Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve management plan adopted January 22, 1992

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

c rvA - AZL

APALACHICOLA BAY

UATIC PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

QH 1992
90.75
T6
A61
19Y2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

APALACHICOLA BAY

AQUATIC PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

ADOPTED

JANUARY 22, 1992

VIRGINIA WETHERELL

Executive Director

Department of Natural Resources

This plan was prepared by the
Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves
Division of State Lands

Funds for this management plan were provided by the Department of
Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management using funds made
available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

This document, was print ed on recycLed paper.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve lies along the northeast coast of the Gulf
of Mexico in Franklin County. The preserve, designated by the Governor and
Cabinet in 1969, covers an area of 80,000 acres of sovereignty submerged lands
including all tidal lands and islands, sandbars, shallow banks, submerged bottoms
and lands waterward of mean high water to which the state holds title.

Apalachicola Bay produces 90% of Florida's oyster crop and 10% of the nation's
oyster harvest. In addition, the estuary is a major breeding ground for the blue
crab and an important nursery for shrimp and finfish. The Apalachicola River, which
empties into the bay, has the largest flow of any river in Florida. The upper basin
has the greatest number of endangered plant species of any comparably sized area
in Florida and the highest density of amphibians and reptiles in the continent north
of Mexico.

Tidal flats are located on the bayward sides of the barrier islands, along the
mainland, and in the shallow waters associated with salt and freshwater marshes.
Little is known about these tidal flats, and they are often ignored because their
values to the aquatic ecosystem are not readily visible. However, marine biologists
consider them to be even more productive than the submerged grassbeds because
of their high microalgae production.

Population density in Franklin County and adjoining counties is low--less than 12.5
people/square mile. With few notable exceptions (i.e., cities of Apalachicola and
Eastpoint, part of St. George Island, and the coastal strand between Eastpoint and
Carrabelle), the major land uses in the Apalachicola Bay are forestry and federally
or state-owned conservation areas. About 93% of Franklin County is in forestry,
owned for conservation purposes, or is submerged. under rivers, streams or lakes.
In recent years, considerable acreage has been purchased in close proximity to the
estuary for environmental rather than recreational reasons--to protect the estuary
from impacts associated with habitat alteration.
The aquatic preserve has been divided into individual management areas. The'
management areas are classified and delineated based on the types and locations
of existing and planned uses of the adjacent uplands, as well as on the types,
occurrence and characteristics of the natural resources on submerged lands.
Specific rule criteria and allowable uses are defined in the plan for each area.

The major objective of the aquatic preserve management program is to ensure the
maintenance of an essentially natural condition within the preserve. Management
will also be directed to ensure public recreational opportunities' while assuring the
continued propagation of-fish and wildlife resources.

An additional management objective is the review and comment on application of
the use of state-owned submerged lands. Meeting these objectives will require a
fully implemented management program with on-site field personnel for the aquatic
preserve.

Various state, federal and regional agencies oversee laws and regulations which
apply to the lands and waters within the aquatic preserve. Therefore, management
of the aquatic preserve will complement agency programs whenever it is in the
preserve's interest. The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, another
arm of DNR, has a strong presence in the estuary and coordinates closely with
aquatic preserve staff on management initiatives. Field personnel and central office
staff work together with many agencies to assume effective management and
pr otection.

The management of the preserve and protection of the resources included within
its boundaries will be enhanced by continually identifying and resolving specific
program needs. Meeting these needs, which may include legislative support,
administrative rule changes, resource protection capabilities, and funding and
staffing needs, will relieve some stress on the resources or personnel involved in
the management of the preserve. In the future, the field staff will develop and
submit a status report that summarizes the program's needs and suggests
measures to be taken to resolve these needs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION. ................................ 1

CHAPTER 11 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...................... 13
Background .................................. 14
Administrative Rules for Aquatic Preserves ............ 15
Relation to Other Applicable Plans and
Programs .................................... 17

CHAPTER 111 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION ...................... 19
Physiography ................................. 19
Geology ..................................... 20
Climate ..................................... 29
Hydrology .................................... 30
Physico-Chemical Parameters ..................... 31
Water and Sediment Quality ....................... 38
Biota and Habitat .............................. 39
Cultural Resources .............................. 62

CHAPTERIV HUMAN USES OF THE RESOURCE S AND ASSOCIATED
IMPACTS .................................... 67
Harvesting of Marine Resources ..................... 67
Commercial Waterborne Navigation .................. 75
Adjacent Land Uses ............................ 82
Basinwide Management ......................... . 91

CHAPTER V SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES .............. 93
Management Initiatives .......................... 95

CHAPTER VI MANAGEMENT AREAS .......................... 97
Introduction ......... 97
Management Area Classifications ...................... 98
Minimum Criteria for Allowable Uses ................ 100
Management Areas ............................ 105

CHAPTER VII MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN ................... 113
Resource Management Program .................. 114
Resource Protection Program .................... 119
Research and Monitoring Program ................. 120
Environmental Education/ Information Program ........ 124

CHAPTER Vill PRESERVE MANAGEMENT COORDINATION NETWORK
Federal Agencies ......................... .... 127
State Agencies ............................... 130
Regional Agencies ............................... 135
Local Government ............................. 136
Other Organizations ........................... 137

CHAPTERIX STAFFING AND FISCAL NEEDS ................... 139

CHAPTER X RESOURCE AND ACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM ... 143
Resource Monitoring ........................... 143
Activity Monitoring .............................. 144
Accomplishments and Progress Monitoring ........... 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ 145

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Florida Aquatic Preserve System .................... 3

Figure 2. Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve ................... 5

Figure 3. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River Basin .................................... 7

Figure 4. Land in Public Ownership and Proposed for
Acquisition in Proximity to the Apalachicola
Bay Aquatic Preserve ........................... 11

Figure 5. The Apalachicola Estuary ......................... 21

Figure 6. The Evolution of St. George Island .................. 25

Figure 7. Bottom Sediment Types in Apalachicola Bay ........... 27

Figure 8. Average Monthly Flows of the Apalachicola
River ........................................ 33

Figure 9. Effects of the Reservoir System on Flow in
the Apalachicola River ........................... 35

Figure.10. Location of Major Oyster Bars in Apalachicola
Bay ........................................ 45-

Figure 11. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution
in Apalachicola Bay ............................. 49

Figure 12. Emergent Aquatic Vegetation Distribution
in Apalachicola Bay ............................. 53
Figure 13. Apalachicola Bay Shellfish Harvesting Map ............. 71

Figure 14. Federal Navigation Channels within the Aquatic
Preserve ..................................... 77

Figure 15. Future Land Use Map of Franklin County ............. 85

Figure 16. Future Land Use Map for the city of
Apalachicola .................................. 87

Figure 17. Management Areas of the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve .............................. 111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Submerged Vegetation Acreage in the
Apalachicola Bay System ......................... 51

Table 2. Endangered and Potentially Endangered
Flora and Fauna of the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve ............................ 58-61

Table 3. Summary of Selected Franklin County
Shellfish Landings .............................. 68

Table 4. Summary of Fin Fish Landings for Estuarine
Dependent Species ............................. 69

Table 5. Estimated Budget for FY 1991-1992 for the '
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve ................. 141

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Administrative Codes ........................... 159

Copies of the legal description of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve, as well
as copies of Chapter 253 and 258, F.S., and Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., may be
obtained from:

Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves
Department of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 125
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

Apalachicola Bay is in Franklin County, Florida along the northeast coast of the Gulf
of Mexico. It was designated an aquatic preserve by the Governor and Cabinet in
1969 and is one of 42 such preserves in Florida (Figure 1). This aquatic preserve
covers an area of about 80,000 acres of sovereignty submerged lands. The
boundaries of the preserve (Figure 2) include all tidal lands and islands, sandbars,
shallow banks, submerged bottom, and lands waterward of mean high water
(MHW) to which the state holds title.

For many years, the Apalachicola estuary has supported the largest oystering
industry in Florida, providing 90% of the state's and 10% of the nation's oyster
harvest. The estuary also provides sizable shrimp, blue crab, and finfish yields. It
is a major blue crab breeding ground for the entire west Florida coast (Oesterling
and Evink, 1977) and an important nursery area for penaeid shrimp. Current
annual seafood landings are typically in excess of $14 million dockside and the
bay's seafood yield is an important part of the county's economy. The high
productivity of the estuary is a result of the overall. good quality of water in the bay,
the physical form of the bay, the salinity regime in the estuary -as defined by the
flow of the river, and the nutrient and detrital transport from the river's floodplain
(Livingston, 1984).

The estuary lies at the mouth of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint (ACF) River
system ( Figure 3). The basin extends up into northern Georgia and drains 19,800
square miles in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Only 12% of the watershed lies in
Florida. The Apalachicola River has the largest flow of any river in Florida, with a
mean annual flow of 25,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The drainage basin is a
unique and important biological resource. The upper basin has the greatest
number of endangered plant species of any comparably sized area in Florida
(FCREPA, 1981) and the highest density of amphibians and reptiles on the
continent north of Mexico (Means, 1977). The floodplain represents one of the
largest tracts of bottomland hardwoods in the Southeast outside the Mississippi
River system. The unusual biological diversity is attributable to geographical
location which allows the basin to receive floral and faunal influences from five
distinct physiographic areas (the Appalachian mountains, the Piedmont, the Atlantic
coastal plain, the Gulf coastal plain, and peninsular Florida) and variability of
physical environments.

The goal of the Florida Aquatic Preserve Program as specified in Section 258.36,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), is to set aside forever state-owned submerged lands which
have exceptional biological, aesthetic, or scientific value for the benefit of future

generations. Aquatic preserves include only lands or water bottoms owned or
leased by the State and lands owned by other governmental bodies specifically
authorized for inclusion in the preserve. Any publicly owned and maintained
navigation channel or other public works project authorized by the United States
Congress and designed to improve or maintain commerce and navigation are
excluded from the aquatic preserve boundaries.

It was the intent of the Florida Legislature that aquatic preserves be maintained in
an essentially natural or existing condition. Therefore, a program has been
established in the Department of Natural Resources to develop and oversee
implementation of a special management program and statutory guidelines for
aquatic preserves to assure that the overall goal of setting aside aquatic preserves
for future generations is realized. This management plan outlines that program.
As more information is learned about the preserve, management strategies outlined
in this plan may need to be modified. Specific goals included in the Apalachicola
Bay Aquatic Preserve are: 1) to conduct those resource management actions
necessary to conserve or enhance the natural resource-oriented values of the
preserve for future generations; 2) to ensure that all laws, rules, ordinances, and
permit conditions protecting the natural resources are complied with; 3) to conduct
research and monitoring activities that enhance the understanding of the Preserve's
dynamics and that maintain its natural conditions for future generations; and 4) to
educate people to use the environment in ways that conserve it and to take part
in making decisions that will affect their local natural resources.

Twenty-six management plans, of the 42 designated aquatic preserves in the state,
have been adopted by reference into the existing aquatic preserves rule, Chapter
18-20 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This management plan will be
subsequently incorporated into rule following its approval by the Board of Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. As such, the special criteria in this plan
will carry the same authority as current rule criteria.

Previous management plans were designed to be generic in nature, with policies
and management guidance generally applicable to all aquatic preserves. However,
this plan and all future aquatic preserve management plans will be more site-
specific and contain policy guidance and directives applicable to each individual
preserve.

Implementation of this plan rel ies heavily on authorities and activities existing
outside the aquatic preserve program per se. Aquatic preserve's management
emphasize maintenance and enhancement of natural resources. Section 18-
20.004(2)(a), F.A.C. states that proposed development pi@qjects and lease requests
to utilize sovereign bottoms in less developed aquatic preserves, such as
Apalachicola Bay, shall be subject to a higher standard than similar projects in the
more developed preserves. As more information is learned about the preserve and

AQUATIC
PRESERVES

AQUATAIC PRESERVES ARE ESTABLISHED
BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND
INCLUDE ONLY STATE OWNED
SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS.
THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET SITTING
AS TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEEMENT TRUST FUND ARE
MANAGERS OF THESE AREAS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING
AQUATIC PRESERVES CONTACT:

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF RECREATION AND PARKS
BUREAU OF LAND AND AQUATIC
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
3800 COMMONWEALTH BLVD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 322303

CREATED BY CAROL A. KNOX

Figure 1 FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVE SYSTEM

Figure 2

APALACHICOLA BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE

AST

AY
Us 98

ASTPOINT
APALACHICOL

SO&I
i14CE141 .... ...... 10.
APALACHICOLA*

IN DIAN
PASS

dt:

WE T
PA

Sikes
Cut

... St. Ge
C,ftpe 0

GULF OF MEXICO

Figure 3

LOCATION OF THE APALACHICOLA
CHATTAHOOCHEE- FLINT (ACF1 RVIER -BASIN

AL.
TN. N.C. FL.

S C. JACKSON

AL. G A.
FL. S
:x
MARIANNA
Jim "CHATTAHOOCHEE
WOODRUFF
DAM GADSDEN

Z
A-C-F BASIN
Blount$-
town*

CALHOUN

Dead
Lakes

. ..............

.. ..........
Walmlahitchk

vx.
N X."
GULF

0 5 10 MILES FRANKLIN

A L-A-C -HI C _0L A
St. C.'eo 6
I'lps
Vince I
Isis
Cape
St. George
Lands in GULF OF MEXICO
Public Ownership

ambient conditions analyzed, efforts to restore or enhance the productivity of
certain areas may be undertaken.

To effectively manage natural resources they must be understood and managed
in context to the greater whole of which they are a part. How the resource
functions as an ecological system and the sensitivity or vulnerability of the resource
to disturbance must be understood. The resource must be managed from a long-
term perspective.

This management plan is divided as follows: Chapter 11 cites authorities upon which
this management program and plan are built. Chapters [it and IV discuss the
resource, man's use of the resource, past problems associated with use of the
resource, and status and content of applicable local government comprehensive
plans. Chapter V focuses on site specific management issues and needs, and
Chapter VI discusses designated management areas. Chapter VII provides a
management action plan for the aquatic preserve. Chapter VIII the management
coordination network. And, Chapters IX and X the staffing and fiscal needs and
resources and activity monitoring program.

A considerable portion of the land adjacent to the Apalachicola Aquatic Preserve
are in public ownership (Figure 4). St. Vincent Island is a National Wildlife Refuge
owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior; Cape St. George Island is a subunit
of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve administered by the
Department of Natural Resources; and much of the land surrounding East Bay was
purchased through the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) and
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Programs. In addition, a high priority
acquisition on the current CARL list includes the acquisition of additional lands
which border the aquatic preserve.

One incorporated (Apalachicola) and one unincorporated (Eastpoint) urban area
border the preserve. In 1985 their combined population was less than 6,000 people
(BEBR, 1986). St. George Island is also developed with a current residential
population of less than 1,000 and a maximum seasonal tourist population of over
20,000 (DCA, 1986). Over half the water front on St. George Island adjacent to the
preserve is zoned at a maximum of one unit per acre, with the remainder zoned at
one unit per quarter acre. The mainland shore along St. Vincent Sound is owned
by St. Joe Paper Company and is largely undeveloped.

Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve lies within the Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve. The Estuarine Research Reserve Program is intended to confer
protection and management on an area for the long-term-.benefit and enjoyment of
the public. Through this designation resource-oriented research and education
activities, and the integration of research findings into management decisions are
enhanced. The designation, however, does not afford any additional protection to
the resource and has limited direct management capabilities.

The preserve also lies within an International Biosphere Reserve Unit. International
recognition was conferred on the area in 1983 by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization as part of their Man and the Biosphere
Program. The Biosphere Reserve Program emphasizes resource protection,
research, and education.

Figure 4
LAND CURRENTLY IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND LAND PROPOSED
AQUISITION IN PROXIMITY TO APALACHICOLA BAY AQUATIC PRESE

LEGEND

AQUATIC PRESERVE

CURRENTLY OWNED

PROPOSED AQUISITION
:1 N'.
SR 381

X.
E. E. L.
Lands TATES HELL SWAMP
East Bay Lands CARRABELLE

X.
X
.... 'EAST-
-POINT-

APALACHICOL' CAT
POINT
ACHICOLA
SAYFRONT

HELLPOINT
E.N.4-,
INDIAN .1% N,,*-,*-:::::::j;::::@
BAYFRONT
NICKS
PASS
...... . ... 60
MULE
.. ........
Of
U
nit 4
WEST -----::'---SIKES CUT
N

PASS 0
Sikes
St. Vincent
Cut
Island Nationa
Wildlife Refuge
State Reserve

CHAPTER 11

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The primary laws providing management authority for aquatic preserves are
Chapters 253 and 258, F.S.. These statutes establish the proprietary role of the
Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund as trustees over all sovereignty submerged lands. They also empower
the Trustees to adopt and enforce rules and regulations for managing all
sovereignty submerged lands, including aquatic preserves.

The jurisdiction of the Florida Aquatic Preserve Program relates to the use of
sovereign submerged lands within the boundaries of the aquatic preserve.
Activities which cannot be controlled directly through an aquatic preserve
designation include use of the adjacent uplands, federal navigation projects within
an aquatic preserve, commercial fishing, water uses (i.e., boat speeds, wake zones,
etc.), and water quality. Although the Aquatic Preserve Program does not directly
control water quality, by virtue of the aquatic preserve designation the water body
has been declared an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and therefore, ambient
water quality at the time of the designation is the water quality standards for the
estuary.

The principle differences between submerged bottoms designated as aquatic
preserves and other submerged bottoms within the state are in regard to activities
which would disturb the submerged bottoms such as in the drilling of oil and gas
wells, excavation of minerals, construction of seawalls, the placement of rip rap, the
construction of docks and boathouses, dredging and filling, and the placement of
utilities. In addition, a public interest test must be met *within aquatic preserves,
whereas on other sovereign lands no public interest test exists except in regard to
the sale of sovereign land.

Sections 258.35-258.46, F.S., enacted in 1975 comprise the Florida Aquatic
Preserves Act. These sections set forth a standardized set of management criteria
for all designated aquatic preserves and represent the primary laws governing use
of sovereignty submerged lands within aquatic preserves.

Management responsibilities may be fulfilled directly by the Governor and Cabinet
or indirectly by staff of the Division of State Lands through delegations of authority
from the Board of Trustees. Staff of the Division of -State Lands, Bureau of
Submerged Lands and Preserves serve as on-site managers for the Board of
Trustees and review requests for uses affecting state-*owned sovereignty
submerged lands within the aquatic preserves. Project assessments and reviews

are evaluated in accordance with the criteria in Sections 258.35-.42, F.S., (Florida
Aquatic Preserves Act) and Chapter 18-20, F.A.C.

BACKGROUND

The laws supporting aquatic preserve management are the direct result of the
public's awareness of the importance of preserving Florida's coastal environment.
resulting from the rampant dredge and fill activities in the late 1960s.

In 1967 the Florida Legislature passed the Randall Act (Chapter 67-393, Laws of
Florida), which established procedures regulating previously unrestricted dredge
and fill activities on state-owned submerged lands. That same year the legislature
provided statutory authority (Section 253.03, F.S.) for the Board of Trustees to
exercise proprietary control over state-owned lands. Also in 1967, government
focus on protecting Florida's productive estuaries from development led to the
Board of Trustees establishment of a moratorium on the sale of submerged lands
to private interests. In the same year, an interagency advisory committee on
submerged lands was created. In late 1968, the committee issued a report
recommending the establishment of twenty-six aquatic preserves. Also in 1968, the
Florida Constitution was revised, declaring in Article 11, Section 7, the State's policy
of conserving and protecting the natural resources and scenic beauty. That
constitutional provision also established the authority for the legislature to enact
measures for abatement of air and water pollution.

On October 21, 1969 the Governor and Cabinet acted upon the recommendations
of the Interagency Advisory Committee and adopted by resolution eighteen of the
water bodies as aquatic preserves, including Apalachicola Bay. Other preserves
were similarly adopted at various times through 1971. Prior to the October 1969
action, the Legislature had created the Boca.Ciega Aquatic Preserve. Subsequent
legislation in 1972, 1973, and 1974 created the Pinellas County, Lake Jackson and
Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves, respectively.

In 1975, the legislature established the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act (Chapter 258,
F.S.), bringing all existing preserves under a standardized set of maintenance
criteria. Subsequent acts added Cockroach Bay in 1976, Rookery Bay in 1977 and
Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor in 1978 to the Aquatic Preserve Program.

In June, 1985, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 762 which expanded the
boundaries of the Rookery Bay, Banana River, Indian River-Malabar to Vero Beach,
Loxahatchee River-Lake Worth Creek, and Wekiva River. Aquatic Preserves, and
created the Guana River Marsh and Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserves.
Lemon Bay and Rainbow Springs were added as'aquatic preserves by SB 607 in
1986.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR AQUATIC PRESERVES

Chapters 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C., are rules adopted by the Board of Trustees
designating the allowable uses of aquatic preserves and other submerged lands.
Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. addresses the aquatic preserves specifically and derives its
authority from Sections 258.35, 258.36, 258.37, and 258.38, F.S. The intent of this
Chapter is found in Section 18-20.001, F.A.C. which states:

110) All sovereignty lands within a preserve shall be managed primarily for
the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, the propagation of fish and
wildlife, and public recreation including hunting and fishing where deemed
appropriate by the board and the managing agency.
(2) The aquatic preserves which are described in 73-534, Laws of Florida,
Sections 258.39, 258.391, 258,392, and 258.393, Florida Statutes, future
aquatic preserves established pursuant to general or special acts of the
legislature, and in Rule 18-20-002, Florida Administrative Code, were
established for the purpose of being preserved in essentially natural or
existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may
endure for the enjoyment of future generations.

(3) The preserves shall be administered and managed in accordance with
the following goals:

(a) to preserve, protect, and enhance these exceptional areas of
sovereignty submerged lands by reasonable regulation of human
activity within the preserves through the development and
implementation of a comprehensive management program;

(b) to protect and enhance the waters of the preserves so that the
public may continue to enjoy the traditional -recreational uses of those
waters such as swimming, boating, and fishing;

(c) to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to aid in
carrying out the intent of the Legislature in creating the preserves;

(d) to use applicable federal, state, and local management programs,
which are compatible with the intent and provisions of the act and
these rules, and to assist in managing the preserves;

(e) to encourage the protection, enhancement, or restoration of the
biological, aesthetic,.or scientific values of th@ preserves, including but
not limited to the modification of existing manmade conditions toward
their natural condition, and discourage activities which would degrade
the aesthetic, biological, or scientific values, or the quality, or utility of

a preserve, when reviewing applications, or when developing and
implementing management plans for the preserves;

(f) to preserve, promote, and utilize indigenous life forms and
habitats, including but not limited to: sponges, soft coral, hard corals,
submerged grasses, mangroves, salt water marshes, fresh water
marshes, mudflats, estuarine, aquatic and marine reptiles, game and
non-game fish species, estuarine aquatic, and marine invertebrates,
estuarine, aquatic, and marine mammals, birds, shellfish and
mollusks;

(g) to acquire additional title interests in lands wherever such
acquisitions would serve to protect or enhance the biological,
aesthetic, or scientific values of the preserve;

(h) to maintain those beneficial hydrologic and biologic functions, the
benefits. of which accrue to the public at large."

Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., controls activities conducted on sovereignty submerged
lands in general and is predicated upon the provisions of Sections 253.03 and
253.12, F.S. The general rules in Chapter 18-20, F.A.G. are supplemental to the
rules in Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. in the regulation of activities in the aquatic preserve.
The stated intent of this administrative rule is:

"(1) to aid in fulfilling the trust and fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for the Administration,
management, and disposition of sovereignty lands;

(2) to insure maximum benefit and use of sovereignty lands for all the
citizens of Florida;

(3) to manage, protect, and enhance sovereignty lands so that the public
may continue to enjoy traditional uses including, but not limited to,
navigation, fishing, and swimming;

(4) to manage and provide maximum protection for all sovereignty -lands,
especially those important to public drinking water supply, shellfish
harvesting, public recreation, and fish and wildlife propagation and
management;

(5) to insure that all public and private activities on sovereignty lands which
generate revenues or exclude traditional public uses provide just
compensation for such privileges; and,

(6) to aid in the implementation of the State Lands Management Plan."

