As displayed above, non-coastal county residents were more likely than coastal residents to have not visited the
beach at all during the twelve months preceding the survey. Non-coastal residents were more likely to have
visited the beach between 1 and 10 times during the year, while coastal residents were more likely to have visited
the beach 11 or more times during the year. Projecting the survey responses to the residents of the entire state,
and assuming the twelve-month period addressed would not differ from any other year in the near future, it would
be expected that about half the state's residents would visit a Florida beach between 0 and 5 times per year and
half would visit a beach more than 5 times per year.

Survey respondents were also asked to name their favorite activity at the coast. Those responses are
summarized in the following table.

swimming 25.2% 30.6% 26.5%
walking/jogging/running 16.7% 13.2% 15.8%
sunbathing 13.1% 16.5% 13.9%
fishing 8.5% 11.6% 9.2%
relaxing/sitting/reading 6.7% 6.6% 6.7%
boating 5.5% 2.1% 4.7%
playing at the beach 4.3% 2.1% 3.8%
surfing 1.6% 3.3% 2.0%
snorkeling/scuba diving 2.0% 0.0% 1.5%
picnics/cookouts 2.0% 0.0% 1.5%
jet skiing/water skiing 1.3% 0.8% 1.2%
beachcombing 0.9% 1.7% 1.1%
biking 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
work/clam farming 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
none 7.0% 4.5% 6.4%
other 1.6% 1.7% 1.6%
don't know 3.0% 5.0% 3.5%

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-16 Florida Coastal Management Program

ENCOURAGING PUBICe AwARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT

Participation in the Florida coastal Cleanup

toeram

Public participation efforts to keep beaches free of litter are vital for the maintenance of beach aesthetics and
removes potential hazards, such as plastics and fish line, from marine habitats. Residents and tourists are more
likely to use and enjoy beaches that are free of litter. In addition, participation by the public in beach cleanup
activities heightens the connection between the public and the state's natural resources, resulting in greater care
and concern for beach resources. The Center for Marine Conservation sponsors the annual Florida Coastal
Cleanup, a voluntary public program to remove litter and debris from beaches, which has been steadily attended
since 1988. The cleanup takes place annually on the third Saturday of September. The number of volunteers
participating in the Florida Coastal Cleanup provides indication of the level of public participation and concern for
the state's beach resources.

Data Characteristics
SOURCE
Information on participation in the Florida Coastal Cleanup is available from Bruce Ryan, Center for Marine
Conservation, One Beach Drive SE, Suite 304, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, or at (813) 895-2188. The Center
may also be reached at 1 -800-CMC-FLORida.

ACQUISITION
The information is available in hard copy. There are no costs associated with the acquisition of the data.
COLLECTION
Information on number of volunteers, miles cleaned, and tons collected is available for the years 1988-1996.
Since 1992, the data have been broken down by county; however, prior to 1992 the data are available only as
state totals.

Data Limitations
The number of participants is determined from actual sign-ins; thus, it will not capture participants who do not
formally register. Also, the Florida Coastal Cleanup is held once per year and does not reflect individual and local
government efforts to clean the beach. In addition, it is possible that non-residents also participate, so the
numbers of volunteers may overestimate participation by Florida residents. Finally, bad weather on the day of
cleanup can be a limiting factor in participation and area covered.

Data Analysis
Since 1989, participation in the Florida Coastal Cleanup has remained relatively stable with a noticeable increase
in participation in 1995 and 1996. Fluctuations in attendance at the cleanups is likely to vary based on the amount
of advertising conducted, weather, and other environmental conditions. Attendance increased 73% from the first
year of the cleanup (1988) to the peak attendance year of 1991, most likely due to increased awareness and
popularity of the program. Some of the decline in attendance beginning in 1992 may be explained by the low
number of participants in Dade and Broward counties following Hurricane Andrew. Attendance reached an all-
time high in 1996 with 24,660 volunteers. The miles covered also hit an all-time low. From 1988 to 1995, roughly
1,650 tons of trash were picked up along Florida's coast, indicating the positive impact of the cleanup efforts as
well as the continual problem of managing human use of the marine environment.

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-17 Florida Coastal Management Program

Number of Volunteers in the Florida Coastal Cleanup
Volunteers (thousands*)

30.0 /
24.7
25.0 22.5
18.4 18.5
~~~~20.0 l 16.6 16.7
2.14.6 I15.1
15.0 10.7

10.0

5.0

0.0 I l l l l I I ,
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year
*figures have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 thousand volunteers

Number of Volunteers, Miles Cleaned, and Tons of
Trash Collected, 1988-1996

1988 10,676 914.6 194
1989 14,632 911 197.72
1990 18,413 1,050 199.83
1991 18,488 1,203 180
1992 15,076 1,307.26 151.97
1993 16,603 1,188.7 183
1994 16,670 1,267 167
1995 22,528 1,573 212
1996 24,660 822 172
AVERAGE 17,527 1,137 184

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 1-18 Florida Coastal Management Program

Section I

Indicators No Longer
Included In FACT

Indicators He Longer Included In FACT

For the convenience of previous readers of FACT, the following is a list of indicators which were removed from the
indicator system due to a lack of indicator-quality data. These indicators may be included in future editions if data
becomes available. It is our hope that these issues will remain topics of conversation until data becomes available
or better measurements are developed. This list does not include the original titles of the indicators which
underwent title changes.

Impact of Growth in the Coastal Zone
*Proportion of State's Municipal Solid Waste Attributed to Coastal Counties
*Municipal Solid Waste Processed by Recycling, Landfill, and Waste-to-Energy Facilities

Disruption of Coastal Physical Processes
*Groundings on Coral Reefs and Seagrass Beds
*Miles of Coastal Armoring
*Number of Threatened Coastal Structures

Responding to Coastal Threats and Hazards
* Navigational Shipping Accidents

Degradation and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems
*Changes in Mangrove and Salt Marsh Species Distribution and Abundance
*Changes in Beach Mice Ranges
*Globally Rare Species
*Northward Range Extension of Tropical Fishes and Invertebrates
*Number of Waterbodies with Fish Consumption Advisories Due to Bioaccumulation of Mercury

Managing Fresh Water Resources
a Permitted Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities

Sustaining the Human Use of the Coast
*Number of Tourist Visits to Coastal Areas
*Number of Tourists that Would Return to Coastal Areas
*Recreational Saltwater Fishing Value
*Miles of Developed Coastal Areas
*Number of Power Plants

Balancing Public and Private Uses of the Coast
*Developed and Agricultural Land Along the Coast
*Public Access Points Along the Coast
*Beachfront Properties Under Public Ownership
*Undeveloped Coastal Properties

Preservation of Cultural and Aesthetic Resources
*Acreage of Coastal Open Space
*Coastal Parks: Number and Shoreline Miles
*Miles of Scenic Coastal Highways

Encouraging Public Awareness and Involvement
*Public Participation in Marine Wildlife Based Ecotourism

Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends j-iFlorida Coastal Management Program

DATE DUE
I
vI