RELATION TO OTHER APPLICABLE PLANS AND PROGRAMS

The State Comprehensive Plan, established by Chapter 187, F.S., provides long-
range policy guidance for the orderly social, economic, and physical growth of the
State. As such, the State Comprehensive Plan provides direction for management
of physical resources within the State. The goals, objectives, and policies set forth
in this aquatic preserve management plan are designed to be consistent with those
of the State Comprehensive Plan.

The Conceptual State Lands Management Plan, adopted on March 17, 1981, and
amended by the Board of Trustees on July 7,-1981 and March 15, 1983 contain
specific policies concerning spoil islands, submerged lands leases, "Outstanding
Native Florida Landscapes", unique natural features, seagrass beds, archaeological
and historical resources, and endangered species. These policies provide some
of the fundamental direction for formulating management plans and policies for the
Aquatic Preserve Frogram.

Local Government Comprehensive Plans (LGCP) for Franklin County and the city
of.Apalachicola are required by Section 163.3161, F.S. These comprehensive plans
are intended to guide the future development in the city and county. Both are
required by law to conform to criteria, policies, and practices listed in their
comprehensive plan. The Division of State Lands reviews these local plans to
assure their compliance with submerged land policies of the state and of the
Aquatic Preserve Program. Aquatic preserve management plans provide
management guidance for state sovereign lands which are beyond the jurisdiction
of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Therefore, if coordinated
properly the management plan for an aquatic preserve can serve as the waterward
extension of the city's and county's Local Government Comprehensive Plan. The
city of Apalachicola's LGCP was formally adopted in 1990, whil Franklin County's
was adopted in 1991 because of the need to resolve several comments by state
agencies. In March 1990, the Beach Restoration Management Plan was adopted
by the Governor and Cabinet for Gulf County. The Aquatic preserve management
plan should be consistent with the beach management plan for the area.

Submerged areas are subject to the provisions of Section 161.041, F.S. and. inlet
management plans are subject to the provisions of Section 161.161, F.S., and
would apply if promulgated for Indian Pass, West Pass, and Sikes Cut. Of these
inlets, the Beach. Restoration Management Plan of the Division of Beaches and
Shores recommends that maintenance dredged materials from Sikes Cut be placed
back on beaches.

Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Program

The SWIM Program on the Apalachicola River and Bay consists of a multifaceted
plan encompassing all aspects of water resource management in the basin. While
not having specific authority to regulate or mandate management decisions, a
major objective of the program includes establishing and monitoring the
implementation of a basinwide management strategy. This effort requires a
perspective which incorporates a long-term, comprehensive view with the details
of specific, day-to-day management operations.

The SWIM Program will attempt to provide funding for a diversity of projects
including those with a long term, basinwide focus, as well as site specific projects
of an immediate and timely nature. All projects regarding management issues in
the basin which may affect the water quality and aquatic habitat of the Apalachicola
River and Bay are candidates for inclusion in the program. Since the Florida
portion; of the Apalachicola Basin remains in a relatively undisturbed state, a main
thrust of the program will provide a framework in which effective and cooperative
management decisions can be formulated to limit further degradation of the
ecosystem. Restoration of areas that are beneficial to the functioning and
enhanced use of the system should also be pursued concurrently.

An understanding of how.the entire system functions is essential to successful
implementation of a program designed to preserve and restore the natural
resources of the Apalachicola Basin. Funding of baseline research projects and
comprehensive review of previous studies is needed to adequately assess the
various components and interrelationships within the basin. Such assessments of
the natural cycles and functions of biota and hydrologic flow reqime are needed to
develop effective and rational management decisions.

With such broad-based criteria to-satisfy, allocation of limited funds to such a wide
range of potential projects is-a difficult task. To assist with this task, a Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of federal, state and local government
representatives was formed to advise the NWFWMD.

A subcommittee of the. TAC was created to review and rank all potential projects.
After concurrence by the full TAC, funding allocations will be made based on these
priority rankings and the existence of available funds.

CHAPTER III

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION

To adeq uately manage and protect the resources of an aquatic preserve it is
essential to understand the physical and biological resources of the preserve, how
they function and interact within the preserve boundaries, and how the resources
within the preserve interact with the larger natural system of which they are part.
The Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve lies at the mouth of the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee- Flint (AFC) River system which extends up into northern Georgia
and drains 19,800 square miles in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The
Apalachicola River is the largest in Florida in terms of flow, and plays a major role
in defining the salinity regime and ecology of Apalachicola Bay. The estuary covers
an area of about 210 square miles, with about 60% of this area included within the
aquatic preserve's boundaries.

PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Apalachicola estuary is bounded on the Gulf side by four barrier islands: St.
Vincent Island, St. George Island, Cape St. George Island, and Dog Island (Figure
5). St. Vincent is a triangular-shaped island about 9 miles long and up to 4.5 miles
wide. Dog Island, St. George Island, and Cape St. George Island range -from 0. 1
to 1.0 miles wide, and are 7, 22, and 9 miles long, respectively.

Between the islands are inlets and passes to the Gulf of Mexico. The bay system
may be divided into four sections based both on natural bathymetry and man-made
structural alterations. These are East Bay, St. Vincent Sound, Apalachicola Bay,
and St. George Sound. East Bay, north and east of the Apalachicola delta, is
surrounded by extensive marshes and swamps, and has an average depth of about
three feet (Dawson, 1955). The John Gorrie Bridge is considered its southern limit.
A causeway extending from Eastpoint, and a causeway island near the mouth of
the Apalachicola River form partial barriers between East Bay and Apalachicola Bay.

St. Vincent Sound is shallow, with an average depth of about 4 feet (Gorsline,
1963). It contains numerous oyster bars and lumps, and separates St. Vincent
Island from the mainland. It is linked to the Gulf by Indian Pass, whose maximum
water depth is about 12 feet. Apalachicola Bay is the central and widest portion of
the estuary. It is separated from StVincent Sound by shoal areas and oyster bars.
To the north it is separated from the river mouth, delta, and East Bay by the John
Gorrie Memorial Bridge. The bay is connected to the Gulf through West Pass, a
deep tidal inlet, and Sikes Cut, a man-made navigation channel which separates St.
George and Cape St. George Islands. Depths in Apalachicola Bay average 6 to 9

feet at mean low water (MLW). Oyster lumps are scattered throughout the central
bay area and near the Gorrie Bridge. To the east, Apalachicola Bay is bounded by
Bulkhead Shoal, a natural submerged bar that extends from the mainland to St.
George Island. Construction of a causeway island in the center of the bar and a
causeway extension at St. George Island raise part of the bar above sea level.

St. George Sound, with an average depth of about 9 feet, extends from Bulkhead
Shoal to the Carrabelle River and East Pass. East Pass connects the sound with
the Gulf of Mexico and seperates St. George and Dog Islands.

GEOLOGY

The Apalachicola coast is a classic example of a cuspate foreland and delta. The
present bay delta, however, is a bay head delta of the compound lobate-birdfoot
form and is filling in a drowned river valley. The presence of Pleistocene age
alluvial sediments in a 50 mile wide band extending from Panama City to the
present day Ochlockonee River indicates that the Apalachicola delta has migrated
between these points in recent geologic time, with the most recent movement being
in an easterly direction (Schnable and Goodell, 1969). The original source of sands
that make up the barrier island system off the Apalachicola coast is the Appalachian
Piedmont to the north (Schnable, 1966). These sands are extensively reworked
coastal plain sediments deposited at. lower sea levels. Kofoed (1961) concluded
that no significant amount of quartz sand material is currently being.supplied to the
long shore drift system from outside the chain of barrier islands. Most of the sand-
sized load of the Apalachicola River is being deposited at the delta front of the
distributary channels. Isphording (1985) estimated that sand represents only about
one percent of the river-borne sediment load deposited in the bay from the river.
Some clay and some silt sized materials do reach the Gulf, however, the bulk of the
sediment load of the Apalachicola River, both coarse and fine, is believed to have
been deposited in the modern prograding, or forward moving, delta front since sea
level attained its present position (Schnable, 1966). This was confirmed in a
recently completed study of river and delta sediments and sedimentation rates by
Donoghue (1987). That study found that most.. of the river's sediment is being
deposited in the delta prograding into East Bay, with the remainder residing in the
floodplain or Apalachicola Bay. Over this time period the delta is believed to have
prograded about 5 to 10 miles.

The Apalachicola Bay system is considered to be less than 10,000 years old with
the general outline of bay stable over the last 5,000 years, except for the migration
of the delta front southward into the estuary (Tanner, 1983). The developrnent and
evolution of a barrier rim med estuary such as Apalachico%- Bay is an attempt by the
physical environment to achieve. a dynamic equilibrium with the hydraulic regime.
Barrier islands are ephemeral features which are a response to the post-glacial

10
ets
'0@

SR 381

TATES HELL SWAMP

CARRABELLE
_j
0

EAST
BAY EAST-
-POINT-

S'98 APALACHICOLA jolAn G

SOUND
V 114C EN
APALACHICOLA
IN IAN
PASS r I BAY 'to
to
SLAIJVD
0*
W'EST-
PASS, cl Sikes 0
01 Cut

Figure 5 APALACHICOLA ESTUARY

submergence of the continental shelf. Therefore, to understand the evolution of250
to 400 feet below its present level (Schade, 1985). No conclusive evidence exists
for a stand of the sea higher than its present level during recent time. The most
commonly accepted theory has sea level rising asymptotically, with the sea level
4,500 years ago being 2.0 to 4.0 meters below its current level; 1.0 meter below
3,000 years ago; and 0.3 to 0.7 meters below 2,500 years ago (Schade, 1985).
However, Stapor and Tanner (1977) derived an alternative theory in which sea level
has fluctuated in the last several thousand years. Their theory has sea level 0.5 to
1.5 meters below its current level 3,000 to 5,000 years ago; at its present level
2,100 to 3,000 years ago; and 1.0 to 2.0 meters below its current level 1,500 to
2, 100 years ago. Schade (1985) concluded that this alternative theory fits well with
geological evidence and data on St. George and St. Vincent Islands.

Schade (1985) noted that three models exist to explain the evolution of barrier
islands: 1) the up-building of submarine bars; 2) spit growth and subsequent
separation by inlets; and 3) submergence of inland beach ridges. These models
can operate independently or in combination. Schade (1985) concluded that St.
George Island is a relatively young island (less than 3,000 years) composed of two
smaller island cores grown together plus Gap Island upon which it has welded
itself. Gap Island represents the first emergent feature on what is now St. George
Island, dating back about 3,500 years. St. Vincent Island. is believed to be the
oldest of the barrier islands off the Apalachicola coast dating back over 3,500 years
.(Stapor, 1973). Schade (1985) hypothesized that during the sea level decline
believed to have occurred 1,,500 to 2,100 years ago, two other island cores
emerged between Gap Island and St. Vincent Island. These two island cores are
believed to have grown laterally mostly by spit progradation and eventually closing
the inlet between them less than a 1,000 years ago to form a single island
(Figure 6).

On a geologic time scale estuaries are ephemeral features having a life span which
measures from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years (Schubel
and Hirschberg, 1978). The principle factor which leads to an estuary's demise is
in-filling by river-born sediment load (Isphording, 1985). In-filling rates greater than
10 millimeters (mm) per year have been measured in the bay (Donoghue, personal
communication), and Isphording (1985) calculated an average rate of 5.44 mm/year
for the entire estuary, 2.87 mm/year for Apalachicola Bay, 17.2 mm/year St.
George Sound, 1.31 mm/year for East Bay, and 0.37 mm/year for St. Vincent
Sound. Bedosky (1987) found sedimentation rates in East Bay to average 2.6
mm/year, and where mixing occurs Donoghue found rates to be as large as 15
cm/year. Bedosky (1987) found long-term sedimentation rates in East Bay to be
relatively constant over the last 100 years. These rates are large when compared
to other Gulf and Atlantic estuaries, and consequently Isphording (1985) concluded
that the combination of high rates of deposition and the absence of any appreciable
subsidence in the estuary will inevitably lead to its demise. Donoghue (1987)
estimated the expected lifetime of East Bay to be less than 400 years, whereas

Isphording and I msand (1987) estimated the estuary could be filled in less than 800
years. However, they also noted that hurricanes such as those in 1985 can scour
out the bay and significantly prolong its existence. Bathymetric changes in the
estuary are not only important from a long-term physical perspective. Changes in
bathymetry induce changes in other parameters such as salinity, water temperature,
and dissolved oxygen, and thereby influence the overall ecology of the System.

Kofoed and Gorsline (1963) concluded that the sedimentary characteristics of the
Apalachicola Bay system are the result of several integrated factors including:.
bathymetry; reworking of sediments by wind, wave, and current action; the
production of organic material by local faunal assemblages; and sediment from the
Apalachicola River. Bathymetry is considered to be the most important single factor
controlling the distribution and textural properties of bottom material. Waves and
currents within the bay are also important in keeping material in suspension until
it eventually reaches areas where energy is low enough to permit deposition.

In general, the sedimentary floor of the bay system is formed by quartz sand with
a thin cover of clay in the central basin. The sediment cover in the central bay
measures 30 to 60 feet thick (Gorsline, 1963). Oyster reefs have contributed
substantial calcareous debris to estuarine sediments. The bottom sediment types
in Apalachicola Bay are shown in Figure 7. St. George Sound is shown to be
predominantly sandy, whereas the rest of the bay sediments have varying degrees
of clay mixed with sand. Isphording (1985) compared the present bottom sediment
types with those in 1825 by dating core samples. There was little difference in'St.
George Sound sediments; however, in the rest of the bay, there was a considerable
shift from silts to clays. Clays, sandy clays, and clayey sands which are so
widespread on the present map were formerly silty clays, silty sands, and sand-silt-
claymixtures. Isphording (1985) hypothesized that the present scarcity ofsilt in the
Apalachicola Bay sediments is due to either: a change in the sediment carried by
the Apalachicola River due to the upstream reservoirs; events taking place in the
bay which have acted to remove or bury silt; or, a combination of both.

Biological assemblages contribute varying amounts of organic material and
-calcareous debris to the sediment. Once in the sediment, organic material
becomes food for burrowing organisms, and is acted upon by bacteria and
returned to the water column as inorganic nutrients. Kofoed and Gorsline, (1963)
found that a correlation exists between bathymetry and organic content of the
sediments. Organic carbon values were found to be low in elevated areas where
organic material is easily re-suspended from the sediment by current action. In
depressions, the organic carbon content tends to increase. Organic carbon and
nitrogen are deposited under the same energy conditions-as clay and the percent
composition is therefore greater in the finer sediments.

mmmmmm Ill@=

Figure 6
THE EVOLUTION OF ST. GEORGE ISLAND

-C,
0,(
C/-

GAPISLAND
SHOAL

CAPE ST. > 3500 B. P. 3500-2500 B.P. <2000 B.P
GEORGE SHOAL SHOAL EMERGENCE AND EMERGENCE OF ST.
AGGRADATION CONSTRUCTION OF* GEORGEISLAND
GAPISLAND NUCLEI

< 2000-1000 B.P. 0000 B.p 1984
ISLAND GROWTH INTEGRATION f
f FROM OFFSHORE KILOMETERS
SOURCES I
/ 0 5 10
S L

Source: Schade,1985

Figure 7

BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPES OF APALACHICOLA BAY

Apalachic
.............

..........

.. ........

0 1 2 3 4 5
%S
Source: Isphording, 1985 Geotgo Kilometers

Heavy minerals are uniformly distributed over the bay, rarely exceeding 1% of the
sediment by weight. Dominant clay minerals in the bay are derived from rocks in
the piedmont province (Bedosky, 1987). Glauconite is common in the small pellets
and cavity fillings of silt and clay-sized material found throughout the bay. It is
believed that these grains originated within the bay (Barackman, 1964). Kofoed
and Gorsline (1963) and Bedosky (1987) found kaolinite to be the most abundant
clay-mineral in the bay, but Isphording (1985) found montmorillonite to be the most
abundant clay mineral. Other clay minerals present in the bay include smectite,
muscovite, gibbsite, and palygorskite (Bedosky, 1987).

The only mineral materials of potential economic importance in the bay are road fill,
foundation fill, and peat. Although the area is believed to have some potential for
oil, no economically recoverable oil has been found to date in test wells drilled in
the region, and there are no active leases within the estuary.

Coastal Franklin County has historically undergone moderate and systematic shifts
in in shoreline location which can be tied, in large part, directly to longshore
transport cells (DNR, 1990). The primary causative factors for beach and dune
erosion in the vicinity of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve are periodic major
storm events, long term sea level rise, and inlet and cape effects (DNR, 1990). The
pattern of erosion problem areas suggest a _complex coastal regime which is
somewhat dependent on shoreline alignment and shoal geometry and their effects
on wave refraction and wave energy levels.

Clark (1989) identified a number of sites on barrier islands fronting Apalachicola
Bay undergoing beach erosion. These included: 3.2 miles of the center portion of
St. Vincent Island; a 0.4 mile segment near West Pass, a 1.3 mile segment of shore
near Cape St. George, and a 3.2 mile segment west of Sikes Cut on Cape St.
George Island; and, a 3.3 mile segment east of Sikes Cut and the eastern tip on St.
George Island.

CLIMATE

The Apalachicola estuary is located in a transitional climatic zone between the semi-
tropical climate of peninsular Florida and the subtropical climate of the southeastern
United States. Average annual rainfall is about 56 inches. Maximum rainfall occurs
during the summer and fall months, with September being the wettest. The dry
season occurs from October through December. Mean rainfall from June to
September accounts for about 55 percent of the annual total. Convection type
storms are the predominant source of rainfall in the summer and frontal storms are
the typical source in the winter.

Hurricanes and tropical storms occasionally further influence the late summer and
fall weather of the region, bringing extremes in wind, rainfall, and tides. Twelve
minor hurricanes (winds between 74 mph and 110 mph) and four major hurricanes
(winds greater than 110 mph) passed within 50 miles of the island in the last 100
years. Over this same time period 16 minor and nine major hurricanes passed
within 100 miles of island (Isphording and Imsand, 1987).

Apalachicola Bay is in an area of transition from the semi-diurnal tides of
southwestern Florida and the diurnal tides of northwest Florida. Its tides are.
therefore classified as mixed. High tide arrives progressively later to the western
and mainland portions of the bay. The normal tidal range is 1 to 2 feet, with a
maximum of 3 feet. Because of the gentle slope of the continental sheff, wave
energy along the Gulf coast beaches is generally moderate.

Mean monthly temperatures range from 54.4 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 81.4
degrees Fahrenheit in July and August. Periods of below freezing temperatures are
generally brief, not lasting more than a few days.

There is large variability in wind direction over the course of the year. Cold, dry
fronts from Canada cause winds to come from a north to north-easterly direction
during the fall and winter. In contrast, warm, moist, southerly flow from the Gulf of
Mexico dominates the weather pat-tern in the spring and summer.

.HYDROLOGY

Water currents in Apalachicola Bay are due primarily to the astronomical tides, but
are also strongly influenced by the direction and speed of prevailing winds, river
flow, and the physical structure of the bay (Dawson, 1955). Roughly 700,000 cubic
feet of Water per second leave the bay system at maximum velocity during ebb flow
(Gorsline, 1963). Although the Apalachicola River is the largest among Florida
rivers with an annual discharge at the river's mouth of about 25,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs), it has only a limited influence on the hydrodynamics of the bay except
in the immediate receiving areas (Conner et al., 1982). The river does, have a
profound influence on the estuary's salinity regime. Net movement of water is from
east to west. The more saline Gulf water enters through St.George Sound, and
moves west mixing with water in East Bay and Apalachicola Bay, and eventually
moves back into the bay through Sikes Cut, West Pass, and Indian Pass (Ingle and
Dawson, 1953). Although the western passes account for only ten percent of the
inlet area in the bay, they serve as outlets for about two-thirds of the bay discharge
(Gorsline, 1963).

In a typical year flow in the Apalachicola River range from below 10,000 cfs; to
above 80,000 cfs. Upstream rainfall has a much greater influence on Apalachicola
River flows than Florida rainfall because the majority of the basin is in Georgia and

Alabama (Meeter et al., 1979; Leitman et al., 1983). Figure 8 summarizes average
monthly flows of the Apalachicola River at Chattahoochee, Florida, from 1957 to
1984. As can be seen from this figure, discharge peaks in the winter and early
spring months, and declines until fall when low flows occur. Average monthly flow
in the winter and early spring months is two to three times average summer flows.
Over a typical year, average daily flow can vary tenfold. The fact that there is no
peak in river flow associated with increased rainfall in the basin in late summer is
believed to be caused by: seasonal differences in evapotranspiration rates in
associated wetlands (Meeter et al., 1979); the climatic condition of summer rainfall
being more localized than winter frontal storms; and, the management of up-basin
Corps reservoirs.

Because of both the limited storage capacity of the reservoirs in the ACF basin and
the fact that the period since the federal reservoirs which have the most storage
capacity were constructed has been the wettest of any period since hydrologic
records have been kept on the river, these reservoirs have not had a noticeable
affect on the annual distribution of flow in of the Apalachicola River (Maristany,
1981; Leitman et al., 1983; Leitman et al., 1984; Alabama et al., 1984; and, Raney
et al., 1985). Figure 9 summarizes the d ischarge-d u ration frequencies for the
Apalachicola River before and after the construction of the federal reservoirs.

The Apalachicola Bay system is a shallow, mostly well-mixed system. However,
deeper areas in the bay can become stratified, especially when river discharge is
@high and northerly winds are blowing (Clarke, 1975). Weisberg (1987) found the
bay to be generally stratified with respect to salinity, and for changes in stratification
to be primarily weather induced as opposed to tidal induced.

Strong winds can modify water movement to the point of obscuring tidal effects.
When strong north and northeastern winds blow across Apalachicola Bay, the net
effect is a deflection of water to the west and south with greater flows through
Indian Pass and West Pass. In the bay, water velocities rarely exceed 1.5 feet per
second, but in the passes velocities greater than 10 feet per second are common
(Gorsline, 1963). Strong winds may thoroughly mix the shallow water of the bay,
but winds of lesser velocity affect only the surface layer, resulting in stratification of
the water column (Estabrook, 1973).

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Temperature

Water temperature in Apalachicola Bay closely approximates that of the air. There
is little spatial variation in temperature over the bay, and vertical stratification of
temperature is minimal. Temperature peaks occur in July and August, and winter
lows occur in January and February. Throughout the year the water temperature

may range from 38 degrees Fahrenheit to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. 11311ummer
temperature peaks show little variation over time, but winter minima may vary as
much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit from year to year.

Salinfty

Salinity is considered to be the single most important determination of the
distribution of organisms in the estuary (Livingston, 1983). The salinity structure of
the bay system is primarily defined by freshwater inflow from the Apalachicola River.
Since the majority of the river basin is not in Florida, salinity levels in the estuary are
more closely correlated to up basin rainfall (Uvingston, 1983).

Variations in salinity (temporally, spatially, and vertically) are closely related to
annual river flow and wind patterns. In late summer and fall, low flows and
southerly winds can result in surface salinities greater than 20 parts per figure 8
thousand (ppt) near the river mouth, with correspondingly high salinities throughout
the bay system (Livingston, 1984). During winter and spring flooding peaks, when
river discharge is high and strong northerly winds are blowing, freshwater can
spread out over most of the bay surface. At these times, salinity stratification
commonly occurs in much of the bay, particularly the channels and passes
(Estabrook, 1973; Clarke, 1975).

Spatial salinity distribution is affected most by river flow and, to a lesser extent, local
rainfall. East Bay, Apalachicola Bay, and St. Vincent Sound show greater response
to freshwater inflow than St. George Sound. The lowest recorded salinities are
found near the river mouth and in East Bay, which receives freshwater drainage
from Tate's Hell Swamp (Gorsline, 1963; Livingston, 1983). When local rainfall is
heavy in late summer and early fall, reduced salinities occur in East Bay arid in the
vicinity of Nick's Hole (a major area of freshwater runoff from St. George Island).
The eastern sounds tend to be more saline than the western portions of thesystem
because of their broad connections with the Gulf and the minimal input of
freshwater from runoff.

Color and Turbidi1y

Color levels in Apalachicola Bay vary seasonally and are directly r elated to runoff
and river flow. Peaks in color levels occur in areas of high river water input and
overland runoff in winter and spring. East,Bay consistently has higher color levels
than Apalachicola Bay due to the drainage from Tate's Hell Swamp and forestry
operations (Livingston and Duncan, 1979).

Turbidity is directly related river flow. Turbidity values measured in the estuary
ranged from 0 to 145 Jackson Turbidity Units. River turbidity values have been

Figure 8

Average Monthly Flows of
Apalachicola River (1957-87)

Flow (cfe) (000s)

so -

40 -

90 -

cot Nov Doe Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jon Jai Amq Sep
M I NJ M Uhi 2.797 10.125 ':.:" " "' ',.@. ".282 12.422 11.28 11.949 0.967
M Is To 4.::::' 4 :.4:: 22.775 18.820 of 11111.114141 0
41 7 T ::.: : 4
".1111: 9 9.*12 4 4.208 7 .0 .49 J1 lei 22.08
MAXIMUM 9.. of 424 11.19:

=MINIMUM E2MIIAN MMAXIMUM

Source: Northwest Florida WIVID
Data from Chattahoochee gauging station

I
I
I
I
. I
I
. I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
.-I
I
34 1
.- I

M MM-M

Figure 9

DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL FLOW/APALACHICOLA
BEFORE & AFTER RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION

discharge In cubic feet/second
11000000:::

100000

10000

1000-
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
% of time discharge Is equaled/exceeded

After Reservoir Before Reservoir

I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
1
36 1
I

found to be highest during the months of February through July when river flow is
highest, and lowest during the late summer and fall when flow subsides. Strong
winds have also been shown to increase turbidity due to re-suspension of bottom
sediments (Estabrook, 1973).

Dissolved Oaclen

The amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) in a body of water is related to air/water
mixing, biological activity, temperature, and salinity. In Apalachicola Bay, peak
levels of dissolved oxygen are found in winter and spring when temperatures are
lowest. Conversely, lower values are found in the warm summer and fall months
(Livingston, 1983). Spatially, highest levels of dissolved oxygen are found in upper
East Bay, Nick's Hole, and the eastern side of St. Vincent Island. There is
considerable natural daily and seasonal fluctuation of DO levels in Apalachicola Bay.
Diurnally, the lowest DO concentrations occur in the early morning. There is no
indication that cultural eutrophication is causing wide-spread reductions of DO in
the estuary. In certain locations, such as the mouth of Scipio Creek, indications of
significant reductions in DO levels have been noted (Livingston, 1983a).

Nutrients

Among the major features which determine habitat characteristics of the
Apalachicola Bay estuary are the flow of the Apalachicola River and its effects on
nutrient transport from the river's floodplain (Livingston, 1984). Nutrients are
transported to the estuary both in the form of detritus (organic particulate matter
from leaves and twigs) and as compounds dissolved in the water column. Annual
flooding causes surges in nutrient transport, and these nutrients are the foundation
for estuarine productivity. Nutrients transported from the Apalachicola River
floodplain to its estuary are especially important since detritivores occupy key
positions in the bay's food web (Livingston, 1983).

The major nutrients affecting estuarine productivity are nitrogen, phosphorus, and
carbon. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the two nutrients most often in limited supply
in aquatic ecosystems. Organic carbon is the principle constituent in all organic
material. Nutrients were not found to, be limiting to phytoplankton growth for most
of the year. Phosphorus has been found to be the most critical limiting nutrient in
Apalachicola Bay (Myers and Iverson, 1977), especially during low wind conditions
in the late summer.

Nutrient concentrations in Apalachicola Bay were measured in 1971-1972 by
Estabrook (1973). Nitrate and silicate values were found to vary inversely with
salinity, with the greatest concentrations occurrin g in winter during highest river
discharge. Orthophosphate concentrations correlated positively with turbidity.

WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

According to the 1988 Florida Water Quality Assessment (Hand et al., 1988), the
average overall water quality in the Apalachicola estuary is good. This rating is
based on data from three stations (St. George Sound near Rattlesnake Cove, near
St. Vincent Island, and in St. Vincent Sound). Hand et al. (1988) concluded that the
most serious threats to the water quality of Apalachicola Bay are associated with
nonpoint sources from the more urbanized areas in the basin. These include
untreated stormwater runoff from the city of Apalachicola and nearby fish houses,
pollutants associated with boat docking, and septic tank drainage.

Low dissolved oxygen concentrations (less than 4 milligrams per liter) have been
measured in Scipio Creek, Eagle Creek, and the St. George Island boat basin.
These water bodies receive stormwater runoff from municipal, urban, and
developing areas. High fecal coliform bacteria levels have been found in these
same areas.- Sources of fecal coliform include municipal drainages, and agricultural
and stormwater runoff (Livingston, 1983a). Elder (1986) evaluated the transport
and variability of indicator bacteria in the Apalachicola River and estuary. This
study found that coliform and streptococcal bacteria counts in the Apalachicola
River and estuary showed considerable correlation to river stage, but stressed that
the relation was modified by other factors. The analysis indicated that estuarine
waters near the mouth of the Apalachicola were higher than other areas in coliform
abundance. The Apalachicola Bay Protection Act of 1984 provided funds to
upgrade the municipal sewage plants in Apalachicola, Eastpoint, and Carrabelle.

Past studies on pesticide distribution in the estuary indicate relatively low levels of
organochlorine contamination in the Apalachicola Bay system in the mid-1970s
(Livingston et al., 1978). Winger et al. (1984) found that biota from the Apalachicola
River had moderately high levels of total DDT, total PCBs and toxaphene in 1978.
Animals from the upper river had higher organic residues than those taken in the
lower river.

The estuarine water column is an important transition zone in the geochemical cycle
because of increases in pH and ionic strength associated with the change from
freshwater to sea water. These increases change the solubility of substances, and
may also enhance the flocculation and precipitation of materials. Many substances
may be removed from the water column to the sediments when waters am.' mixed.
For example, toxic organics such as petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., PCBs and
pesticides) have low solubilities and accumulate in sediments shortly after being
introduced to estuarine waters. Therefore, estuarine sediments act as a sink for
some constituents, so that the pollution status of an estuary is reflected better in
the sediments than in the water column (Ryan et al., 1984). The historic emphasis
of environmental quality assessment has been through water column sampling. In
estuaries water quality data can provide an understanding of the impacts of
individual pollution events, but are of little value in understanding long-term trends,

assessing ambient background conditions, or assessing the degree of
environmental stress.

Sediment grain-size is an important qualitative predictor of sediment chemistry
(Ryan et al., 1984). Fine-grained sediments usually contain elevated concentrations
of metals and hydrocarbons, while lower levels are observed in coarse-grained
sediments. Fine-grained sediments have greater concentrations because they are
more enriched in organic and clay materials, and because they have greater
surface areas which provide more binding sites.

Livingston (1983a) analyzed sediment samples taken from stations distributed
throughout the bay. His results indicated that, overall, the Apalachicola Bay system
remains relatively pollution-free at this time. However, the data show that some
near shore areas are being contaminated. Livingston (1983a) found a strong
positive correlation between silt/clay fractions and levels of organic matter in the
sediments. These same areas of high organic content also showed increased
concentrations of heavy metals. Locations which showed high concentrations of
metals such as chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc include: areas which
receive municipal runoff (Scipio Creek, Eagle Creek, near shore Eastpoint); marinas
(Apalachicola boat basin, St. George Island boat basin); and areas receiving
agricultural runoff (Clark Creek, Murphy Creek, West Bayou). The easternmost
area in St. Vincent Sound also had high metal concentrations, the cause of which
was unknown. Livingston (1984) found that dredged channels of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Eastpoint, and Two Mile channels also concentrate
contaminants such as metals as part of the fallout of the silt/clay fraction.
Geoscience, Inc. (1984) listed sampled sediments from the Apalachicola boat basin
and Eastpoint Channel. Both sites had high heavy metal concentrations in the
sediments, but failed to release appreciable amounts of these metals into adjacent
waters.

Apalachicola Bay sediments contain high absolute concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, chromium, and zinc. However, Apalachicola Bay also has the
highest aluminum concentrations of any estuary in Florida (FIDER, 1986).
Therefore, when absolute concentrations are normalized using aluminum-to-metal
ratios, only cadmium, chromium, and zinc appear not to be from natural sources.

BIOTA AND HABITAT

The overall high water quality of the Apalachicola estuary, with the combined effects
of seasonal flooding, nutrient and detrital transport, and the variable salinity regime
provide ideal living conditions for estuarine biota and result in a highly productive
system. The Apalachicola Bay system is comparable to, or higher than, other Gulf
estuaries in nutrient and detrital transport from the attendant river and floodplain,
and in phytoplahkton productivity (Estabrook, 1973; Elder and Mattraw, 1982).

It is also comparable to other Gulf estuaries in zooplankton production (Edmiston,
1979) and bay anchovy abundance (Sheridan and Livingston, 1979). The bay has
long supported the largest oyster harvesting industry in Florida, as well as extensive
shrimping and commercial fishing. And, it is believed that with more extensive
clutch plantings and implementation of management and mariculture techniques,
the bay could support a substantial increase in production of oysters and other
commercial seafood species (Ednoff, 1984).

Belationship Between Apalachicola River and Bay

Among the major features which determine the habitat characteristic, of the
Apalachicola estuary are the flow of the Apalachicola River and nutrient transport
from the river's floodplain (Livingston, 1984). Nutrients are transported to the
estuary both in the- form of detritus and as compounds in the water column.
Annual flooding causes surges in' nutrient transport and these nutrients are the
foundation for estuarine productivity. Nutrients transported from the Apalachicola
River floodplain to its estuary are especially important since detritivores occupy key
positions in the estuary's food web (Livingston, 1984).

The relationships of the food web of Apalachicola Bay is well described in
Livingston (1984). The exact mechanism of the transfer of nutrients and organic
matter to estuarine populations remains unclear, although it is believed that
phytoplankton and microorganisms hold an important key to nutrient cycling within
the system. Temperature has been shown to limit phytoplankton growth in colder
months, while nutrients tend to be the limiting factor in colder months (Myers and
Iverson, 1977). Much of the productivity of estuaries occurs in warmer months
when nutrient recycling within the estuary is more important than nutrient input.

The degree and timing of river flooding affects the level of detrital loading to the
estuary and subsequently, the productivity of the bay (Livingston, 1981). Meeter
et al. (1979) found the cyclic productivity of the Apalachicola Bay system to depend
upon both annual pulses of detritus and the periodic large scale import ol: detritus
during years of increased flow. It was therefore hypothesized by Wharton et al.
(1982) that increases in seafood catches result from the unusually largE! load of
detritus carried into the bay during floods. The surplus detritus is accumulated from
portions of the floodplain not normally inundated, and it is also picked ulo by the
additional scouring of areas that are annually flooded.

Since Jim Woodruff Dam restricts particulate flow from the Chattahoochee and Flint
Rivers, the Chipola and Apalachicola floodplains are thp primary contributors of
detritus to the bay. Outflow at Jim Woodruff Dam- does contain a substantial
nutrient load in a dissolved form (Elder and Cairns, 1982) and is the largest single
contributor of nutrients (Mattraw and Elder, 1984). Mattraw and Elder (1984) found
that on an areal basis the Apalachicola basin exports greater quantities of carbon

40.

and phosphorus than most watersheds. Annual flooding causes appreciable
surges in nutrient transport, especially in the particulate organic form.

Elder and Cairns (1982) found that the floodplain of the Apalachicola River serves
as both a sink and source of nutrients at different times of the year. Dissolved
nutrients are consumed at about the same rate they are released to the floodplain,
but the floodplain is an exporter of detrital matter. Overall, the Apalachicola
wetlands function as a natural transformer-filtration system for waters passing
through the basin (Elder and Cairns, 1982). Exchanges result in some net
increases of organic carbon and phosphorus transport, much of it in the form of
detritus, but no net increases of nitrogen (Mattraw and Elder, 1983). .

Salinity is the major environmental parameter which affects species composition in
the estuary, and the Apalachicola River is the primary source of freshwater to the
estuary. Many Gulf species have high salinity requirements and, although they may
enter the bay to feed, they cannot tolerate the rapid salinity fluctuations which may*
occur there. Euryhaline bay organisms (those adapted to variable salinity levels)
are therefore protected from predation by the estuary's varying salinity environment.
In summation, alterations in the flow regime, or in the form or amount of
substances transported to the estuary could influence the bay's productivity and
ecology.

Microbiota

Microscopic organisms, including bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and microalgae, are
among the most biologically important organisms in the aquatic environment. In
estuaries, microorganisms are very abundant and are found in the water column
and also associated with sediments, detritus, plants and animals. Most are
extremely small, single-celled, and are capable of multiplying rapidly in the water
column. They play a role in the recycling of estuarine nutrients, particularly
phosphorus (Myers and Iverson, 1977), and, when associated with organic matter
and sediments, are vital to the estuary's food web (Livingston, 1983).

The high level of biological productivity in Apalachicola Bay is due in great measure
to the nutrient recycling and detrital conditioning done by microbiota (Livingston,
1983). Communities of microbes are important in the process of decomposition of
floodplain leaf litter (Morrison et al., 1977). By colonizing detrital particles, microbes
enhance their food value since the variety and metabolic activity of the colonizing
forms provide additional and more diverse proteins and nutrients than were
originally available. Phytoplankton and aquatic plants depend upon the availability
of nutrients in the water for growth; zooplankton and other planktivores use
p.hytoplankton as a primary food source. Many bay organisms, particularly benthic
invertebrates, consume detritus during all or part of their life cycle. These animals
in turn are part of the food web when they are fed upon by omnivores and
carnivores.

Ph)qoglankton, Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton

The phytoplankton community is an important component of the aquatic system.
Phytoplankton live and reproduce suspended in the water column, drifting with the
currents. They are photosynthetic and utilize a variety of nutrients in thin, water,
particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. In Apalachicola Bay the phytoplankton
community is dominated by diatoms, single-celled and filamentous algae which
,have silicious cell-walls. The spatial and seasonal distribution of phytoplankton is
patchy, and different species become dominant at different locations and times. In
Apalachicola Bay proper, Chaetoceros lorenzianum, a marine diatom, is most
abundant, while in East Bay, Melosira ara nulaturn, a freshwater diatom,
predominates (Estabrook, 1973).

The zooplankton community is an association of small aquatic animals that have
limited swimming abilities and live suspended in the water column. It includes egg
and larval stages of some animals which as adults are not plankton ic, such as
oysters, shrimp, crabs, and fishes. It also includes species that are planktonic
through all stages of their lives, such as calanoid copepods. Zooplankton may be
herbivorous, grazing on the abundant but patchy phytoplankton; or, carnivorous,
consuming other planktonic forms; or omnivorous, feeding on almost anything
organic including detritus. In Apalachicola Bay, Acartia tonsa is the most prevalent
zooplankton species. The most abundant species of icthyoplankton found in the
bay is the juvenile form of the bay anchovy (Ancho M@itchilli).

Benthic Invertebrates

Three major habitat types support populations of aquatic invertebrates in
Apalachicola Bay: soft mud and sandy sediments; grassbeds and areas of detrital
accumulations; and, oyster bars. The soft sediment habitat is the most extensive,
covering about 78% of the total open water area (Livingston, 1984). Many benthic
invertebrates, primarily polychaetes and amphipods, inhabit the soft sediments,
using them as a burrowing and feeding substrate. Benthic community structure
and distribution vary throughout the system. They are determined primarily by: the
composition of the sediment; the proximity to currents, wave energy, and other bed
load transport mechanisms; and by water quality conditions (Livingston, 1984).
Organisms can affect the nature of the sediment by burrowing, tube-building,
grazing, and filter-feeding activities. Many commercially important benthic
invertebrates are harvested from this habitat. Penaeid shrimp (Peneaus spp.) and
blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) are not restricted to this environment, but feed and
burrow extensively here when they leave the protection.-of the marshes as they
mature. The soft sediments contain nutrients and detritus brought in from the river
as well as providing an ideal substrate for bacteria. The Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus) and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) also feE@,d here
extensively. Most other important benthic invertebrates and epibenthic fishes dwell
in this habitat at one time during their life cycle (Edmiston and Tuck, 1987).

. 42

Grassbeds are a complex habitat, providing food and shelter for many organisms.
The dominant invertebrates in freshwater grassbeds are polychaetes, amphipods,
chironomid larvae, and mollusks. In higher salinity grassbeds tanaids, polychaetes,
amphipods, and oligochaetes are abundant (Livingston, 1984). Grassbeds provide
a protected habitat with reduced water turbulence, high dissolved oxygen, and an
abundant food source. The vegetation also provides attachment sites for epiphytes
and epifauna, traps and produces detritus.

The oyster bars and lumps of Apalachicola Bay cover approximately 7% of the total
bay area. As substrate, they provide a hard surface for the settling of sessile
organisms such as oysters, mussels, anemones, tunicates, and attached algae.
The rough structure of oyster reefs, with their cavities and empty shells, is used as
habitat by numerous motile creatures. Among the prevalent inhabitants on
Apalachicola Bay oyster bars are polychaete worms, isopods, amphipods, mud
crabs, hermit crabs, chitons and barnacles (Pearse and Wharton, 1938). Small
benthic fishes like gobies, blennies, clingfish, and toadfishes reside and/or nest in
empty shells and holes. Many oyster predators live on or near the bars while other
organisms use oyster shell as substrate for burrowing, or participate in some other
sort of symbiotic relationship with oysters.

American Oyster,

Commercially, the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, is the most
important invertebrate of the Apalachicola estuary. Approximately 90% of the
oysters harvested in Florida come from the Apalachicola estuary. Large oyster bars
and numerous small oyster lumps are found throughout the Bay (Figure 10).
Additionally, the Department of Natural Resources contributes to the acreage oyster
beds by conducting a shell-planting program.

Galtsoff (1964) divides environmental factors into positive and negative categories
based upon whether they are favorable or unfavorable to the growth and
productivity of the oyster community. The principle positive factors are bottom
substrate, water movements, salinity regime, temperature, and food. Negative
factors include sedimentation, pollution, competition, disease, and predation. About
40% of the aquatic area of Apalachicola Bay has been estimated as being suitable.
for oyster bar development, with substrate type being the limiting factor (Whitfield
and Beaumariage, 1977). -

In Apalachicola Bay, spatfall, or settlement of oyster larvae, often lasts from April
to late November. Because spat are planktonic, they have a very patchy
distribution, and time and location of settlement is highly variable (Ingle and
Dawson, 1953). As noted by Menzel et al., (1966) and Ingle and Dawson (1953),
spatfall tends to be less intensive on reefs in lower salinity areas such as East Bay
and St. Vincent Sound, and heavier in more saline areas.

The oyster-associated community varies in composition somewhat due to the
salinity regime, which is the most important limiting factor on the bar itself (Menzel
et al., 1966). Prolonged high salinities allow predators to infiltrate the bars, and also
are indicative of lower food availability in the estuary. Prolonged low salinities
eliminates many of the predators, but also stresses the oyster and can cause
mortality (Menzel and Cake, 1969).

The most serious oyster predators besides humans are the southern oyster drill
(Ihais haemostoma) and the stone crab (Menippe mercenaria). They have low
tolerances for freshwater and are not usually found in salinities below 15 and 12 to
15 parts per thousand (ppt) respectively. Summer conditions permit their
encroachment into the bay and onto the oyster bars. In the past when droughts
resulted in high persistent salinities, predators have become well-established on
oyster bars such as St. Vincent or Dry Bar, and Porter Bar, and consequently these
bars were depleted (Menzel et al., 1958; 1966). A variety of other predators take
advantage of the stressed condition of oysters in the summertime; among them the
blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), the crown conch (Melongena corona), and the
whelk (Busycon contrarium).

The pathogen Dermo (Perkinsus marinus) also causes significant mortality to adult
oysters during times of stress (Menzel,, 1983). The prevalence and intensity of
Dermo has been found to be positively correlated with salinity (Andrews and Ray,
1988; Craig et al., 1989). Other factors related to the occurrence of Dermo include
temperature and pollution (relative to how it affects the health and stress in oysters)
(Craig et al., 1989).

Hurricanes can have a pronounced impact on oyster bars. Hurricane Elena in
September, 1985 was estimated by the Florida Department of Natural Resources
to have destroyed 80 to 100 percent of the oysters in the highly productive eastern
part of the bay (i.e., Cat Point and East Hole). Nick's Hole, off St. George Island,
was also seriously affected. The bars were damaged by a combination of churning
up and turning over of oyster shells and by direct burial. Some of the higher,
inshore bars may have had some freshwater and/or exposure damage. After a
good spat fall, the bay was recovering quickly when a second hurricane hit the bay.

Penaeid S!j @m

Three species of penaeid shrimp in the Apalachicola estuary are economically and
ecologically important to the region. These are the white shrimp (Penaeus
setiferus), pink shrimp a. duorarum), and brown shrimp.E. aztecus).

Adult penaeid shrimp migrate off shore to spawn in the Gulf of Mexico, with each
species having its own spawning season and preferred spawning ground depth
(Perez-Farfante, 1969). The eggs hatch off shore, and the larvae developas they

Figure 10

LOCATION OF MAJOR OYSTER BARS IN APALACHICOLA BAY

@cj:

EAST

BAY

A TPOI r
APALACHIC6L- N

S
s - ;OLA
APALACHIC

1 DIAN
PASS WBAY

WEST
PASS

ikes
Cut

S-t. GED 0
c PIP

GULF OF MEXICO

are transported to the estuary by currents. In the low salinity tidal marsh areas
where there is protection from predators and abundant food is available, the larvae
develop into juveniles. As their size increases, the juveniles move gradually from
the marshes to other parts of the estuary to become sub-adults (Perez-Farfante,
1969). When water temperature begins to decrease, they begin the spawning
migration offshore to the adult grounds.

The three species of shrimp in Apalachicola Bay have different spawning times,
migration patterns, and seasonal abundance. White shrimp are the most abundant
in the bay.

Blue Crab

The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is one of the most abundant invertebrate
species found in the Apalachicola Bay area. The blue crab is an estuarine-
dependent, euryhaline species with a complex life cycle. Mating begins in summer
in low-salinity creeks and marshes. Between September and April, egg bearing
females from the entire west coast of Florida migrate to the high-salinity Gulf
spawning site which extends from St. Vincent Island to Panacea (Oesterling and
Evink, 1977). Eggs spawned here hatch out and undergo a series of larval stages
while drifting with prevailing tides and currents. The developing zoea, megalops,
and first crab stages eventually reach estuaries along the southern and western
coasts of Florida. The very early crab stages and juveniles inhabit the estuaries,
growing very rapidly, and reach maturity 12 to 18 months after hatching. Blue
crabs normally live about one year as adults (Oesterling and Evink, 1977).

Blue crabs are opportunistic feeders in general, but do show preferences for certain
food items at different stages in their development (Laughlin, 1982). Preferences
of the larval stages have not been closely studied,. but they probably eat single-
celled phytoplankton and small zooplankton, as do many other small planktonic
crustacea. Juvenile blue crabs consume detritus, plant material, and mollusks;
adult crabs eat fishes and mud crabs (Laughlin, 1982). Enormous quantities of
detritus enter the bay from January to April, coinciding with the arrival of the juvenile
blue crabs. The large food supply may be the major reason for the large numbers
of blue crabs found in the,bay.

Fish,

Available information on fish populations of Apalachicola Bay comes from two main
sources: long-term monitoring studies conducted by Dr. R.J. Livingston and the
Florida State University aquatic study group; and, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) annual seafood landing statistics. Although these two data bases
are totally different in scope and intent, and are not comparable, together they

provide an overall perspective on the value of Apalachicola Bay as an important
nursery ground, feeding ground, and habitat for estuarine fishes.

About three-fourths of the commercial catch of Franklin County is composed of
species dependent on the estuarine habitat and conditions of Apalachicola Bay
(Menzel and Cake, 1969). True estuarine species inhabit the estuary through-out
their entire life cycle. The most abundant true estuarine species in Apalachicola
Bay is the bay anchovy. It travels short distances, but makes no long-distance
migrations. Other estuarine species tend to remain associated with specific habitats
such as oyster bars or submerged vegetation.

Other fish inhabit the estuary during a large part of their life cycle, using it for a
nursery and feeding ground. These species include striped mullet (Mugil - I
.g.elqLalus),
flounder (Paralichthys lethostigmaband members of the sciaenid family: speckled
seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), redfish (red drum) (Sciaenops ocellatus), croaker
(Micropogon undulatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and sand seatrout
(Cynoscion arenarius). The life cycles of these species involves an offshore
migration to Gulf spawning sites. Developing larvae are transported toward the
coast by currents. They arrive in the estuaries and congregate in nursery areas
where salinity is low, food is abundant, and predators relatively scarce. Juveniles
of some species mature rapidly and move offshore to spawn within their first.year.
As adults, they return to the estuary and spend much of their time there, making
annual off shore spawning migrations.

Anadromous fish spend a portion of their life cycle in the estuary when migrating
from the ocean to their spawning grounds upstream. Anadromous fish species
found in the bay include the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oarhynchus desotoi), striped
bass (Morone saxitilis), Alabama shad (Alosa Llabamae), and skipjack herring
(Alosa ch[ysochloris). Other species only enter the bay when conditions are
appropri ate (.e.g., low salinity). With winter and spring flooding bluegill CLepomis
machrohirus), redear sunfish LL. micro-lophus), and large-mouth bass (M@icropterus
salmoides) may enter the upper bay. Other freshwater fish found in the bay include
spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), long-nose gar LL. gsseus), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), and mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis). In the summer and fall
months, when bay salinities are high, marine fish such as shark, ray, arid small
grouper may enter the bay. Appendix D lists the fish of the Apalachicola estuary.

Submerged Vecietation

Aquatic plant distribution in Apalachicola Bay is limited to.-shallow areas along.the
coast (Figure 11). Their distribution is confined by high turbidity and color values
because they limit the depth of the photic zone. Salinity is also an important
variable. Table 1 summarizes the acreage of submersed vegetation in the (estuary.
Submerged vegetation covers about 10% of the aquatic area in the bay system

Figure 11

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION IN APALACHI

AST

BAY

Us q

APALACHIC6L ASTPOINT

SOUND
ir ST. NCENT APALACHICOLA

I DIAN
ASS c SAY
44 IpAID

............
WEST
N PASS

ikes
Cut

St. G 0

GULF OF,MEXICO
s

(Livingston, 1984), with the majority of the grassbeds located in areas of high
salinity and low turbidity. Seagrass beds are important habitats in the marine
environment not only for their high primary productivity, but also for the role they
play in sediment accretion, substrate stabilization, and as a nursery, feeding
ground, and permanent home to numerous organisms (Phillips, 1980). Sheridan
and Livingston (1983) measured one of the highest infaunal densities recorded in
the literature working in grassbeds in Apalachicola Bay.

TABLE 1

SUBMERGED VEGETATION ACREAGE IN THE APALACHICOLA BAY SYSTEM

LOCATION SPECIES/ASSEMBLAGE AREA (acres)

Apalachicola Bay

Halodule wrightii 1,145
Ruppia maritima 282
Vallisneria americana,
R. maritima 50

St. Vincent Sound 0

St. George Sound
H. 711
H.
Thallassia testudinum 277
East Bay
R. maritima, V. americana 166
Myri pyllum sl2igatum,
Potamogeton pectinatus,
V. americana, R. maritima 1,179
Naias guadalupensis 187
R. maritima 25
R. maritima, P. pectinatus 55

Source: Continental Shelf and Associates, 1985.

In Apalachicola Bay grassbeds are limited to the shallow lagoons of St. George
Island and consist primarily of shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), manatee grass
(Syringodium filiforme), and Gracilaria spp., a,benthic red alga. By far the most

dominant species is Halodule, because it is most tolerant to variations in
temperature and salinity, and because of its tendency to be an early colonizer of
disturbed or unvegetated areas (Zieman, 1982). There is no submerged vegetation
at Eastpoint and little or no grassbed development in St. Vincent Sound or along
the east coast of St. Vincent Island (Livingston 1980; 1983). East Bay supports
extensive grassbeds along its marshy perimeter. They are dominated by tape
grass (Yallisneria americana), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), and sago
pondweed (Potamogeton spp.), all freshwater to brackish species (Livingston,
1980). In recent years, the Eurasian watermilfoil (Myrioghyllum spicatum) has
become rooted throughout northern East Bay, and there is con@ern i:-)v'er its
potential effects on the ecology of the area (Livingston, 1983). A recent study
funded by the Corps of Engineers (CSA, 1985) found that Eurasian watermilfoil has
undergone considerable expansion, increasing from 30% coverage in 198O.to 90%
coverage in 1985 in the major bays along the west side of East Bay. Eurasian
watermilfoil usually out-competes native plants, but does not benefit the overall
ecosystem as much. It does not help stabilize sediments, and may restrict access
to fishing areas in shallow waters, but it may help shrimp by providing shelter for
the juveniles. The Scipio Creek area near Apalachicola is also experiencing a
severe problem with Eurasian watermilfoil. -

Two major evaluations of the grassbeds in the estuary have been conducted in
recent years (Livingston, 1980; CSA, 1985). The total area of submerged
grassbeds described in Livingston (1980) is considerably larger than that found in
CSA(1985). CSA (1985) attributes these differences to differences in mapping and
area calculation techniques, as well as the decline of grassbeds. CSA (19815) noted
little change in species composition in Apalachicola Bay proper, St. George Sound,
and St. Vincent Sound. However, CSA (1985) did note that both Livingston's
habitat assessment of the area in 1980 and infrared imagery taken in 1979showed
the presence of a large seagrass bed (shoal grass) just west of Sikes Cut, which
was not there when they surveyed the bay.

Emergent Vecietation and Tidal Flats

Marsh systems are among the most productive ecosystems in the world and are
vital habitats for important commercial and ga me species. Marshes found in the
Apalachicola system include fresh, brackish, and salt marshes which cover about
14% of the aquatic area (Livingston, 1980). Their distribution is limited to the
intertidal areas al'ong the perimeter of the bay and the delta area of the lower river
and East Bay (Figure 12). Since the amount of organic material exported out of a
marsh into the estuary is still under debate (de la Cruz, 1980), the most important
function of marshes may be as a nursery habitat (Edmiston and Tuck, 1987).
Marshes fulfill the three general criteria that characterize a nursery ground: provide
protection from predators; provide an abundant food supply; arid, are
physiologically suitable in terms of physical and chemical features (Joseph, 1973).

I
"FigWe M'M M M M
EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION IN APALACH

EAST

BAY

ASTPOINT
A ALACHICOL

cf) 14 T Soutal)
S 'Vior
APALACHICOLA

INDIAN
PASS . ...... BAY
c

Cl*-O

WEST
N PASS

lkes
ul

C
Sl- 'f'o 0
c

Shaded areas r
need lerush,cattai I

GULF OF MEXICO

The most developed marsh systems are found in East Bay and along the lower
reaches of the Apalachicola River. The marshes here support predominantly fresh
to brackish water vegetation consisting of bullrushes (Scirpus spp.), cattails gypha
spp.), and sawgrasses (Cladium spp.). Black needlerush (Juncus roemarianus)
and cordgrasses (Spartina spp.) are also present in the more brackish areas of
East Bay (Livingston, 1983). St. Vincent Sound also supports a large brackish and
salt-marsh system, primarily located along the northeastern areas of St. Vincent
Island. The dominant species are black needlerush, cordgrass, and saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata). Freshwater marshes also occur on St. Vincent Island with
sawgrass (Cladium iamaicensis) being the dominant feature (Thompson, 1970).
The lagoon and tidal creeks of Cape St. George and St. George Islands also
support narrow bands of brackish and salt marshes. These are generally
dominated by needlerush, with lesser amounts of cordgrass and saltgrass present
(Livingston, 1984).

Plants and animals associated with salt marshes must be capable of tolerating
rapid changes in environmental conditions. Because of stressful conditions, salt
marshes typically exhibit low plant diversity, and in many instances consist of one
or two species, with black needlerush and smooth cordgrass dominating in this
area. Brackish marshes are not usually as stressful, and therefore, the number of
species tends to be larger (Clewell, 1986). The paucity of species is usually offset
by the extremely dense concentration of species present.

Animals associated with marshes must also be capable of withstanding rapid
changes in environmental conditions. Since only about 10% of the vascular plant
material in a marsh is consumed directly by herbivores (Heard, 1982), most
-organisms found in the marsh are predators and detritivores. Permanent residents
of marshes include invertebrates such as insects, polychaete worms, amphipods,
mollusks, larger. crustaceans, and other omnivores. Year-round residents also
include mammals such as muskrat (Neofiber alleni), and birds such as clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Transitory residents
include such species as blue crabs, penaeid shrimp, anchovies, largemouth bass,
striped mullet, spotted and sand seatrout, and lepomids (Livingston, 1984). These
and other important estuarine organisms use the marsh habitat as either a nursery
ground, breeding area, or feeding zone (Edmiston and Tuck, 1987). Transitory
birds in marshes comprise one of the largest herbivorous groups and are also
significant top carnivores in the system. Northeastern Gulf of Mexico marshes
support summer nesting species, migrants, casual feeders, and summer visitors
(Stout, 1984). Birds of prey that utilize the marsh system include hawks, owls,
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceghalus) (Edmiston
and Tuck, 1987).

Tidal flats are located on the bayward sides of the barrier islands, along the.
mainland, and in shallow water areas associated with salt and freshwater marshes.
Little is known about the tidal flats of Apalachicola Bay. These unvegetated

expanses of mud or sand are exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide.
Tidal flats or mud flats are often ignored because their values to the aquatic
ecosystem are not readily visible (Clark, 1974). As habitats they are subjected to
one of the most variable environments in the aquatic system. Organisms inhabiting
tidal flats must not only cope with extremes of salinity and temperature, but also
with exposure and desiccation (Edmiston and Tuck, 1987).

Organisms associated with tidal flats vary with the salinity regime and type of
substrate, as well as depth of water and time of exposure. The most visible
organisms associated with tidal flats in Apalachicola Bay are oysters. Because of
the increased stress in this environment, these oysters tend to remain small. They
are commonly referred to as "coon oysters", and have been used in mplanting
programs on subtidal bars. Tidal flats provide important feeding grounds for finfish
at high tide, as well as habitat for a wide variety of crabs, snails, worms, and algae
(Edmiston and Tuck, 1987). They also provide important feeding and loafing areas
for plovers, sandpipers, gulls, ducks, and other birds which find a wide variety of
food to eat which has been exposed by the tide (Taylor et al., 1973):

Animals

The coastal marsh environment of the mainland and barrier islands surrounding
Apalachicola Bay provides habitat for numerous reptiles and amphibians. A
common marsh inhabitant is the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis),
which is listed as a designated species by the state and federal government. The
salt marsh snake (Nerodia fasciata clarki) and the diamond back terrapin
(Malaclemys terragin) also inhabit marshes of the Apalachicola system (Means,
1977). The loggerhead seaturtle (Caretta caretta caretta), a state and federally
designated species, nests on Gulf beaches of St. George, Cape St. George, and
St. Vincent Islands. The Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), leatherback
turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia myda ; mydas)
may occasionally be found in the waters of the bay, although they do not nest in
the vicinity.

Shorebirds and wading birds frequent the entire shoreline of the estuary, while
sloughs, marshes and surrounding waters attract numerous waterfowl. The
Apalachicola estuary lies on the eastern border between the Mississippi and east
coast migratory flyways, and therefore receives birds from both the Midwest and
the Atlantic seaboard which use the Gulf of Mexico and Peninsular Florida in
migration. St. George and St. Vincent Islands, and the Apalachicola River form a
unique system that creates la *nd-marks for birds in migration (Cole, 1986). In both
the spring and fall the barrier islands serve as vital resting spots for birds flying
across the Gulf states. Cole (1986) identified 164 species of birds which utilize the
islands in migration. These include tanagers, buntings, sparrows, and other
passerine migrants.

Shorebird and waterfowl migrants also use the system. In addition, the island
serves as residence for a number of bird species including mockingbirds, cardinals,
towhees, grackles, blackbirds, and doves. Heron species spotted in the estuary
include the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret (Ecireft thula), black-crowned night
heron (Nycticorax nycticorax , yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea),
Eastern least bittern (Ixobrachus exilis e@ii@ris), American bittern (Botaurus
lentiginosus), green-backed heron (Butorides itriatus), and Louisiana or tricolor
heron (Egretta tricolor).

Mammals found in the waters of the preserve include dolphin jursiops truncatus),
otter (L,.utra canadensis), muskrat, mink (Mustela vison lutensis), and infrequently
manatee C[richechus manatus latirostris).

Designated Species

Some designated animal species which have legal status pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 are found on or in the vicinity of Apalachicola Bay.
Additional plant and animal species are considered rare or of special concern, and
have been recommended for protective legal status or for protective management.
Table 2 lists species endangered, threatened, or of special concern which may be
found in or near the preserve. For management of designated plant species in the
preserve, the Florida Department' of Agriculture and Consumer Services (list
published in Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act, Section 581.185-187, F.S.)
is the primary reference source. For management of designated animal species,
the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) (list published in
39-27,03-05, F.A.C.) is the primary reference source. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) are responsible for implementing the provisions of the
federal Act.

Species may be classified as endangered, threatened, under review, or of special
concern. Endangered species are those threatened with extinction if the
deleterious factors affecting their populations continue. These are species whose
numbers have already declined to -such a critically low level or whose habitats have
been so seriously reduced or degraded that without active assistance, survival is
questionable. Threatened species are those likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future if current trends continue. Under review species are being
considered for designation. Species of special concern are those that warrant
special attention even though they do not fit the other categories. These species,
although perhaps not rare, may be especially vulnerable to certain types of
exploitation or environmental changes and have experienced long term population
declines. Species of this designation may also have potential impact on
endangered or threatened populations of other species.

TABLE 2

ENDANGERED AND POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED FLORA AND FAUNA OF THE
APALACHICOLA BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE

SPECIES LEGAL STATUS OR DESIGNATION
STATUS
FGFWFC USFWS CITIES FCREPA ON
RESERVE
MAMMALS

River ofter S
(Lutra canadensis)

West Indian Manatee E E I K
(Irichechus manatus latirostris)

BIRDS

Eastern brown pelican SSC 11 T K
(Pelecanus occidentalis)

Southern bald eagle T E I T K
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Peregrine falcon E T I E K
(Falco peregrinus)

Least tern T T K
(Sterna antillarum)

Southeastern kestrel T UR2 11 T K
(Falco sgarverius paulus)

Cuban snowy plover T UR2 E K
(Charadrius alixandrinus tenuirostris)

American oystercatcher SSC T K
(Haematol2us palliatus)

Little blue heron SSC SSC K
(Egretta caerulea)

SPECIES LEGAL STATUS OR DESIGNATION
STATUS
FGFWFC USFWS CITIES FCREPA ON
RESERVE

Snowy egret SSC SSC K
(Egretta thula)

Louisiana heron SSC SSC K
(Earetta tricolor)

Reddish egret SSC UR2 R K
(Egretta rufescens)

Osprey 11 T K
(Pandion haliaetus)

Marsh Hawk 11 K
(Circus cyaneus)

American redstart R K
(Setophaga ruticilla)

Black-whiskered vireo R K
(Vireo altiloguus)

Louisiana waterthrush R K
(Seiurus motacilla)

Great egret SSC K
(Casmeriodius albus)

Black-crowned night heron SSC K
(Nycticorax nycticorax)

Yellow-crowned night heron SSC K
(Nycticorax violacea)

Eastern least bittern SSC K
(IxobUchus exilis)

Cooper's Hawk SSC K
(Accipiter cooperii)

SPECIES LEGAL STATUS OR DESIGNATION
STATUS
FGFWFC USFWS CITIES FCREPA OIN
RESERVE

Piping plover SSC K
(Charadrius melodus)

Royal tern SSC K
(Sterna maxima)

Sandwich tern SSC K
(Sterna sandvicensis)

Caspian tern SSC K
(Sterna casgia)

Black skimmer SSC K
(Rynchops DjM)

American avocet SSC K
(Recurvirostra americana)

White ibis SSC K
(Eudocimus albus)

Worm-eating warbler SSG K
(Helmitheros vermivorus)

REPTILES

American alligator SSC T(S/A) 11 SSC K
(Alligator mississippiensis)

Atlantic loggerhead T T I T K
turtle
(Caretta caretta caretta)

Leatherback turtle E E I R K
(Dermochelys coriacea)

SPECIES LEGAL STATUS OF DESIGNATION
STATUS
FGFWFC USFWS CITIES FCREPA ON
RESERVE

Atlantic Ridley E E I R K
turtle
(Leigidochelys kempi)

Atlantic Green turtle E E I K
(Chelonia mvdas mydas)

Gulf salt marsh snake R K
(Nerodia fasciata clarki)

AMPHIBIANS

none

FISHES

Atlantic sturgeon SSC T K
Acipenser oxyrhynchus

INSECTS and MOLLUSKS

None Known

PLANTS

Florida corkwood T UR5 11 R K
(Leitneria floridana)

Notes: All listing except FCREPA based on FGFWFC (1986). FCREPA listings
based on -Rare and Endanaered Biota of Florida, Florida Committee on Rare and
Endangered Plants and Animals.

FGFWFC= Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; USFWS= U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; CITIES= Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; DACS= Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services; FCREPA= Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants
and Animals.

E= endangered; T= threatened; T(S/A)= threatened due to similarity of
appearance; R= rare; SSC= species of special concern; UR2= under review for
listing, but substantial evidence of biological vulnerability and/or threat is lacking;
UR5= still formally under review for listing, but no longer being conside'red for
listing because recent information indicates species is more widespread or
abundant than previously believed; I= appendix I species; 11 = appendix 11 species;
K= known to occur on the preserve; S= suspected to occur in the preserve.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Apalachicola River valley is believed to have been occupied by humans for
over 10,000 years (Dunbar and Waller, 1983). Little is known of the early
inhabitants other than that they were small, seasonally wide-ranging groups of
hunter-gatherers organized in family bonds (White, 1984). Sites generally cluster
around river crossings where game could be more easily taken. Because of the
arid conditions during the Pleistocene period, water was an important factor in
settlement location. Therefore, the Apalachicola River valley and estuary are
believed to have been an ideal environment for small hunting groups. However, no
direct evidence of paleo-indian occupation has been uncovered to date (Henefield
and White, 1986). The understanding of Pre-Columbian history on the barrier
islands adjacent to the Preserve is relatively limited due to the recent formation of
the islands.

The archaic period (7000-1000 B.C.) is only slightly better known than thE., earlier
period of habitation in the basin. The type of tools used indicate an increasing
reliance on smaller game animals. Archaic sites are known in the region (Bullen,
1950; White, 1984). The late archaic period is marked by the introduction of fiber
tempered pottery, which is probably an independent invention originating in
southeast Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana at nearly the same time (Phelps, 1966;
Bullen, 1972). Settlements of a seasonal or semipermanent nature are noted in the
basin during the late archaic period Oust after 3000 B.C.), and these people
intensively exploited selected resources such as deer, nuts, fish, and shellfish.
Expanded systems of socio-eco.nomic interaction helped to spread various
technological innovations such as new projectile point styles, steatite vessels, and
fired clay pots (White, 1984).

Human populations became more sedentary by 1000 B.C., engaging in hunting,
foraging, and the beginnings of plant cultivation. In northwest Florida this period

is known as the Deptford period. Although the majority of the Deptford sites are
associated with coastal swamps and estuaries (Milanich and Fairbanks, 1980),
Deptford components have been located at a number of sites in the region (Bullen,
1950; White, 1984). The Deptford period is characterized by the appearance of
sand tempered ceramics and larger, more settled villages (Hennefield and White,
1986).

The following Swift Creek period, 300 B.C. to 200 A.D. is best known for the
paddle-malleated, complicated stamped ceramics. This decorative motif originated
in central Georgia and radiated rapidly to both the Georgia and Florida coastlines.

The influx of ideas from the north (Hopewell) and from the west (Poverty Point) to
the indigenous Florida Gulf coast culture culminated in a vibrant and dynamic set
of regional adaptations during the Middle Woodland stage known as the Weeden
Island culture. By 200 A.D., this culture had ',spread to the basin (White, 1981).
Weeden Island ceramics are the most distinctive and well made in the Florida Gulf
coast and have long been recognized as being among the finest native ceramics
in North America (Willey, 1949).

Numerous Weeden Island sites have been documented in the region surrounding
the Apalachicola basin (White, 1984). Through the Weeden Island period an
increasing dependence on agriculture was responsible for a small, but constantly
growing population. Sites with multiple burial mounds and extensive middens are
noted in the central basin by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980). The building of burial
mounds seems to have stopped between 500 and 1000 A.D.

Around 1000 A.D., in response to stresses from increasing populations, the native
culture. shifted, evidently fairly rapidly, to larger aggregations in more permanent,
riverine villages, where a larger labor force could concentrate on an intensified
maize culture (White, 1981). These changes developed in local Weeden Island
populations as a response to constant diffusion of culture traits from Mississippian
peoples. This Weeden Island culture is known as the Ft. Walton culture, which can
be dated from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D.

Most of the barrier islands on the Gulf coast have predominantly Woodland and/or
Fort Walton period occupations, dating from just after the time of Christ up to
Spanish contact in the sixteenth century. St. George Island seems to have
predominantly Fort Walton period remains. As is common, most sites are on the
more protected bay side, which had both more resources to exploit and more fresh
water sources (White, personal communication).

These Fort Walton populations were the first to have contact with Spanish
explorers, which was followed by a chain of Spanish missions organized from 1670
to 1685 (Jones, 1973). The historic phase dating from 1600 A.D. to 1750 A.D. is
known as-the Leon-Jefferson period, during which aboriginal settlement patterns

were changed by Spanish influences. By the mid-seventeenth centurl, native
cultures were disrupted and populations had declined severely, mostly because of
the introduction of European disease (Hennefield and White, 1986).

Apalachee villages gradually moved to Franciscan mission sites which were
established by Spanish missionaries in the 17th century. In the early 1700s, English
soldiers destroyed the missions, killing many of the Apalachee and forcing most of
the survivors into slavery. The void in the aboriginal population was fillea through
the course of the 18th century by an influx of Creek and Seminole Indians.

During the British colonial period (1776-1783) trading patterns were established and
maintained through the ensuing Second Spanish Period (1783-1821). . Panton,
Leslie and Company, and other British firms traded in Spanish Florida through
frontier outposts such as the one that was situated on the Apalachicola River.
During this period of oscillating colonial rule, British troops occupied and began a
fortification on St. George Island in 1814. But this fortification -was shortly
abandoned (Owens, 1966).

Colonial policies of the time reserved for Indians the right to exclusive possession
of their lands, subject only to domination of the king. The lands adjacent to the
preserve lay within these reserved lands. The Indians of west Florida traded heavily
with the British trade firm of Panton, Leslie and Company, which was succeeded
by John Forbes and Company in 1783. By 1804 the Indians had become so
indebted to the trading firm that their only recourse for payment was to cede
portions of their lands to the traders. Additional cessions in 1811 for the same
purpose included the land area surrounding the preserve, and the transactions.
came to be known as the Forbes Purchase.

Continued encroachment by American settlers onto native occupied areas led to
increased hostility, which culminated in the Red Stick Rebellion (Moom', 1951).
Following the War of 1812, and the defeat of the Creeks in 1814, only a few
remnants of the Creek nation survived in the Apalachicola area.

The War of 1812 forced colonial powers out of the region and in 1822 Florida joined
the union. Subsequently, remnants of the Creek population were forcibly removed
and white settlers began to colonize the river valley. In 1822, the area around the
mouth of the Apalachicola River was designated as a customs district and this was
the beginnings of the city of Apalachicola.

The Spanish crown endorsed the validity of the cessions discussed above and
when the United States gained possession of the Florida territory a series of
cession claims was made by the successors of the Forbes' lands. In 1842, after
lengthy litigation in United States courts, title was confirmed to the final Successor
to the cession claim, the Apalachicola Land and Development Company. By this
---time the town of Apalachicola had been established and was rapidly becoming an
important port of commerce. 64

Prehistoric and historic artifacts still may be found on the shores adjacent to the
Preserve, with registered sites being found on St. Vincent, Cape St. George and St.
George Island.

CHAPTERIV

HUMAN USES OF THE RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS

To develop a management program for the resources of the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve, it is essential to understand how humans use the resources in
addition to the biology and ecology of the estuary. The major uses of the estuary
by humans are commercial and recreation harvesting of marine resources;
commercial navigation; and, adjacent land uses and their attendant facilities (e.g.,
docks, marinas, etc.). Because of the interrelationship between the river and
estuary, management of the river basin and associated impacts on the aquatic
preserve is also discussed.

HARVESTING OF MARINE RESOURCES

Apalachicola Bay supports major fisheries for oysters, shrimp, blue crab, and finfish.
Tables 3 and 4 list the shellfish and finfish yields from the estuary. Prochaska and
Mulkey (1983) have pointed out that Franklin County is economically dependent on
commercial fisheries. Between 60 and 85 percent of the citizens of Franklin County
make a living from the seafood industry, and the industry contributes in excess of
$14 million dock side to the local economy. Colberg et al., (1968) projected an
annual value of $34.2 million for commercial fishing and tourism in the estuary by
the year 2000 if water quality and natural productivity are maintained.

In addition to commercial fishing, recreational fishing also contributes to Franklin
County's economy by attracting tourists to the region. No estimates of recreational
use of the estuary are available.

In 1915 the bay supported 7,135 acres of oyster beds (Danglade, 1917), while
today only 6,000 acres are available. This includes over 750 acres of oyster bars
constructed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources since 1949 (Futch,
1983). The major commercially important bars are located off Cat Point and at East
Hole (see Figure 10, page 45). Historically, the estuary has provides about 90%
of Florida's and 10% of the Nation's oyster harvest. Production data reveal that the
bay yielded record harvests every successive year from 1977 to 1981. This is
believed to be partially the result of the opening up of a summer harvest season.
The size of the harvest has been down in recent years as result of several factors
including several droughts and increased harvesting pressure.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF SELECTED FRANKLIN COUNTY SHELLFISH LANDINGS
QUANTITY IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS/VALUE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

BLUE CRABS OYSTERS SHRIMP TOTAL
1978 880 5567 5412 11859
QUANTITY
VALUE 164 4223 6020 10407

1979
QUANTITY 1210 5810 2840 9860
VALUE 239 4869 5340 10448

1980
QUANTITY 1304 6410 3420 11134
VALUE 274 5740 5039 11053

1981
QUANTITY 1619 6617 5458 13694
VALUE 360 6463 8421 15244

1982
QUANTITY 983 4153 3115 8251
VALUE 239 4151 6444 10834

1983
QUANTITY 953 3936 3671 8560
VALUE 269 4158 8002 12429

1984
QUANTITY 1265 6199 4386 11850
VALUE 305 6803 8159 15267

1985
QUANTITY 1418 3816 3945 9179
VALUE 816 4348 7195 12359

1986
QUANTITY 794 473 1935 3202
VALUE 318 449 3986 4753@

1987
QUANTITY 619 2780 1595 4994
VALUE 204 5199 3190 8593

1988
QUANTITY 568 1292 3472 5332
VALUE 204 5199 3190 8593

1989
QUANTITY 359 823 2982 4164
VALUE 147 1885 5546 7578

1990*
QUANTITY 219 1346 1597 3162
VALUE 120 3755 3130 7005

SOURCE: For 1978-1985 Landings: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida Commercial Landings.
SOURCE: For 1986-1990 Landings: ONR Marine Fisheries Information System
1990 Data Preliminary

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF FIN FISH LANDINGS FOR ESTUARINE DEPENDENT SPECIES
QUANTITY IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS/VALUE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

MULLET FLOUNDER SEATROUT REDFISH SPOT TOTAL

1978
QUANTITY 670 40 49 10 3 772
VALUE 134 6 25 3 < 168

1979
QUANTITY 645 56 53 11 7 772
VALUE 118 29 32 4 1 184

1980
QUANTITY 722 90 29 9 6 856
VALUE 140 47 18 3 1 209

QUANTITY 659 68 51 10 4 792
V19A8L1U E 144 37 33 4 1 219

19112
5UANTITY 653 95 55 7 10 820
VALUE 15 50 38 3 2 108

1983
QUANTITY 920 88 55 14 10 1087
VALUE 210 47 40 6 3 306

1984
QUANTITY 896 86 51 9 17 1059
VALUE 209 49 39 4 3 304

19115
QUANTITY 482 78 47 8 4 619
VALUE 116 49 38 4 1 208

1986
QUANTITY 229 13 5 3 250,
VALUE 75 15 5 2.5 97.5

1987
QUANTITY 131 16 8 0 155
VALUE 50 17 9 0 76

1988
QUANTITY 159 20 8 0 1 188
VALUE 70 26 8 0 <1 104

19"9
QUANTITY 243 20 33 0 2 298
VALUE 80 21 36 0 < 1 137

1990*
QUANTITY 355 15 16 0 2.5 388.5
VALUE 170 16 22 0-1 <1 208

SOURCE: For 1978-1985 Landings: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summaries of Florida Commercial Landings.
SOURCE: For 1986-1990 Landings: DNR Marine Fisheries Information System.
1990 Data Preliminary

Shellfish harvesting areas are classified into one of four categories: apprOVE@d areas
normally opened to fishing; conditionally approved areas open to shellfishing which
are occasionally closed either after finding high fecal coliform densities or by
following established management policies (e.g., closure based on a specific river
stage); Prohibited areas which are never opened to shellfishing due to pollution
levels; and unclassified areas in which shellfishing is not permitted pending surveys
by the Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section. Figure 13 shows the
classification of oystering areas in Apalachicola Bay as adopted in November 1990.

Historically, oysters have been harvested in Apalachicola Bay exclusively with tongs.
However, the 'Florida Marine Fisheries Commission has drafted a rule allowing the
limited use of oyster dredges on perpetual private lease bars which currently exist
in St. Vincent Sound. This rule met with widespread local opposition, with
oystermen being concerned that inadequate enforcement would lead to dredges
being used on the public bars. Conditions intended to safeguard against the use
of dredges outside the perpetual leases have been specified.

The Department of Natural Resources has tried to offset some of the pressure on
the resource through oyster relaying, reef construction, and aquaculture. Through
the relaying program, live oysters are moved from closed areas to locations which
are approved or conditionally approved. Through the reef construction program,
shell is placed on the bottom with the intent of creating new oyster bars. Because
of rapid oyster growth in the bay, harvesting around the edges may begin at 18
months and a planted reef may be at full production within two years (Ingle and
Dawson, 1952, 1953; Whitfield, 1973). When mature, these reefs can yield as much
as 400 bushels per acre and it has been estimated that half of the bay's yield
comes from DNR constructed or enhanced reefs (Whitfield and Beaumariage,
1977).

Through the Aquaculture Policy Act (Chapter 597, F.S.) the Department of
Agriculture was made the lead agency in the state to promote and coordinate the
development of aquaculture. Section 258.42 F.S. of the Florida Aquatic Preserves
Act provides that aquaculture is presumed to be in the public interest, provided that
aquaculture is limited to culture activities which are:

a. on substrate, or do not extend beyond 6 inches above the substrate;
and

b. limited to those areas which will not destroy grassbeds, natural flow of
waters, or other natural values which designation of the area as an
aquatic preserve was intended to protect.

Figure 13

CONDTIONALLY APPROVED
WINTER HARVESTING AREA

CONDITIONALY APPROVED
SUMMER HARVESTING AREA

PROHIBITED

I I 11F .... ...
MK@ @il - - - - - - - -
A
�H!H I I
nric

11 [Ilia I-
+++-RI

COLA
APALACHI -----
A Y
...............

Ins CUT

APALACHICOLA BAY SHELLFISH HARVESTING MAP

MAP REVISED MAY 16, 1990

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SHELLFISH ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT SECTION

Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. further provides that aquaculture leases may only be granted
for a maximum term of 10 years and that the maximum size of an oyster lease in
Franklin County is one acre. The Department of Natural Resources also has
adopted the following policies and special lease conditions to include in aquaculture
lease contracts in Apalachicola Bay:

1. the source of brood stock must be Apalachicola Bay;

2. hatcheries must provide documentation showing that seed stocks are
from native brood stock and that seed stocks are free from disease that
may threaten endemic populations;

3. seed stocks must be certified free of disease that may threaten
endemic populations by a recognized shellfish pathologist,:

4. seed stock originating from hatcheries using waters from Apalachicola
Bay do not require certification;

5. documentation must accompany each shipment of seed stock; and,

6. hatcheries, in-state and out-of-state, must be located in low risk areas
where chance of contact with diseases that threaten endemic populations
are minimal.

In 1989 an oyster aquaculture demonstration project was initiated in Franklin
County. This project was conducted by the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
through a sub-contract and was intended to demonstrate methods of raising
oysters in Apalachicola Bay. Some had hoped that through this program a network
of small-scale aquaculture projects could be initiated in the Apalachicola estuary.
This program, however, has experienced many difficulties, including a long standing
disagreement by local fishermen to the concept of leasing of the public bottoms.
This disagreement has its roots in the issue of perpetual leases and oyster
dredging which were discussed above. As a result of this disagreement, in early
1990, the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution
stating that:

1. No method of mechanical harvesting of oysters or other shellfish
should be approved for use in Apalachicola Bay or any waters of Franklin
County, Florida;

2. No leasehold interest should be granted by a@ny authority over lands or
waters being held as public trust property in Franklin County, Florida.
The State of Florida should be granted permission after public hearings
for the purpose of establishing some type of aquaculture research facility,
to be owned and operated solely by the State.

Since Section 253.68, F.S. provides that the county has the final say on this
manner, until this resolution is repealed the prospects for small-scale aquaculture
programs in the county are currently small. Aquaculture can still be utilized on the
perpetual private leases, but no new leases will be issued.

Shrimp represents the largest and most valuable fishery in the estuary in terms of
dockside value. The value of annual dockside landings of shrimp from 1983-1985
exceeded $7 million. And, this figure understates the value of the estuary toward
shrimp yields since many shrimp spend their juvenile stages in the bay, but are
harvested elsewhere. In 1979, an estimated 150 in-county and 200 out-of-county
shrimp boats worked the estuary (DNR, 1986). Many of the latter landed their
catches elsewhere, therefore their catch is not reflected in Franklin County landings.
It is also possible that shrimp caught elsewhere is landed here. There are two
distinct fleets of boats which harvest shrimp from the estuary. One consists of
larger boats which harvest shrimp in the gulf waters off the estuary. And the other
of smaller boats which harvest shrimp within the estuary. State-wide landings are
about half of what they were in the early 1950s, although the landings in the
Apalachicola estuary have increased over this period.

Blue crabs and finfish landings are also an important harvest from the estuary,
although they are dwarfed in volume by shrimp and oyster landings. As noted
earlier, the estuary is an important spawning ground for blue crab in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico. The value of blue crab landings for the estuary in 198,5 was in
excess of $500,000. Mullet is the major finfish harvested in the estuary with annual
landings exceeding $200,000 in 1983 and 1984. As with shrimp, the value of the
estuary to finfish landings is underestimated by Franklin County landing figures
because of the role of the estuary as a nursery for many gulf species.

Several recent actions suggest that the concept of managing the commercial and
recreational fisheries in the Apalachicola estuary is gaining acceptance. A
conference on the Apalachicola oyster industry (Andree, 1983) concluded that a
"functional long-range resource use. plan is needed for oysters, as well cas other
marine resources in Apalachicola Bay". Since this conference, the Florida, Marine
Fisheries Commission has assumed the role of managing oysters. The
Apalachicola Bay Area Protection Act required that Franklin County and the
municipalities within it prepare, with assistance from concerned state agencies and
other. interested parties, a report on options to improve the fisheries for the bay,
Section 380.0555 (1 1)(f), F.S.. This report was completed in November 1988
(Herbert, 1988). The project consisted of collecting data and information on the
fisheries and an identification of and development of issues and options related to
the fisheries. Major issues relating to fisheries which were- noted in the report and
which need to be discussed in the future. include: water quality impacts from
forestry operations; salinity impacts associated with Bob Sikes Cut; the allocation
of water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint watershed; law enforc%ement;
establishment of a salt water demarcation line; institution of a county-widE@ fishing

license; establishment of an independent center for fisheries information; the
dredging of oysters on private leases; aquaculture; and the current shrimp count
law.

The draft Franklin County Comprehensive Plan also contained a policy which stated
that "Franklin County shall seek to establish an overall Apalachicola Bay
management plan in conjunction with other local, regional, state, and federal
agencies." Although no time frame for initiating this effort was provided or lead
entity within the county designated, inclusion of this policy does suggest that there
may be political support for the concept of comprehensive management of
commercial and recreational fishing in the estuary. Care must be taken, however,
to ensure that any efforts to manage the fishery from a comprehensive perspective
do not cause additional burdens for the industry. It also must be recognized that
management and protection of aquatic resources requires more than just managing
the aquatic resources themselves. As discussed later in this chapter, shoreline
uses and land use and water management activities within the entire drainage basin
must also be considered.

In understanding the vulnerability of an economy based on a single industry, the
county has recently explored options to expand their economic base. In early
1987, a conference was held to this end.. -Options discussed at the conference
included better organization of the seafood industry; aquaculture; enhanced
attraction of tourists; continued and expanded development of a historical district;
and approaching economic diversification on a regional level (i.e., the whole-Aver
valley).

COMMERCIAL WATERBORNE NAVIGATION

Several navigation projects pass through, or are in close proximity to the aquatic
preserve (Figure 14). These federal navigation channels are not included within the
preserve boundaries. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint (ACF) navigation
project begins at the John Gorrie Bridge and extends up the Apalachicola River to
Lake Seminole, and up the Chattahoochee River to Columbus, Georgia and up the
Flint River to Bainbridge, Georgia. The project is authorized to have a 9x100 foot
channel and the principle commodities shipped on the river include fertilizers,
petroleum products, basic chemical products, and grains. Annual traffic on the
river currently exceeds ohe million tons per year. Because the project is a spur
channel off the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and connects to the GIWW six
miles north of the bridge, most of the traffic on the ACF project does not cross the
aquatic preserve proper.

There are several federally authorized navigation projects which transverse
Apalachicola Bay including the GIWW, Two Mile Channel, St. George Island
Channel (Sikes Cut), Eastpoint Channel, and Scipio Creek Channel. The GIWW is

a 12 x 125 foot channel used for both waterborne commerce and as an access
channel to the bay for a variety of commercial and recreational fishing interests.
Principle commodities shipped on the GIWW across Apalachicola Bay include
gasoline, phosphate rock, asphalt, tar and pitches, and sodium hydroxide.

Two Mile and Eastpoint Channels are used predominantly by oyster boats, smaller
shrimp boats, and recreational craft. St. George Island Channel, or Sikes Cut, is
used for access to the Gulf by larger shrimp boats and for recreational fishing. The
Scipio Creek Channel is used as an access channel to a boat basin which is
presently used as a mooring area for smaller shrimp boats that constitute the bay
fishing fleet. Larger shrimp boats moor along the western edge of the access
channel.

All of these channels require maintenance dredging to maintain their authorized
dimensions. The ACF Waterway and the GIWW must be dredged annually. The
other projects are dredged at varying intervals from once every two to three years
at Two Mile, East-point and St. George Island Channels to once every 25 years for
Scipio Creek. Disposal of material is done mostly at open-water sites in the estuary
with over 1,150 acres of bay bottom designated as open-water disposal sites - I
(Leitman et al., 1986). The navigation channels and disposal sites account for over
one percent of the bay bottom.

The impacts of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) navigation project on
.the Apalachicola River and Bay system are discussed in Leitman et al., (1991). As
noted earlier, flow of the Apalachicola River plays a major role in both contributing
nutrients to the estuary and in defining the estuary's salinity regime. Therefore, any
actions which influence the river's flow regime can significantly influence the
estuary's ecosystems. Because of their limited storage capacity, the reserioirs on
the ACF River system have had a limited effect on the hydrologic regime of
Apalachicola River and Bay. As noted in the previous chapter, this issue has been
evaluated by Maristany (1981), Leitman et al., (1983), Leitman et al., (1984),
Alabama et al., (1984) and Raney et al., (1985), and all concluded that any effects
the reservoir system has on flows are shadowed by variations in flow caused by
climatic fluctuations.

Apalachicola Bay has been found to be one of the more rapidly in-filling estuaries
on the Gulf coast (Isphording, 1985). This, however, cannot be attributed to
dredging in the river since the material being dredged is predominantly sand which
can only be carried limited distances from the disposal site, and the material in-
filling the estuary is fine grained. In addition, this in-filling trend pre-dates major
dredging on the system. Bedosky (1987) found long-term sedimentation rates in
East Bay to be constant during the past 100 years, although Apalachicola Bay's
clay mineral content was altered for a short period of time after construction of the
dams. If anything, the reservoirs have reduced the rate of in-filling in the estuary
through the trapping of material.

OCLC: 26478807 Rec stat: n
Entered: 19920825 Replaced: 19950607 Used: 19921223
$ Type: a Bib tvt: m Source: d Lang: eng
Repr: Enc LvL: I Conf pub: 0 Ctry: flu
Indx: 0 Mod rec: Govt pub: s Cont: b
Desc: a Int lvl: Festschr: 0 ILLus: abd
F/B: 0 Dat tp: s Dates: 1992, %
$ 1 040 FBA Ic FBA %

$ 2 043 n-us-ft %

$ 3 092 574.9759 12 20 %
$ 4 090 lb %
$ 5 049 NO@M %
$ 6 245 00 Apalachicola Say aquatic preserve management plan : lb adopted
January 22, 1992 / Ic prepared by the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves,
Division of State Lands. %
$ 7 260 [Tallahassee] : lb Dept. of Natural Resources, Ic E19921. %
$ 8 300 168 p. : lb ill., charts, maps ; Ic 28 cm. %
$ 9 504 includes bibliographical references (p.145-157). %
$ 10 651 0 Apalachicola Bay (FLa.) %
$ 11 650 0 Bays Iz Florida. %
$ 12 650 0 Aquatic resources Iz Florida Iz Apalachicola Say. %
$ 13 650 0 Marine parks and preserves Iz Florida Iz Apalachicola Say Ix
Management. %
$ 14 710 1 Florida. lb Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves. %

m m m
Figure 14

FEDERAL NAVIGATION CHANNELS WITHIN THE AQUATIC PRESER%

D EAST

BAY
Us 98
V.
Cte
S,-%Q,ot%e% .:. * ASTPbINT
APALACNIC(jL- CHANNEL

BULKHEAD
SHOAL
4 SOUt4o T Ile CHANNEL
hannel

ATE
... .......
VBACOA
INDIAN I T4
PASS Nc EA(.r
ISLA
)VD

WEST LINK CHANNEL
N PAS$Kl
'foUTER
w Y Sik*s
CHANNEL Cut

GULF OF MEXICO

Use of the Apalachicola River as a navigation project subjects Apalachicola Bay to
potential impacts from the spilling of commodities. Commodities transported on the,
river which could have a deleterious impact if spilled include fertilizers, petroleum
products and chemical products. In a typical year these can account for over 40%
of the tonnage shipped on the river (over 500,000 tons). To date, there has not
been any major spills on the Apalachicola River, but if traffic increases (as desired
by navigation interests), the potential for accidents increases. In general, there are
two types of impacts from spills: 1) short-term lethal effects from chemical
components; and 2) sublethal effects occurring over time. Short-term effects may
either be associated with chemical poisoning or smothering of plant and animal
species unable to move from an area. Although an oil spill plan exists for the river
(ARPC, 1984), no workable program for dealing with spills exists. The DER is
currently working on developing a response plan for oil spills.

Leitman et al., (1986) evaluated existing navigation projects in Apalachicola Bay and
the impacts of these projects on the estuarine ecosystem. They concluded that
many of the studies evaluating environmental impacts of dredging and disposal in
Apalachicola Bay are inadequate for determining the extent of ecological impacts.
The institutional process for designing studies, assuring quality control, reviewing
results, and integrating studies into operational programs has also been
inadequate. Consequently, Leitman et al., (1986) recommended continued
assessment of localized and system-wide impacts from maintenance dredging and
disposal activities on the estuary.

By nature, estuaries are complex, dynamic systems which are not yet completely
understood. Activities with gross impacts and/or impacts which manifest
themselves over a short-term are more easily discernible. However, activities which
have more subtle effects that may prove to have far reaching effects over time,
such as a gradual shift of community structure are not so easily noticed. Because
a specific impact has not been identified, or related to a specific activity, does not
mean it is not occurring. As the discussion on Sikes Cut later in this section
shows, if maintenance activities affect circulation patterns and/or salinity flux, the
potential for subtle, widespread impact exists. On the other hand, if the effects are
limited to'burial of habitat or changes in water quality, the impacts may be more
localized.

The most obvious physical impacts of dredge and disposal activities in the estuary
are the relatively short-term increases in turbidity and suspended solids, and the
long-term establishment of dredged channels and elevated disposal sites. Fluid
mud flow and the continued resuspension of dredged material by wind generated
waves and currents are less obvious and less studied JM pacts (Leitman et al.,
1986). Turbidity plumes observed in Apalachicola Bay vary in size and persistence
depending on factors such as density and grain-size of material being dredged,
wind speed and direction, current speed and direction, tidal phase, and type of
disposal pipe configuration. The degree of stratification of the water column also

influences the turbidity plume (COE, 1982). The largest turbidity plume measured
in the estuary is 1.3 miles long (Schubel et al., 1978), and all studies of turbidity
associated with dredging in the Apalachicola estuary found plumes to have much
higher concentrations of suspended solids and turbidity near the bottom. The
dimensions of the plume.are also greater near the bottom. Secondary and tertiary
resuspension of the dredged material by wind is more persistent and extensive than
the initial plume (Leitman et al., 1986). The biota in dynamic systems which
periodically experience natural increases in turbidity, such as Apalachicola Bay, are
less affected by high turbidity than in systems which do not experience significant
natural fluctuations in turbidity.

An assessment of fluid mud movement associated with dredging in Apalachicola
Bay (USGS, 1984) suggest that material disposed in open-water sites spreads out
in a layer up to one foot thick, and is then shifted around over time. The Corps
depends on this migration of material off the sites to rejuvenate the site and extend
its project life (COE, 1981; 1982). In Apalachicola Bay, the Eastpoint Channel is the
most likely area to present fluid mud problems, not only because of the fine grained
and polluted nature of disposal material there, but also because of its proximity to
the productive oyster bars at Cat Point.

Dredge and disposal activities have impacted -the chemical constituents in the water
column and sediment layers of Apalachicola Bay. Because the water column and
sediment layers of the estuary are in a relatively unpolluted state, they have not
caused serious7 impacts (Leitman et al., 1986). Livingston (1 984a) noted that the
dredged channels of the GIWW, Two Mile, and Eastpoint Channels are depositories
of silt-laden sediment contaminated with heavy metals. Dredging and disposal
activities distribute these polluted sediments into the estuary at large. The DER and
Corps have agreed that the next time the Eastpoint Channel is dredged the
associated impacts will be monitored, especially as they relate to nearby oyster
bars.

The most noticeable biological impact from dredging and disposal activities is the
disruption of the benthic habitat and biologic communities which utilize the channel,
and the burial of benthos during disposal. Because the area being dredged and
disposed on is less than 1% of the estuary and some degree of recovery occurs,
these impacts are not believed to be significant from a system-wide perspective
(WAR, 1975; Taylor, 1979; COE, 1981; COE, 1982). However, because of the
movement of material off site in the form of fluid mud, the total area affected and
the rate of recovery of these areas is not completely understood (Leitman et al.,
1986). No macro- i nve rte brate samples have been collected on or around disposal
sites close to the time of dredging. WAR (1975) and-L.ivingston (1984a) have
investigated the impact of dredging on benthic macro-invertebrates in the estuary
and were unable to define any impacts due to- dredging and disposal. However,
against the background of such high variability and within the studies' design and
scope restraints, only catastrophic impacts would likely have been documented.

To minimize potential impacts to estuarine biota, the Corps has agreed to only
dredge between December 1 and March 31.

Changes in hydrology of the bay due to the creation of channels and disposal
mounds could affect the ecology of the bay. The Corps has developed a
hydrodynamic model to assess circulation impacts from current disposal practices
(Raney et al., 1985), although serious problems with this model have been noted
(Weisberg, 1987; Rodriguez, 1988; Weisberg 1989). Perhaps the. most significant
impact of navigation channels on the estuary is associated with the construction
"and development of Sikes Cut. The channel was constructed in 1957 to shorten
access for the Gulf shrimp fleet to Apalachicola. Considerable controversy has
surrounded the question of whether the cut has influenced the estuarine
ecosystem. Many local oystermen have expressed a belief that freshwater is
shunted out of the bay through the cut causing the bay to become more saline and
oysters are impacted by predators.

The bar that is believed to have been most damaged is St. Vincent Bar. Swift
(1898) reported dense growth of oyster on the bar in 1895-1896. However,
Danglade (1917) noted that the bar was showing signs of depletion and had been
closed by the State to recover. During the investigations of Pearse and Wharton
(1938), there was an indication, that the bar was still productive, but Ingle and
Dawson (1953) found no oyster production on the bar. Menzel et al., (1958)
studied the causes of oyster de' letion in the bar and found abundant spatfall, but
p
high oyster mortality there. They concluded that predation, especially by drills and
stone crabs, was the primary cause of mortality. Establishment of predators on the
bar was believed to be due to four or five years of low rainfall. They predicted that
with increased rainfall the reef could recover. However, since the cut was
constructed the reef has not recovered (Miley, pers. comm.).

Two recent studies (Mehta and Zeh, 1980; Imsand, 1986) evaluated the distribution
of tidal influences from Sikes Cut on Apalachicola Bay to determine whether the cut
caused the degradation of oyster reefs, and concluded that the influence of inlet
flow on the bay is localized and that the Cut's impact on the oyster reefs is minimal.
Several problems have been identified with these studies (Leitman et al., 1985;
Leitman, 1989), most notably that the authors considered only the impacts of a
single tidal cycle, inappropriately discounting any incremental effects that would
take more time to become evident.

The Corps continues to maintaia that the model prepared for them does a good,job
of estimating salinity levels in the Bay, while State representatives are reluctant to
assess the salinity impacts of the Sikes Cut channel with-a model that they do not
believe does an adequate job of representing salinity levels. Consequently, this
study effort has been stopped before it was completed. The Northwest Florida
Water Management District, however, through the Surface Water Improvement and

Management (SWIM) program is initiating an effort to prepare a three-dimensional
model of Apalachicola Bay. This model should prove capable of assessing the
salinity impacts of the Sikes Cut channel.

ADJACENT LAND USES

The Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve is in Franklin County, Florida, about 90
miles southwest of Tallahassee and 65 miles southeast of Panama City. The
population of Franklin County in 1987 was estimated to be 8,538, with 2,627 people
living in Apalachicola. The combined population of the three counties adjacent to
Franklin County (Gulf, Liberty, and Wakulla Counties) in 1987 was less than 30,000
(BEBR, 1988). In combination, the four counties have a population density of less
than 12.5 people/square mile.

With a few notable exceptions (i.e., cities of Apalachicola and Eastpoint, part of St.
George Island, and the coastal strand between Eastpoint and Carrabelle) the major
land uses in the Apalachicola Bay area are forestry and federally or state owned
conservation areas. About 93% of Franklin County is in forestry, owned for
conservation purposes, or is submerged under rivers, streams, or lakes (FCPD,
1989). In recent years considerable acreage has been purchased in close
proximity to the estuary (see Figure 4, page 11). The majority of recent acquisitions
have been for environmental rather than recreational reasons and were intended
to protect the estuary from impacts associated with habitat alteration.

St. Vincent Island was a privately owned game preserve until 1968, at which time
it was acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for inclusion in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Land use on the island is limited to outdoor recreation
asthe 12,358 acre island's primary purpose is to serve as a wildlife refuge.

East of St. Vincent Island is Cape. St. George and St. George Islands. Cape St.
George is part of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and is
managed as a preserve. The privately owned western end of St. George Island is
being developed into a residential community which was planned under the
guidance of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program. The central
portion of the island is also in private ownership, but is zoned at one unit per
quarter acre. There are currently about 700 dwelling units on the island, many of
which support only weekend residents. The Department of Community Affairs
estimates that over 4,000 units are foreseeable when the island is fully developed
(DCA, 1986). On eastern end of St. George Island, 1883 acres are incorporated
into Dr. J.G. Bruce/St. George Island State Park. Another 75 acres on the island
is owned by the state and called "Unit 4". This tract has no designated
management lease and is not managed. The state has also bought 17 acres
contiguous with the west end of the St. George Island State Park.

In addition, the state is pursuing acquisition of several other tracts of land on St.
George Island. Four tracts on St. George Island were included high on the most
recently approved list for acquisition under the Conservation and Recreation Lands
(CARL) program. These are: 1) Nick's Hole, a small natural embayment
encompassing less than 30 acres on the western portion of St. George Island; 2)
East Hole, a 25.5 acre site located on the bay side about 1000 feet east of the
causeway; 3) Shell Point bay front tract, a 188 acre bay front tract located east of
the causeway; and 4) Sikes Cut, a 37 acre tract adjacent to the cut on the bay
front. Of these, Nick's Hole is the most important since it is the most significant
drainage area for St. George Island and an important nursery area.

For more than a decade, it has been recognized that development of St. George
Island could have a deleterious impact on Apalachicola estuary (Livingston et al.,
1975). The narrowness of the island presents various problems with respect to
intensified development including little room for sewage effluent treatment by
individual septic systems.

In 1977 the Franklin County Commission approved the St. George Island Plantation
DRI in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The project contains 1200
acres in two discrete areas and consists of variety of uses including single family,
multiple_ family, a beach club, commercial district, and marina. Two of the
commercial areas are located on the western portion of the island near Sikes Cut
and Nick's Hole, and the third is near the park on the east end.

Across from St. Vincent Island, along the coast for approximately 18 miles west of
Apalachicola the major land use is forestry. This area is sparsely developed.
Apalachicola consists mostly of residential development, fringed by commercial
fishing houses, light industry, and residential uses.

The major land use surrounding East Bay is forestry and conservation. In
conjunction with establishing the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve,
4,744 acres were purchased through the CARL program. The community of
Eastpoint consists of mostly single family homes and mobile homes/trailers. Along
Highway 98 within and just outside Eastpoint is a large area used for single family
home, light industry and commercial fishing. The Eastpoint area is also beginning
to be developed for small, light commercial ventures not related to fishing. An
additional 115 acres on Cat Point was recently purchased through the CARL
program. This acquisition was important since Cat Point lies within 100 yards of the
most productive oyster bars in the bay. From Eastpoint to Carrabelle, along the
coast are single family homes owned by small land owners.

In the future it appears that the Apalachicola area will develop into
residential/historic district; the Eastpoint area into a service oriented, light
commercial area; and St. George Island as the tourist oriented area. Figures 15
and 16 provide future land use maps for Franklin County and the city of
Apalachicola.

Disposal of sewage effluent in the vicinity of Apalachicola Bay has long been a
problem because elevated coliform counts mandate closure of the bay's oyster
beds. In late 1979 and early 1980 a considerable amount of publicity and
regulatory action made this issue important to local interests because ten cases of
infectious hepatitis in Georgia and Alabama were linked to the consumption of
oysters from Apalachicola Bay. Then in the spring of 1980 the bay was repeatedly
closed for oyster harvest because of high river levels and a 1984 sewage spill
closed down the oyster industry for prolonged periods. Because of the potential
problem of shellfish contamination, standards of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration mandate that estuarine shellfish harvesting be suspended when fecal
coliform counts reach a median MPN (most probable number) of coliform bacteria
of 14 per 100 milliliter. Closing of the bay is triggered by river stage, and the
specific stages for the Apalachicola Bay are based on the results of Furfari (1975).
Although this study did not consider the source of the coliform, local sewage
treatment facilities and septic tanks were considered to be a prime source (ARPC,
1979). Other possible sources included animal fecal matter from the -floodplain and
fecal matter from other upstream sources.

As noted above, a primary suspect in high fecal counts in Apalachicola Bay are
local sewage treatment plants and septic tanks, storm water runoff, infiltration, and
bad sewage lines. There are presently nine centralized sewage systems in Franklin
County. Five of these systems are privately owned and operated, one is located
at the state park on St. George Island, and the remaining three are municipal
systems located at Apalachicola, Carrabelle, and Eastpoint. Two of these municipal
systems, the ones at Apalachicola and Eastpoint, are located in close proximity to
the Apalachicola Bay aquatic preserve. A new sewage treatment facility was placed
into operation in Apalachicola in 1985. Effluents which previously discharged
almost directly into the bay were rerouted away from the bay through a titi swamp
which discharges into the Jackson River instead of Scipio Creek. This more
circuitous route was intended to provide a buffer for the bay in the event of plant
failure. Unfortunately, this plant is presently operating without a valid DER operating
permit. The City is under enforcement action by both the DER and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Excessive infiltration and inflow entering the
wastewater collection system hydraulically overload the plant. The wastewater is
therefore diluted to the extent that -the plant cannot achieve the percentage
reduction of total suspended solids required by the federal discharge permit.

The Eastpoint Wastewater Treatment Plant, which treats only domestic wastes,
began operating in 1975. Due to provisions in the Apalachicola Bay Protection Act
and the subsequent collection system expansion, the facility will be treating
industrial/commercial wastewater in the near future. The. majority of this will be
generated by the oyster industry. The plant is currently operating under a Notice
of Violation and an Order for Corrective Action. The specific violations addressed
in the order, have been or are being addressed and the system is to be expanded
in the near future (FCPD, 1989).

Alow-1- R9W [low. AM R6W
MAM11 LINE "A"

APALACIIICOLA

SOUHD
P Sf. vit4coly

APALACIIICOLA
qT
00 V) NGENT BAY
1-n

LEGEND

P&@@ RESIDE14TIAL
< MHUMUM11HIH COMMEMIAL
01111111000 INDUSMIAL
P"-.14-1, RECREATIONAL

UP71VIV14YI-A PUBLIC FACILITIES

C014SERVATION
Figure 15 AGRICUITURAL
FUTURE LAND USE MAP INCORPORMED
MIXEO-USE RESIDENT
OF FRANKLIN COUNTY amum MIXED-USE COMMERC
P @=Hj EASYPOINT URBAN S
CROWN LOW OENSITY RESIO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
1
86
I

PUBLIC

COMMERCIAL

RECREATIONAL

CONSERVATION

BAY TIDAL MARSHES
cl@ -
Vo.
OZ

coo

Apalachicola

-JAI

Apalachicola Bay

0 1000 2000 FEET

Figure 16 Future Land Use Map for the city of Apalachicola.

Septic tank systems are still widely used in Franklin County and evidence of septic
tanks discharging either directly or indirectly into Apalachicola Bay exists (ARPC,
1979; Howell, 1980; EPA, 1981; Porter, 1985; DCA, 1986). About three-fourths of
the septic tanks on St. George Island are located on soils that are either rated by
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as having severe limitations for septic tank use,
or are in soils upon which the state limits development (DCA, 1986). Many of the
existing systems in the county are either inadequately constructed or maintained
(ARPC, 1979). DNR (1986a) noted that during periods of high water table,
waterborne contaminants are not only likely to travel from septic system drainfields
to the bay, but will experience little dilution and may arrive in the bay in significant
concentrations.

In April, 1988 the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reported
on a survey of all septic tank systems in the Apalachicola Bay area to assess their
suitability as onsite sewage treatment systems (FDHRS, 1988). Of the 751 systems
surveyed west of the Apalachicola River, 292 were rated unsatisfactory. Of the 211
systems in Eastpoint, 61 were rated unsatisfactory. And, of 612 systems on St.
George Island, 170 were rated unsatisfactory. The survey concluded that the
number of illegal, failed, or otherwise non-compliant systems poses an
unacceptable risk to Apalachicola Bay. The survey report also stated it would be
cost-effective to extend central sewage treatment systems when possible to areas
experiencing widespread problems than trying to correct each system individually.

The Department of Environm ental Regulation's 1988 Water Quality Assessment
Report (Hand et al., 1988) listed water quality problems at three monitoring stations
in the Apalachicola estuary as fair, with water quality problems being attributed to
poorly flushed canal systems and failing septic tanks. Untreated stormwater runoff
from the City of Apalachicola and nearby fishhouses were also believed to have
contributed to water quality problems. The Franklin County Fishery Option Report
(Herbert, 1988) further notes that commercial crabbers, fishermen, and guides who
work in the East Bay/East River area have recently reported that there are water
quality problems associated with forestry activities in Tate's Hell Swamp. Forestry
activities in Tate's Hell Swamp have been previously associated with local changes
in water quality and short-term adverse effects on aquatic biological associations
(Livingston, 1978).

There currently is a new marina being proposed for construction on St. George
Island at Sikes Cut and the upgrading of an existing marina is also being proposed.
The two existing marinas in Apalachicola have recently been upgraded.
Construction and operation of marinas can lead to water quality problems in
adjacent waters. Types of pollution commonly associated with marinas include
toxic chemicals (contained in some marine paints), petroleum discharges, heavy
metals, and bacterial contamination. As a result of public health, water quality and
resource concerns, the DNR has established the following policy regarding marinas
and shellfish waters; "In accordance with provisions of the Interstate Shellfish

Sanitation Program and Food and Drug Administration policy, the possibility of
chance contamination of shellfish in the immediate vicinity would require a
reclassification of that area within the marina proper to prohibited for the harvesting
of shellfish. Additional prohibited areas beyond the marina limits may be required
as well, depending on such factors as marina design and quality, marina usage,
and hydrography". In determining the extent of additional area which should be
closed, the DNR is forced to base this area on a -worst case situation because of
public health considerations.

A small marina on the west side of the John Gorrie Bridge on St. George Island
experiences water quality problems which will probably persist until improved
flushing and waste removal facilities are provided. Other boat mooring areas which
experience water quality problems because of inadequate flushing and facilities
include the channel behind the Eastpoint Breakwater and the Sportsman's Lodge
in Eastpoint (Livingston, 1988).

As noted in Chapter 111, Clark (1989) several areas on the Gulf shoreline of
Apalachicola Bay to be eroding. The erosion in all of these areas is considered
non-critical because many of these sites are on land owned by the public, and
because on the private areas existing regulatory controls are considered adequate
to protect the shore (DNR, 1990). DNR (1990) does note that since shoreline
recession appears to have accelerated in recent years in this area, close attention
needs to be given to the strategic siting of structures here. With the exception of
St. George Island State Park where sand fencing efforts to encourage dune growth
were conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there has been no major
structural efforts to curb shoreline erosion problems.

Since the 1985 hurricanes caused extensive erosion o n the bay-shore of St. George
Island' there has been a trend toward constructing seawalls to protect the
shoreline. Construction activities which do not take into account the basic physics
of beach dynamics tend to create problems which require further construction or
continual maintenance (USEPA, 1976). Building a seawall is drastic measure which
according to Pilkey et al., (1984) can over the long-term harm the shoreline.

As noted in Chapter 11, aquatic preserve management plans provide management
guidance for state sovereignty submerged lands which are beyond the jurisdiction
of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Therefore, if coordinated
properly the management plan for an aquatic preserve can serve as the waterward
extension of local government comprehensive plan. Franklin County's and
Apalachicola's plans were approved by the state in 1991 and 1990 respectively.
Both these plans are required to be consistent with both the State Comprehensive
Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Apalachee Regional
Planning Council. The State and Regional Plans both contained extensive set of
policies relating to the protection of the aquatic resources of the Apalachicola
estuary.

BASINWIDE MANAGEMENT

The high productivity of the Apalachicola estuary is a result of the overall good
quality of water in the bay, the physical form of the bay, the salinity regime in the
estuary as defined by the flow of the river, and nutrient and detrital transport from
the river's floodplain (Livingston, 1984). Consequently, the use and management
of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basin can significantly impact
the resources of the aquatic preserve. - In general, the Apalachicola River has very
good water quality (Hand et al., 1988) and therefore it appears that pollution from
up basin sources are not deleteriously impacting the water quality in the
Apalachicola estuary.

As noted earlier, flow from the Apalachicola River has a profound influence on both
the estuary's salinity regime and nutrient input cycle. Salinity is considered to be
the single most important determination of the distribution of organisms in the
estuary (Livingston, 1983) and nutrients transported from the Apalachicola River
floodplain are integral to the ecological functioning of the estuary since detritivores
occupy key positions in the bay's food web (Livingston, 1983). In a typical year
flow in the Apalachicola River ranges from below 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
to above 80,000 cfs. Upstream rainfall has a much greater influence on
Apalachicola River flows than Florida rainfall because the majority of the basin is in
Georgia and Alabama (Meeter et al., 1979; Leitman et al., 1983).

The state of Georgia recently proposed to re-allocate a significant portion of the
active storage pool at Lake Lanier from hydropower to water supply (COE, 1989).
This proposal met with significant opposition from both property owners at Lake
Lanier and downstream water users. Opposition was based on the lack of time to
thoroughly review the documents, doubts as to whether a proper assessment of
the environmental and economic impacts downstream had been accomplished,
potential consumptive water losses,continued water quality problems at West Point
reservoir, and potential impacts on the environ-mental resources of Apalachicola
River and Bay. Lake Lanier recreational interests were also strongly opposed to
the proposal because it would lead to lower lake levels.

Ultimately, a lawsuit based on failure to meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act was filed by the State of Alabama and the State of Florida
filed a motion to intervene into the suit in support of Alabama. Instead of resolving
the dispute in court, however, a stay was filed and the three states and the Corps
of Engineers are presently attempting to negotiate a settlement to the dispute. A
key aspect of Florida's demands in this settlement is that the water resources of the
ACIF basin be managed from a basin-wide perspective.

Because of the quantity of water withdrawn for irrigatio n, and since irrigation
withdrawals tend to be highest when flow is the lowest, irrigation has the potential
to significantly affect low-flow levels in the Apalachicola River. Hayes et al., (1983)

found that increased pumping for irrigation in the Dougherty Plain (including the
Flint River and Lake Seminole) would reduce the base flow of streams. This issue
is currently under closer review by the USGS.

Because of the relationship between flow in the basin and the ecology of the
estuary it is important that the basin be managed from a system-wide perspective
for all uses, including water supply to the estuary. The first effort to manage the
basin as a system was proposed by the Northwest Florida Water Management
District in 1977 (NWFWMD, 1977), but it received no support. In 1979, when the
Apalachicola estuary was declared a National Estuarine Sanctuary conditions which
required basin-wide management of water resources were connected to the release
of federal funds. Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and the Corps of Engineers were to
pursue a Level B, or basin-wide, study of the water resources in the basin. In 1981,
the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) gave highest priority to this proposal
among "new starts". This ranking quickly became worthless with the abolishment
of the WRC by the Reagan Administration.

Interest in system-wide management of the basin was.revived in 1982 by DER in
reaction to a proposal to remove rock shoals from the upper Apalachicola River.
After considerable negotiations, threats of litigation and the Corps considering to
invoke Section 404(t) of the Clean Water Act to override state decisions, an
int'erstate Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1983 by the three states
to assess the water use in the basin, to develop a basin-wide drought management
plan, and to develop a water management strategy for the system. In 1984 the
interim water assessment for the basin was completed (Alabama et al., 1984), and
in 1985 the interim drought management plan for the basin was completed (COE,
1985a). A plan of study for developing the long-term water management strategy
was prepared in 1987 (COE, 1987). As part of the preparation of the water
management strategy, an effort was to be made to define the freshwater needs of
the Apalachicola estuary. Inclusion of this study component was significant
because it acknowledged that along with upstream uses such as navigation,
hydropower, and water supply, the estuary was a user of freshwater.

Unfortunately, this study effort has not resulted in a basin-wide water management
strategy. A recent assessment of the progress of this effort (Leitman et al., 1989)
concluded that the outlook for system-wide management of water resources in the
ACF basin was bleak unless the present course of actions is altered. With the
widespread outcry to the recent proposal to re-allocate water in storage at Lake
Lanier and the subsequent lawsuit, it is still conceivable that basin-wide strategy
may be prepared.

CHAPTER V

SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES

In the preceding Chapter, uses of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve area and
impacts associated with these uses were reviewed. Usage was reviewed relative
to four general categories: commercial and recreation harvesting of marine
resources; commercial navigation; adjacent land uses and their attendant facilities
(e.g., docks, marinas, etc.); and, management of the river basin. In this Chapter
the relationship between these uses and their associated impacts and the
jurisdiction of the Aquatic Preserve Program is reviewed.

The major issues identified in Chapter IV relating to commercial and/or recreational
fishing which also relate to the use of state-owned sovereignty submerged bottoms
were aquaculture, private leases, and, oyster relaying and reef construction.
Although the issues of oyster aquaculture and leasing are within the jurisdiction of
the Aquatic Preserve Program, they also fall within the jurisdiction of other programs
within the Department of Natural Resources and are being handled through these
programs. The issue of the private leases has been dealt with both by the
Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund and through the. courts. Therefore, the issue will not be dealt with any
further through this plan. Activities related to the relaying of oyster shells and the
construction of oyster bars fall under the preview of the Department of Natural
Resource's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section which has staff, expertise,
funding, and authority relating to this issue. Therefore, there is no need for the
Aquatic Preserve Program to be involved with this issue.

All of the problems associated with the maintenance of commercial navigation
channels are. associated with federally maintained navigation channels and
therefore, by statute are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Aquatic Preserve
Program.

With regard to past problems associated with adjacent land-uses, many of these
have been addressed through Franklin County having been designated as an area
of critical state concern, the adoption of land use ordinances by Franklin County,
and through the county's and city of Apalachicola's recently adopted local
government comprehensive plans. The major land use issues relating to the
management of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve deal with the construction
of shoreline protection structures and the demand for single-family docks along the
bay.

The issue of shoreline protection structures can be handled through the aquatic
preserve program if the structure is built within the boundaries of the aquatic
preserve (i.e., below mean high-water). If a landowner on an eroding shoreline,

however, chooses to build a shoreline stabilization structure above the mean-high
water line, the structure falls outside the jurisdiction of the aquatic preserve
program. Even though, this structure will ultimately lie below mean-high water and
effect the adjacent shoreline.

The issue of shoreline structures has been reviewed by the Shoreline Stabilization
Subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee to the NWFWMD's Surface
Water Improvement and Management program. This subcommittee concluded that
the cumulative effects and continued construction of shoreline structures poses a
serious threat to the environmental integrity of surface waters. Therefore, this
Subcommittee recommended that:

1. In areas where shoreline stabilization structures are allowed, compliance
with prescribed design and construction standards could be better
accomplished by better coordination between state and local permitting
programs. Specific recommendation included a better defining of conditions
in which variances are granted, prohibiting backfilling behind shoreline
structures, and conducting public information and demonstration programs;

2. Strict penalties should be attached to violations to provide incentives to
follow permitting standards; - I
3. Critical zones which would limit or prohibit shoreline stabilization should
be established along undeveloped shorelines and exemptions and variances
should be eliminated within these critical zones; and,

4. Government land purchases and tax incentive programs should be
implemented. to discourage the construction of shoreline protection
structures;

Steps should be take n through the aquatic preserve program to follow through on
these recommendations.

With regard to the management of the water resources of the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint River basin from a system-wide perspective, there is no
authority within the program to assure that adequate water is provided to maintain
the ecological integrity of the estuary.

In considering the aquatic preserve program's involvement in site specific
management issue at Apalachicola Bay, it must also be remembered that another
arm of DNR, the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, has both a
strong and active presence in the estuary and has a missidn which is similar to that
,of the aquatic preserve programs. Therefore, any management initiatives taken
through the aquatic preserve program should either be closely coordinated or
conducted in conjunction with the research reserve.

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

This section of the management plan contains a management initiative to address
the management issue identified above which falls within the jurisdiction of the
Aquatic Preserve Program. Adoption of this initiative will provide additional
guidance not addressed directly by statute or rule, for handling this issue. The
specific management initiative is:

1. Promote the prevention of erosion on the shoreline of St. George Island
by stipulating that in the permit-review process native wetland vegetation
(emergent and submergent) be used for shoreline stabilization either alone
or in conjunction with riprap.

CHAPTER VI

MANAGEMENT AREAS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter divides the aquatic preserve into separate management areas where
general or special rule criteria and allowable uses are defined for each area. The
management areas are classified and delineated based on the types and locations
of existing and planned uses of the adjacent uplands, as well as on the types,
occurrence and characteristics of the resources (natural and historical) on
submerged lands. The various management areas delineated may be classified
similarly or differently as these factors vary along the preserve.

The purpose of this chapter is threefold: 1) to provide-a better understanding for
property owners and the general public of the applicable rule criteria and typical
kinds of uses allowed on the state-owned submerged lands within the aquatic
preserve, 2) to provide local planners with a guide for land use decisions, and 3)
-to provide the staff of the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, and other
agencies with a continuity of direction in regards to the management of aquatic
preserves. In summary, the intent of this chapter is to both afford habitat protection
and clearly delineate allowable public and private uses of the aquatic preserve.

Prior to providing the criteria for specific resource management areas, it is
important that the intent, jurisdiction, and limitations of Florida's Aquatic Preserve
Program be reiterated. Section 258.36, F.S., states that "it is the intent of the
Legislature that state-owned submerged lands in areas which have exceptional
biological, aesthetic, and scientific value... be set aside forever as aquatic preserves
or sanctuaries for the benefit of future generations." The program has jurisdiction
over the use of state sovereignty submerged lands within the boundaries of a given
preserve. Activities which are not within the boundaries of the aquatic preserve
(i.e., adjacent upland land uses) or which do not directly affect the sovereignty
submerged bottom (i.e., regulation of commercial fishing or water quality) are not
within the jurisdiction of the Aquatic Preserve Program.

There are a number of differences between the rules governing uses of state-
owned sovereignty submerged lands within an aquatic preserve relative to those
not within an aquatic preserve. The principle difference is that submerged lands
within an aq uatic preserve must be managed with the intent of protecting them for
future generations. Consequently, any proposed use must be shown to be in the
public interest before it can be authorized, and an applicant must demonstrate that
no other alternative exists which would allow the proposed activity to be
constructed or undertaken outside the boundaries of the aquatic preserve.

MANAGEMENT AREA CLASSIFIcATiONS

A key component of the management program for an aquatic preserve is the
division of the preserve into management areas. The classification of management
areas in an aquatic preserve is based upon both the resource value of submerged
bottoms within the preserve, and the existing or anticipated future land use on the
adjacent uplands as designated in the local government comprehensive plan(s).
As in the delineation of upland land uses through zoning, the intention of delineating
a preserve into management areas is to guide development activities on the state-
owned submerged lands to areas where it is more appropriate, and to provide
standards to allow development actions to be compatible with resource
conservation goals.

The designated land use is incorporated into the classification of management
areas because use of the adjacent uplands has a direct bearing on the intensity of
demand for uses of state-owned submerged bottoms. The Aquatic Preserve
Program has no jurisdiction over the designated use of the adjacent uplands. The
incorporation of the designated land use into the management area classification
is primarily an acknowledgement of how local government has chosen to have a
certain area developed; however, this upland designation also serves as a tool in
designating compatible uses of the submerged bottoms in accordance with the
upland uses. A change in designation by the local government, will not necessarily
result in a change in the management area classification. Specific land use
categories to be incorporated in the classification of management areas include:

Agriculture (AG): This category represents state-owned sovereignty
submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an approved Future
Land Use Map for a county and/or municipality as agriculture. It is intended
to accommodate private areas with sparse populations used primarily for
agricultural and/or forestry purposes.

Sincile-Family (SF): This category represents state-owned sovereignty
submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an approved Future
Land Use Map for a county and/or municipality as singl 'e-family residential.
It is intended to include areas using the adjacent portion of the aquatic
preserve solely for private, recreational activities.

Multi-Faimily (MF): This category represents state-owned sovereignty
submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an approved Future
Land Use Map for a county and/or municipality as multi-family residential.
It is intended to include.areas where more than one private residence are
using the adjacent portion of the aquatic preserve solely for private,
recreational activities. The associated residences include townhouses, trailer
parks, condominiums, apartments, and any other group of multi-family
dwellings. They may also include a group of single-family property owners,

as in the case of a homeowners association, that desires to construct any
of the above-mentioned structures for the mutual benefit of the group.

Public Recreation (PR): This category represen ts state-owned sovereignty
submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an approved Future
Land Use Map for a county and/or municipality as public usage or
preservation and which is utilized for the purposes of public recreation. It is
intended to include areas where structures are used by the general public
at no charge, and in federal, state, county, or municipal parks that charge
a nominal fee. Military structures, while not always open to the public, are
considered in this category since the military serves the public.

Preservation (P): This category represents state-owned sovereignty
submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an approved Future
Land Use Map of a county and/or municipality as preservation. The land
may either be in public or private hands.

Commercial-Industrial (Cl): This category represents state-owned
sovereignty submerged bottoms adjacent to land designated on an
approved Future Land Use Map for a county and/or municipality as
commercial or industrial. The category is also intended to incorporate uses
associated with structures that charge fees or generate revenue. Examples
of commercial uses includes private marinas that charge fees; yacht clubs
that charge membership fees; private businesses such as fish houses; and,
establishments such as restaurants.

Open-water (OW): This category represents state-owned sovere ignty
submerged bottoms within an aquatic preserve which are of a distance of
greater than 500 feet from land.

Classifications of management areas are also derived from the resource value of
the sovereignty submerged bottoms adjacent to the upland property. As noted
above, resource value is also to be incorporated into the classification of
management areas. Each of the land use classifications noted above is assigned
a second code letter to define the resource value of its submerged bottoms. An
area within the preserve is designated as a primary resource protection area
("V), if it is judged to be of high value.

The methodology used for determining whether the communities present at a site
constitute a primary resource protection area shall be consistent with the latest
methodology approved by the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Aquatic Preserves.
Areas that are characterized by the absence of the above resource attributes will
be designated as a secondary resource protection area ("2"). A 1 " designation

essentially incorporates those areas defined as Resource Protection Areas 1 and
2 by Section 18-20.003, F.A.C.; and, a "2" designation incorporates those areas
defined as Resource Protection Area 3. ' I
For example, if an area within the preserve is determined to be a primary resource
protection area, and if the adjacent land is zoned as a single-family residential
neighborhood, it would be classified as a SF/1 management area.

For each area designated a specific management area classification within the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve, a set of criteria will be listed in regard to use
of that area. The minimum criteria are those provided in Chapter 18-20, F.A.C.
Where specific resource protection needs are warranted, more stringent criteria
than those listed in Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. will be set. If more stringent criteria are
found to be necessary, the classification scheme accommodates this by labeling
those areas with an additional letter. Therefore, if more stringent criteria is provided
for the SF/1 area noted above, the area would then be classified as SF/la. If an
area does not contain the additional letter, the minimum criteria in Chapter 18-20,
F.A.C., applies. Areas where more stringent criteria apply are referred to as
special management areas. Upon approval of this-management plan by the
Board of Trustees, the Apalachicola Aquatic Preserve management plan will be
incorporated into Chapter 18-20 F.A.C. rule by reference; therefore, new or more
stringent criteria in this plan will have the force and effect of rule upon adoption of
this plan into rule.

In the next section, the minimum criteria in Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. is provided. Then
in the following section, the management areas are delineated providing
boundaries, descriptions,. and allowable uses- for each area. Any specific criteria
for special management areas and a rationale for these criteria are also provided.
Finally, Figure 17 provides a map of the management areas within the Apalachicola
Bay Aquatic Preserve. The intention of providing this map is to give a general
guidance and understanding of where management areas lie within the aquatic
preserve. However, determination of what management classification provided to
a specific site will be based on the definitions above. In the event that a site visit
concludes that the management area for a specific site is different from that shown
on Figure 17, the determination made during the site visit will be judged as the
correct determination.

MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR ALLOWABLE USES

Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. (Appendix A), provides the minimum standards in regard to
utilization of the state-owned sovereignty submerged bottoms within an aquatic
preserve. These minimum standards are reviewed below by designated use.

100

Section 18-20.004 (1)(f), F.A.C. provides that structures to be built in, on, or over
sovereignty lands are limited to those necessary to conduct water dependent
activities.

Utilily Easements:
Section 18-20.004 (3)(c), F.A.C. provides that utility cables, pipes, and other such
structures shall be constructed and located in a manner that will cause minimal
disturbance to submerged land resources such as oyster bars and submerged
grassbeds and do not interfere with traditional uses. It will be the policy within the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve to encourage the placement of utilities in
designated corridors or existing easements.

-Private residential sinale docks:
Section 18-20.004 (5)(a), F.A.C. provides that all docks within an aquatic preserve
shall meet the following standards and criteria.

1. No dock shall extend beyond 500_feet waterward of the mean or
ordinary high water line or 20% of the width of the water body at that
particular location. No dock shall extend over more than 150 feet
of marsh. This shall be considered as special management criteria
that will apply to all management areas where private residential
single docks are permitted.

2. Areas of significant biological, scientific, historic, and/or aesthetic
value require special management considerations. Modifications to
docks in these areas may be more restrictive and are determined on
a case-by-case analysis.

3. The number, lengths, drafts, and types of vessels allowed to utilize
the proposed facility may be stipulated.

4. Where local governments have more stringent standards and
criteria for docking facilities, the more stringent standards for
protection and enhancement of the aquatic preserve shall prevail.

In addition, Section 18-20.004 (5)(b), F.A.C. provides that private residential single
docks shall conform to the following specific design standards and criteria:

1. An access dock must not exceed a width of 4 feet.

2. Must be designed and constructed to ensure maximum light
penetration.

101

3. May extend from the shoreline to a maximum depth of -4 feet
mean low water (MLW).

4. When the water depth is -4 feet MLW at an existing bulkhead, the
maximum dock length from the bulkhead shall be 25 feet, subject to
modifications accommodating shoreline vegetation overhang.

5. Wave break devices shall be designed to allow for maximum water
circulation and built in such a manner as to be part of the dock
structure.

6. The size of the terminal platform shall not exceed 160 square feet.

7. New dredging of any type, including prop dredging, is strongly
discouraged.

Private residential multi-slip docks:
In addition to meeting the standards for all docking facilities noted above, Section
18-20.004 (5)(c), F.A.C. provides that private residential multi-slip docks shall
conform to the following specific design standards and criteria:

1. The area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by the
docking facility shall not exceed the square footage amounting to ten
times the riparian waterfront footage of the affected water body of the
applicant, or the square footage attendant to providing a single dock
in accordance with the criteria for private residential single docks,
whichever is greater. A conservation easement or other such
restriction acceptable to the Board must be placed on the riparian
shoreline, used for the calculation of the 10:1 threshold, to conserve
and protect shoreline resources

2. Docking facilities and access channels shall be prohibited in
Resource Protection Areas 1 and 2, except as allowed pursuant to
Sections 258.42 (3)(e)(1), F.S., while dredging in Resource Protection
Area 3's shall be strongly discouraged.

3. Water depths adjacent to and within the facility shall have a
minimum of one foot of clearance between the deepest draft of a
vessel and the bottom at MLW.

4. Main access docks and connecting or cross walks shall not
exceed 6 feet in width.

5. Terminal platforms shall not exceed 8 feet in width.

102

6. Finger piers shall not exceed 3 feet in width and 25 feet in length.

7. Pilings may be utilized as required to provide adequate mooring
capabilities.

8. Specific provisions of Section 18-20.004 (5)(d), F.A.C. for
commercial industrial, and other revenue generating/income related
docking shall also apply to private residential multi-slip docks.

Commercial-industrial docking facilities and marinas:
Section 18-20.004 (5)(d), F.A.C. provides that commercial, industrial, and other
revenue generating/income related docking shall conform to the following specific
design criteria and standards:

1. Docking facilities shall only be located in or near areas with good
circulation, flushing, and adequate water depths.

2. Docking facilities and access channels shall not be located in
Resource Protection Area 1; however, main access docks may be
allowed to pass through Resource Protection Area 1 that are located
along the shoreline, to reach an acceptable Resource Protection Area
2, provided that such crossing will generate minimal environmental
impact.

3. The siting of docking facilities shall take into account the access of
the boat traffic to avoid marine grassbeds or other aquatic resources
in the surrounding area.

4. The siting of new facilities within the aquatic preserve shall be
secondary to the expansions of existing facilities when such
expansion is consistent with other standards.

5. The location of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities
shall consider the use of upland dry storage as alternative to multiple
wet slip docking.

6. Marina siting will be coordinated with local governments to insure
consistency with local plans and ordinances.

Exceptions to the standards and criteria for any docking facility may be considered,
but only upon demonstration that such exceptions are necessary to ensure
reasonable riparian ingress and egress.

103

Spoil Disposal:
Section 18-20.004 (3)(d), F.A.C. provides that spoil disposal within an aquatic
preserve shall be strongly discouraged and may be approved only where the
applicant has demonstrated that there is no other reasonable alternative and that
the spoiling activity may be beneficial to, or at a minimum, not harmful to the quality
and utility of the preserve.

Lease, or transfer of lands, (Private Leases):
Section 18-20.004 (1)(b), F.A.C. provides that there shall be no further sale, lease
or transfer of sovereignty lands within an aquatic preserve unless such transaction
is in the public interest. Section 18-20.004 (2), F.A.C. specifically defines the public
interest test (see Appendix A for a copy of Chapter 18-20, F.A.C.). Section 18-
20.004 (1)(e), F.A.C. states that lease, easement, or consent may be authorized for
only the following activities: a public navigation project; maintenance of an existing
navigation channel; installation or maintenance of navigation aids; creation or
maintenance of a commercial/industrial dock, pier, or marina; creation or
maintenance of private docks; minimum dredging of navigation channels attendant
to docking facilities; creation or maintenance of shore protection structures;
installation or maintenance of oil and gas transportation facilities; creation,
maintenance, replacement, or expansion of facilities required for the provision of
public utilities; and, other activities which are a public necessity or which are
necessary to enhance the quality or utility of the preserve and which are consistent
with the Florida Aquatic Preserves Act (Section 258.35, F.�. through Section 258.46,
F.S.). Section 18-20.004 (1)(f), F.A.C. provides that structures to be built in, on, or
over sovereignty lands are limited to those necessary to conduct water dependent
activities.

Piers: follow standards of private residential single docks or private residential multi-
slip docks in accordance with the appropriate dock requirement for eac "h
management area's designated uses. In addition, the following applies to all piers:

(a) no temporary or permanent vessel mooring shall be permitted; at
least one well displayed "no docking" sign shall be placed and
maintained on each side of the pier; and railings shall be placed
around the entire perimeter of the pier; and,

(b) dredging is strictly prohibited when associated w ith pier construction
or maintenance.

Ramps: may be permitted only on a case-by-case basis, after site inspection to
assess the type and amount of shoreline or benthic vegetation or other habitat that

104

would be impacted; the amount of filling of submerged lands required; and the
accessibility to the ramp from water or land access.

MANAGEMENT AREAS

This section defines the management areas for the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic
Preserve, and is intended to be used as a general guide for allowable uses in the
preserve. Final determination of allowable uses will be made by the Bureau of
Submerged Lands and Preserves's staff on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to what is listed under allowable uses, certain activities are generally
permissible in all management areas, in accordance with general rules. These
include certain shoreline stabilization structures, maintenance dredging for public
channels, and channel markers.

MANAGEMENT AREA AG11

(agriculture/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: The mainland along St. Vincent Sound from the western boun dary of
the aquatic preserve to Green Point excluding a segment zoned residential, and
marshes surrounding East Bay extending from the main stem of the Apalachicola
River to eastern edge of East Bay opposite Tank Island, with- the exclusion of lands
owned by the State of Florida or zoned as conservation by the county.

Description: Lands zoned as agriculture/primary resource protection areas along
St. Vincent Sound's mainland shore receive this designation by virtue of the
existence of the existence of oyster bars and a saltmarsh consisting of black
needlerush (Juncus romerianus) and smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) -along
its shore. East Bay's shore receives a primary resource protection designation by
virtue of a marsh consisting of fresh and brackish species (i.e., bullrushes (Scirpus
spp.), cattails (lypha dominciensis), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and brackish
water forms of cordgrass (Spartina spp.) and needlerush (Juncus)) and by virtue
of the existence of beds of fresh and brackish species of submerged grasses
consisting of widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), ribbon or tape grass (Yallisneria
americana), and sago pond weed (Potomogeton spp.).

Allowable Uses: Utility easements (in designated corridors), private residential
single docks and piers.

105

MANAGEMENT AREA SEL1

(single-family/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Much of the western portion of St. George Island, Cat Point, portions
of the eastern shore of East Bay, a short segment of the shore of St. Vincent
Sound, and much of the Apalachicola Bay waterfront of the city of Apalachicola.

Description: Portions of the shore of St. George Island are designated as primary
resource protection areas by virtue of the existence of salt marshes consisting of
black needlerush and smooth cordgrass and seagrass beds consisting of shoal
grass (Halodule wrightii) manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), and turtle grass
(Ihalassia testudinum). Cat Point and the short segment of shore in St. Vincent
Sound are designated as a primary resource protection areas by virtue of the
existence of oyster bars off shore and the existence of a salt marsh composed of
black needlerush and smooth cordgrass along the shore. The waterfront off the
City of Apalachicola is designated as a primary resource protection area by virtue
of the existence of a marsh consisting of fresh and brackish species including
bullrushes, cattails, sawgrass, and brackish water forms of cordgrass and
needlerush.

Allowable Uses: Utility easements (in designated corridors), private residential
single docks and piers.

Not Allowed: Dredging of old mosquito ditches in areas where DNR has
jurisdiction, unless it becomes part of an approved arthropod control plan.

MANAGEMENT AREA SEL2

(single-family/secondary resource protect ion area)

Boundaries: Portions of the eastern shore of East Bay and the shore of St.
George Island.

Description: Those portions designated as SF/2 are those which do not contain
the resource attributes noted for SF/1. The bottom habitat in these areas consists
of tidal flats composed of sand and sandy clay off of St. George Island and sand
to clayey sand off of East Bay.

Allowable Uses: Utility easements, private residential single docks and piers.

Not Allowed: Dredging of old mosquito ditches in areas where DNR has
jurisdiction unless it becomes part of an approved arthropod control plan.

106

MANAGEMENT AREA CIL1

(commercial-industrial/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Portions of the shore of East Bay (i.e., areas in the Eastpoint Urban
Service Area) and Apalachicola Bay in proximity to the town of Eastpoint.

Description: The shore in the vicinity of Eastpoint is designated as a primary
resource protection area by virtue of the existence of oyster bars off shore and
existence of sea grass beds consisting of Widgeon and ribbon grasses and sago
pond weed in East Bay.

Allowable Uses: Utility easements (in designated corridors), docks and piers.
Note: a commercial dock, however, may be permitted to pass over a primary
resource protection area in order to reach a secondary resource protection area.

MANAGEMENT AREA C112

(co m merci al - i nd ustrial /secondary resource protection area)

Boundaries: The Apalachicola River waterfront of the city of Apalachicola, portions
of the waterfront iR proximity to Eastpoint, and a segment of the bay shore of St.
George Island near the St. George Island bridge.

Description: The bottom habitat off the city of Apalachicola, the city of Eastpoint,
and St. George Island in proximity to the bridge consist of sand, sandy clay, and
clayey sand.

Allowable Uses: Utility easements, commercial docks and piers, marinas, ramps.

MANAGEMENT AREA PR/1

(public recreation/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: The Apalachicola Bay waterfront off of a public park in the city of
Apalachicola.

Description: The waterfront off the city of Apalachicola is designated as a primary
resource protection area by virtue of the existence of a marsh consisting of fresh
and brackish species including bullrushes, cattails, sawgrass, and brackish water
forms of cordgrass and needlerush.

107

Allowable Uses: Utility easements (in designated corridors) public docks (meeting
the requirements of a private residential single dock), ramps.

MANAGEMENT AREA RBL2

(public recreation /secondary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Battery Park and a portion of the city of Apalachicola's waterfront
between the boat basin and where Highway 98 enters into the city.

Description: The bottom habitat off of this area consists of sand, sandy clay, and
rubble.

Allowa ble Uses: Utility easements, public docks (meeting the requirements of a
private residential multi-slip dock), ramps.

MANAGEMENT AREA RL1

(preservation/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Portions of the Apalachicola Bay shore of Cape St. George or Little
St. George Island, portions of the shore of St. Vincent Island along St. Vincent
Sound, public lands in East Bay, and much of the waterfront up Scipio Creek and
on the land between Scipio Creek and the city of Apalachicola.

Description: The area along the bayshore of Little St. George Island and St.
Vincent Island are designated as a.primary resource protection area by virtue of salt
marshes consisting of black needlerush and smooth cordgrass. Along Little St.
George Island beds of submerged seagrass which include shoal, manatee, and
turtle grass are also found. Oyster bars are found nearshore of St. Vincent Island.
East Bay's shore receives a primary resource protection designation by virtue of
a marsh consisting of fresh and brackish species (i.e., bullrushes, cattails,
sawgrass, and brackish water forms of cordgrass and needlerush and by virtue of
the existence of beds of fresh and brackish species of submerged grasses
consisting of widgeon grass), ribbon or tape grass, and sago pond weed. The
waterfront in the Scipio Creek area is designated as a primary resource protection
area by virtue of the existence of a fresh to brackish water marsh.

In the past, mud flats have not been accorded the samp. protection as seagrass
beds because the microalgae which are produced there are not as visible as the
grasses, but in reality the microalgae may be more productive. Emphasis will be
placed on protecting productive mud flats, however their designation as primary or
secondary protection areas will be determined by field sampling.

108

Allowable Uses: Private residential single docks. Other structures in the public
interest may be constructed.

MANAGEMENT AREA P12

(preservation /secondary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Portions of the shores of Little St. George Island and St. Vincent
Island which are not designated as primary resource protection areas and the
waterfront in the vicinity.

Description: The bottom habitat in these portions of the preserve consist of sand,
sandy clay, and clayey sand.

Allowable Uses:. Utility easements, private residential single docks and piers.
Other structures in the public interest may be constructed.

MANAGEMENT AREA QW/1

(open water/primary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Scattered areas throughout Apalachicola Bay proper and in St.
Vincent Sound.

Description: Are-as designated as primary resour ce protection areas in either
Apalachicola Bay or St. Vincent Sound are so designated by virtue of the presence
of oyster bars or seagrasses.

Allowable Uses: Utility -easements (in designated corridors). NOTE: this
designation does not affect the harvesting of oysters or the planting of oyster bars.

MANAGEMENT AREA QW/2

(open water/secondary resource protection area)

Boundaries: Scattered areas throughout Apalachicola Bay proper and in St.
Vincent Sound as well as the open water areas in East Bay.

Description: The bottom habitats in the open water sections of Apalachicola Bay
vary considerably and are discussed earlier in the report.

Allowable Uses: Utility, easements, spoil disposal from federal projects, private
leases.

109

SF I - Single Family/Primary Resource Protection Area
SF 1 and SF 2 - Single Family/Primary and Secondary Resource Protection Area
P 1 - Preservation/Primary Resource Protection Area 0.
P 1 and P 2 - Preservation/Primary and Secondary Resource Protection Area
P 2 - Preservation/Secondary Resource Protection Area
PR I - Public Recreation/Primary Resource Protection Area
PR 2 - Public Recreation/Secondary Resource Protection Area
AG I - Agriculture/Primary Resource Protection Area %V G
C1 1 - Commercial-industrial/Primary Resource Protection Area q P1
C) 2 - Commercial-Industrial/Secondary Resource Protection Area P1
OW I - Open Water/Primary Resource Protection Area AGI
OW 2 - Open Water/Secondary Resource Protection Area

'Pl
EAST
POINT-,
00
A I \ N
Cl 2
US98 APALACHICOL@,2 Cl i
w

SFI
AG 1 S PR 2
C1 I

0 ow PR I
AG Pi OW 2 wl
P2 P I P2 wl
PALA C H I CO L.@Y
owl
V/)V owl'So
INDIA C12
. owl 6* OW 2
PASS Is 4z:ka 0*
tA)Vt). 2
N
C3 owl

WEST
Figure 17
PASS
C, MANAGEMENT AREAS
4100 &

CHAPTER Vill

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

The objective of this chapter is to establish guidelines which allow for the
management and protection of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve's natural
resources for the benefit of future generations (Section 258.35, F.S.). Many of the
authorities needed to manage and protect natural resources in an aquatic preserve
are vested to entities outside the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves.
Therefore, coordination is a key component of the implementation program for
managing aquatic preserves. For instance, the regulation of land use practices on
the adjacent uplands is critical to the long-term protection of the aquatic resources
of the preserve and no authority is vested in the program to manage growth.
Instead, this authority is centered in county and city government and is guided by
Franklin County's and the city of Apalachicola's Local Government Comprehensive
Plans. These plans'are currently undergoing state review.

It would improve the chances of the management goals and concepts of this
management plan being attained if they are consistent with local plans. As noted
earlier, Policy 21.4 of the Conservation /Coastal, Management Element of the
County's Draft Comprehensive Plan states that "prior to the adoption of any land
development regulations pursuant to Section 163.3202, F. S., the county shall review
and incorporate, where appropriate, policies recommended in the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, the National Estuarine Research Reserve
Management Plan, the Northwest Florida Water Management District's Surface
Water Improvement and Management Plan, and the Lower Apalachicola River
Environmentally Endangered Lands Management Plan."

To date, the aquatic preserve has had a limited presence in the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve and this limited presence can be attributed at least partially to the
existence of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and the fact that
many of the charges and goals of the Aquatic Preserve Program and the Estuarine
Research Reserve Program are the same. In fact, many of the tasks listed in this
chapter as the duties of the aquatic preserve staff are already being conducted by
staff of the Apalac hicola Estuarine Research Reserve.

To effectively manage a natur al resource, one must be knowledgeable about how
the resource functions and what composes the resource, be able to transmit this
knowledge to people who use and/or can potentially impact the resource, and be
willing to take necessary actions to manage and protect the resource. Therefore,
the management strategies for an aquatic preserve must consist of a variety of
programs including direct hands-on management of resources, resource protection,
environmental education, and research. The emphasis of the Aquatic Preserve

113

Program in resource management is to conduct management activities and to
coordinate the network of federal, state, regional, and local agencies with the
authority to manage and protect natural resources. Through both of these
strategies a cohesive management program that leads to the long-term
conservation of the natural system may be attained.

For all of the following goals, objectives and tasks, the Department of Natural
Resources will, when appropriate and practical, participate with other agencies and
organizations dedicated to protecting the local resources. In order to avoid
duplication of effort the Department will initiate programs only when they do not
overlap or compete with programs operated by other governmental agencies or
non-profit corporations.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

In general, the role of the Aquatic Preserve Program in resource management
includeg: 1) serving as an informed source on the ecological functioning and
cultural resources within the preserve; 2) overseeing those activities that affect the
natural resources within the preserve; 3) ensuring that accurate information is used
in resource-related permitting, management, and planning decisions; 4) ensuring
that all laws and rules regarding the natural resources are obeyed and that any
violations are enforced by the appropriate auihorities; 5) conducting on-site surveys
for specific activities; 6) coordinating with other resource management and
enforcement agencies; 7) educating the public on the inherent values associated
with natural resources; 8) conducting or cooperating with other entities to conduct
pertinent research projects; 9) developing, and periodically updating, a
comprehensive management program. In conducting resource management
activities, the focus of preserve staff should be on both the impacts of an individual
action as well as the cumulative impacts of all changes and actions on the natural
system.

Specific activities conducted by aquatic preserve staff in regard to resource
management may include collecting and storing resource data and inventories;
mapping the natural resources; monitoring of natural resources; identifying resource
restoration needs and implementing a resource restoration program; and providing
technical input and comments into environmental permitting and land use planning
decisions.

In regard to data collection and inventories the predominant role of aquatic
preserves will be to organize and review data collected by other state and federal
environmental agencies, other sections of the DNR, universities, and other research
entities. To the extent possible, information should be stored in computers in a
format defined by the central office. Staff will conduct an assessment of ongoing
monitoring activities to assess its adequacy in monitoring the environmental climate

114

of the preserve. Whenever possible, staff should conduct additional monitoring
activities to augment existing monitoring programs conducted by other agencies.

Resource Management Goal

To conduct those resource management actions necessary to conserve and
enhance the natural resource-oriented values of the preserve for future generations.

Resource Management Objective 1:
Initiate implementation of a broad-based management program at the Apalachicola
Bay Aquatic Preserve which focuses on the management and protection of natural
resources, environmental education, and research.

Task 1-1:
Seek the necessary staff and funds to implement all of the tasks listed in this
resource management master plan.

Task 1-2:
Review, update, and revise as appropriate the tasks and programs in the
master plan at a minimum of once every two years.

Resource Manaaement Obeective 2:
Establish and maintain close communication and coordination with all federal, state,
regional, and local governmental agencies which have authority in natural resource
management decisions that can impact the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve once
staff is brought on to manage the preserve.

Task 2-1:
Assure that all state, federal, regional, and local government agencies which
have authority in resource management decisions in the aquatic preserve
are aware of the goals of the Aquatic Preserve Program, its authorities, and
what actions are considered acceptable and not acceptable within or in
close proximity to the aquatic preserve by providing them with copies of the
management plan and all subsequent amendments to it.

Task 2-2:
To understand the authorities of the various federal, state, regional, and local
agencies in regard to resource management and determine which staff
people in these agencies are responsible for activities within or in close
proximity to the aquatic preserve.

Task 2-3:
Establish and@maintain communication with staff of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.

115

Coast Guard, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Northwest Florida
Water Management District, the Apalachee Regional Planning Council, the
Franklin County Health Department, Franklin County's and the city of
Apalachicola's Planning and Zoning Department, and other entities which
have authority in regard to resource management and protection in the
aquatic preserve.

Task 2-4:
Serve as a regular monitoring liaison for agencies with resource
management authority and report any problems to specific agencies with
jurisdiction to deal with the problem.

Task 2-5:
Coordinate closely with the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources on all issues relating to historical and archaeological resources
within the aquatic preserve.

Task 2-6:
Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with all government entities
having jurisdictional authority in natural resource management decisions
which can affect the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve.

Resource Manaaement Obeective 3:
Be actively involved in all resource management decisions which can potentially
impact the natural resources of Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve.

lask 3-1:
Review and provide comments for all permits relating to construction
activities on sovereign submerged lands within the aquatic preserve.

Task 3-2:
Review and provide comments on all upland land use actions including
comprehensive plans, county or'municipal ordinances, local development
regulations, or specific development proposals which have the potential to
impact the natural resources of the aquatic preserve.

Task 3-3:
Review and provide comments on all Administrative Rules developed by
state resource management agencies or the Marine Fisheries Commission
regarding the protection and management of the natural resources of the
aquatic preserve.

116

Task 3-4:
Review and provide comments on all permit applications that could
potentially impact the natural resources of the aquatic preserve including
permits for the maintenance dredging of the existing navigation channels,
modifications to channels, and construction of marinas, docks, and other
waterfront structures.

Resource Manaaement Objective 4:
Provide increased management and protection emphasis to areas within the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve which either are integral to maintaining the
biological productivity of the aquatic preserve, contain outstanding resource values,
are in need of restoration or special management programs, or are important
habitat to state and federally designated species.

Task 4-1:
Delineate areas within the aquatic preserve where different management
emphasis is necessary. Delineation of areas should incorporate both the
resource values of the site and reflect land-use on adjacent uplands. These
delineations should be periodically reviewed and amended.

Task 4-2:
Develop and periodically amend specific management programs which detail
approved and unapproved uses for each management area.

Resource Manaaement Objective 5:
To regularly monitor and inventory the natural and historical resources within the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve.

Task 5-1:
Prepare and regularly update a map of natural habitats and historic
resources within and adjacent to the aquatic preserve.

Task 5-2:
Regularly monitor designated species and their associated habitats within or
in close proximity to the aquatic preserve. Any existing or potential future
problems should be identified.

Task 5-3:
Evaluate water quality monitoring data relevant to the management and
protection of the aquatic preserve which is collected by state and federal
resource management agencies and through other-research and monitoring
efforts, or by staff of the aquatic preserve.

117

Task 5-4:
Coordinate water quality monitoring efforts at the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic
Preserve with, those efforts being conducted through the Surface Water
Improvement and Management Program and the Department of
Environmental Regulation's ambient monitoring program.

Task 5-5:
Monitor traditional uses within the aquatic preserve including commercial and
recreational fishing, boating, and beach-going to define extent of use and
foresee any potential problems.

Task 5-6:
Annually prepare a report describing the state of the environment of the
aquatic preserve. This report should discuss the findings of the resource
monitoring program; most recent water quality data and any trends in water
quality; any changes in resource community boundaries; status of
designated species within the aquatic preserve; permit applications within the
preserve; land development trends on adjacent uplands; and any
enforcement actions necessary.

Resource Management Obiective 6:
Focus on the impacts of resource utilization from a cumulative perspective as well
as from the impacts of individual actions.

Task 6-1:
Through use of tools such as the local comprehensive plans, zoning maps,
and development permits assess all proposed development actions both
from the perspective of the individual action and from a cumulative impact
perspective.

Task 6-2:
To inventory the present and potential future effects of human activities on
the natural resources of the preserve. Specific activities to focus upon
include cumulative effects of septic systems; effects of stormwater runoff
from urban and forestry sources; and, effects of commercial fishing activities.

Task 6-3:
To consider the use of mitigative actions in association with any
development activity that will degrade the natural resources of the aquatic
preserve.

Resource Management Obffiective 7:
To implement those on-site management actions determined as necessary to
maintain resource values of Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve for future
generations.

118

Task 7-1:
As necessary, prepare and implement plans to restore disturbed sites within
the aquatic preserve.

Task 7-2:
As necessary, develop and implement specific programs to remove or
eradicate undesired exotic animal and plant species.

RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM

The role of aquatic preserves in resource protection includes direct enforcement of
state laws and rules; coordinating with other enforcement staff in the Division of
State Lands and other divisions and agencies having enforcement authority; and,
reviewing and commenting on permits. In regard to direct enforcement, the Bureau
of Submerged Lands and Preserves has regional staff to deal with enforcement
issues concerning aquatic preserves. If these staff are unavailable, the option of
using Marine Patrol staff also exists. Any prosecution actions will be handled by
DNR legal staff. On-site staff are intended to only serve as technical support on
enforcement issues. Violations of Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. are violations of civil law
and as such are subject to all civil penalty limitations.

In serving as technical support, staff is expected to evaluate development proposals
in aquatic preserves in regard to adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources
and consistency with established laws and rules; conduct field assessments and
prepare comments and recommendations to appropriate agencies; maintain good
communication with local, regional, state, and federal environmental regulatory
agencies; and, notify appropriate authorities of violations and illegal activities.

Other agencies with enforcement authority which can be used to protect the natural
resources of an aquatic preserve include the Department of Environmental
Regulation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and local law
enforcement officers.

Resource Protection Goal
To ensure compliance with all laws, rules, ordinances, and permit conditions
relating to the protection of natural resources.

Resource Protection Obeective 1:
To assure timely response to all violations of federal, state, and local laws, rules,
ordinances, and permit conditions in the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve.

119

Task 1-1:
To develop an understanding of which agencies have enforcement authority
in the aquatic preserve area for natural resource related issues and develop
a network of communication and coordination among these agencies.

Task 1-2:
To establish a scheduled program in coordination with other agencies with
enforcement authority to systematically monitor the aquatic preserve for
resource-oriented violations which could potentially impact the natural
resources of the aquatic preserve. Any violations spotted in this effort
should be immediately reported to the appropriate enforcement entities.

Task 1-3:
To regularly monitor all permitted actions within the aquatic preserve during
their construction phase to assure compliance with permit conditions. Once
construction is completed, a letter shall be sent to the permitting entity
stating that the project was completed and whether it is in compliance with
the agreed upon permit conditions.

Task 1-4:
Provide technical support to federal, state, or local enforcement entities
involved in resource-oriented enforcement actions within the aquatic
preserve.

Resource Protection Obeective 2:
Minimize potential damage to aquatic resources through the review of applications
for use of state-owned land in the aquatic preserve.

Task 2-1:
Develop a standardized method to inventory submerged vegetation,
emergent vegetation, and other biological resources at a project site.

Task 2-2:
Coordinate with the regional DNR planner in order to process field staff
comments in a timely manner.

RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAM

Marine research conducted within the DNR is normally the responsibility of the
Division of Marine Resources. Nevertheless, because ofthe nature and purpose
of aquatic preserves, some management related research projects should also be
associated with this program. The two key components of a research program are
research and monitoring. Research is the systematic collection and analysis of
experimental and/or field observations that produce knowledge. And, monitoring

120

is the systematic sampling and measurement over time of variables which describe
the abundance and distribution of biological resources, the distribution and
concentrations of physical, geological or chemical properties, or the location and
rates of significant processes.

Research and monitoring conducted through the Aquatic Preserve Program shall
focus on management solutions specific to a site or to the program in general. The
overall program's involvement with research can vary from actually conducting a
research project to providing in-kind support to certain research projects to
contracting an outside entity to do necessary research. The role and emphasis of
a specific preserve in research and monitoring is contingent on the classification of
the preserve. Preserves established for either biological or scientific purposes
should emphasize research and monitoring activities more than do preserves
designated for aesthetic purposes. As noted earlier, Apalachicola Bay Aquatic
Preserve was established for biological/scientific purposes. Research conducted
within aquatic preserves must be compatible with protection of natural resources
and receive the clearance of aquatic preserve field staff and the central office staff.

Research and monitoring associated with an aquatic preserve will emphasize either
providing a better understanding of the functioning and interrelationships of the
preserve's natural systems; monitoring the status of the preserve over time; or,
providing information to allow for the wise use and management of the preserve.

Staff of each preserve will keep close coordination with all research projects and
monitoring activities ongoing within the preserve, as well as outside research
conducted by universities, by the Division of Marine Resources, or by independent
research entities whose work is pertinent to the management of the preserve.
Efforts will also be taken by the Central Office to assure that research funding for
aquatic preserves under state programs such as Sea Grant and the Surface Water
Improvement and Management Act are consistent with previously identified and
approved research needs for the preserve. The entities currently involved in
environmental monitoring in the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve are the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the Department of Natural
Resources, the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, the Northwest
Florida Water Management District, and work conducted through the Biology
Department at Florida State University.

The Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve is located within the Apalachicola Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve. This Reserve is operated by both the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida DNR. The
research programs at the Estuarine Research Reserve and-the aquatic preserve will
be closely coordinated. Apalachicola Bay is also located within 20 miles of Florida
State University's Turkey Point Marine Institute.

121

Research and Monitoring Goal

To have the necessary research and monitoring activities conducted so that the
ecological functioning of the preserve is understood, so the preserve can be
managed and used in an ecologically sound and wise manner, and so that the
preserve can be maintained in its natural condition for future generations.

Research Obnective 1:
Promote the scientific investigations and monitoring activities necessary in
Apalachicola Bay to understand the status and basic functioning of the bay,
enhance the management of its natural resources, and guide the wise management
and utilization of those resources.

Task 1-1:
Establish and maintain communication and coordination links between the
aquatic preserve staff and existing research and monitoring entities including
Florida State University, DNR's Marine Resources Laboratory, and the
Flori da Department of Environmental Regulation.

Task 1-2:
In coordination with the scientific community, establish a prioritized list of
research and monitoring needs for the aquatic preserve. This list should be
updated at a minimum of every two years.

Task 1-3:
By offering assistance either through logistical support or funding (as
available) encourage the conducting of priority research projects.

Task 1-4:
As available funds and staff time and expertise permit, conduct priority
research and monitoring activities.

Task 1-5:
Coordinate with the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, the
Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services to design and implement a research and monitoring
program to detect pollutants entering the Bay from onsite sewage disposal
systems on St. George Island.

Research Obwective 2:
Staff should be knowledgeable about the ecological functioning of the bay by
obtaining a basic understanding of all past and ongoing research projects and
monitoring activities done within Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve or in other
areas whose results are applicable to the management and protection of the
preserve.

122

Task 2-1:
To obtain and serve as a repository for all past monitoring data collected
within the aquatic preserve. The existing monitoring programs should be
assessed in regard to parameters monitored, sampling methods, sampling
frequency, and station location in coordination with the scientific community
to assure that they accurately portrays the environmental climate of the
preserve. If necessary, means of modifying or expanding the existing
monitoring program should be examined.

Task 2-2:
To obtain, review, and serve as a repository for all existing scientific
literature, government reports, historical accounts, and available maps and
photos of the aquatic preserve.

Task 2-3:
To regularly review the scientific literature relevant to the ecological
functioning, protection, and management of the aquatic preserve.

Task 2-4:
To establish a library containing information on plant and animal species and
communities found with the aquatic preserve.

Research Ob'ective 3:
To conduct and maintain through regular monitoring a resource inventory of
submerged vegetation, emergent vegetation, oyster bar location, designated
species and their habitats, birds and their habitats, and other important resource
features.

Task 3-1:
Conduct initial inventories using existing literature, information, current
research studies, and any other tools which are necessary..

Task 3-2:
As part of the everyday operations of the preserve, monitor the presence of
designated species, wading birds, and other important biota.

Task 3-3:
Once every two years re-visit the inventory and update as appropriate.

Research Obiective 4:
To.coordinate the use of research findings into both management decisions and
resource education programs.

123

Task 4-1:
Staff should serve as a link between historical and ongoing research and
monitoring activities in the preserve and current resource management and
use decisions. Staff should make key scientific information available to
decision-makers.

Task 4-2:
Staff should serve as a link between historical and ongoing research and
monitoring activities in the preserve and resource education programs.
Materials used in resource education programs relating to the preserve
should be reviewed by staff for accuracy and updated periodically to reflect
current research findings.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ZI N FORMATION PROGRAM

The role of the Aquatic Preserve Program in environmental education is mainly to
coordinate and augment existing programs conducted out of the local school
system(s), the Florida Department of Education, or other state agencies. Education
programs are conducted at aquatic preserves in an effort to meet the overall
program goal of maintaining aquatic preserves at their current level of
environmental quality for future generations. The target population of education
programs at Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve includes nearby upland landowners
and developers, commercial and recreational resource users, students at all grade
levels, organized groups, and local, regional, and state government agencies.

The involvement of aquatic preserve staff in public education will focus on the
development of both programs in the school system and to the public at large.
Specific areas of involvement may include developing informational pamphlets,
brochures, or booklets; conducting interpretive tours; conducting lectures or
classes; development of public service announcements for television and radio;
and, development of video programs and other teaching aids that can be used by
public school systems in their daily instruction to students.

Environmental Education /information Goal:

To educate people so that they will use the environment in ways that preserve it,
consider environmental issues when planning and making decisions which could,
affect the environment, and take part in decisions affecting nearby natural
resources. In general, the intent of aquatic preserve education programs is to
make the public informed and responsible users of natural resources.

Education Obiective 1:
To provide assistance to environmentally oriented education programs at public and
private schools at all grade levels from kindergarten through university classes.

124

Task 1 -1:
In coordination with staff of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research
Reserve prepare classroom units relating to the natural resources of
Apalachicola Bay.

Task 1-2:
To periodically lead or assist in classroom field trips into the aquatic
preserve.

Task 1-3:
To develop a specimen collection of species commonly found in the
preserve to be used by public and private schools in their environmental
education programs.

Task 1-4:
In coordination with staff of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research
Reserve participate in programs designed to educate environmental
education instructors.

Task 1-5:
In coordination with the National Estuarine Research Reserve develop a
reference library of material relevant to the natural resources of Apalachicola
Bay and make the contents available for loan to educators.

Education Obffiective 2:
To provide and/or assist in environmental education programs to the community
at large.

Task 2-1:
To conduct or assist in semin ars, forums, or classes for public discussion
of relevant resource management, utilization, and regulation issues.
Seminars should involve both commercial and recreational resource users
and should seek to involve resource users.

Task 2-2:
Develop brochures, pamphlets, and/or booklets in coordination with staff of
the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve for public
dissemination which describes both the purpose of and activities conducted
at the aquatic preserve and the general functioning of the preserve's
ecosystem.

Task 2-3:
Develop a network of signs to be placed at strategic access points to the
aquatic preserve designed to educate the general public about ecological

125

functioning of Apalachicola Bay, the role of the general public in conserving
natural resources, and aquatic preserve program.

Task 2-4:
Periodically prepare newspaper articles or radio announcements designed
to educate the general public about the ecological functioning of the
preserve and/or topical resource management, utilization, and regulation
issues. Through this vehicle the findings of recent research efforts should
be disseminated to the public at large.

Task 2-5:
Provide reference material to nearby public libraries regarding the
description, management, and utilization of the natural resources of the
aquatic preserve. Efforts should be made to encourage public libraries to
have a special section relating to local natural resources.

Task 2-6:
To conduct and/or sponsor cultural events including art and photography
exhibitions, storytelling sessions, and musical events -relating to the
management and protection of natural resources.

126

CHAPTER Vill

MANAGEMENT COORDINATION NETWORK

This chapter provides an overview of the federal, state, regional, and local agencies
that have jurisdiction or hold interest in the management of the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve. Much of the authority necessary to protect and manage the
natural resources within and adjacent to the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve
exists outside the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Aquatic Preserves. Therefore,
the Preserve's management action plan (Chapter 7) includes several objectives and
tasks that direct staff to coordinate with entities which have the necessary
jurisdiction. Resource Management Objective 2 provides that the Aquatic Preserve
staff should "establish and maintain close communication and coordination with all
federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies which have authority in
natural resource management decisions that can impact the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve." Resource Management Objective 3 further provides that staff
"be actively involved in all resource management decisions which can potentially
impact the natural resources of Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve." And,
Resource Protection Objective 1 provides that staff should "assure that all violations
of federal, state, and local laws, rules, ordinances, and permit conditions in the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve are responded to in a timely manner."

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Many federal agencies have property interests, land and wildlife management
programs, research activities, construction activities, and regulatory programs
existing Or potentially existing within the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve. Listed
below are the major federal agencies and their program involvement within the
Preserve.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers three programs which
directly affect the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Division of Ecological
Services, headquartered in Panama City, reviews dredge and fill requests and other
federal level permitting under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

The USFWS is also charged with the protection and recovery of endangered
species and bird rookeries. Field personnel could be-come involved in using
available recovery techniques. Their Office of Biological Services contracted to have
a profile of the estuary published (Livingston, 1984) and are conducting field studies
on sturgeon and striped bass in the system. They are currently pursuing the

127

construction of an anadromous fish hatchery on the Apalachicola River and have
prepared a natural resources inventory for the ACF basin under contract to the
Corps (Barkuloo et al., 1987). The USFWS also manages St. Vincent National
Wildlife Refuge, a 12,358 acre barrier island adjacent to the preserve.

Under a provision in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the USFWS must be
consulted before the Corps of Engineers can submit a plan for congressional
approval which relates to water diversion, channel deepening, or modifications to
streams or other bodies of water.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates. activities in waters and
wetlands under four separate, but related laws and their subsequent amendments:
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972, Clean Water
Act of 1977, and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

The COE's major responsibilities which relate to the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic
Preserve are the maintenance of authorized navigation channels, pollution
abatement, maintenance of water quality, and enhancement of fish and wildlife. The
COE also provides technical guidance and planning assistance for development of
the nation's water resources. Under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Acts Amendments of 1972, the COE has regulatory authority over dredge
and fill activities in coastal wetlands.

The COE has authority over maintenance of six navigation channels within or in
close proximity to the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve: the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee- Flint waterway, the Gulf-Intracoastal Waterway, Sikes Cut, Two Mile
Channel, East Point Channel and Breakwater, and the Scipio Creek channel and
boat basin. In conjunction with maintaining the navigation channels the COE has
conducted or financed a number of studies to determine the effects of these
projects on the aquatic -ecosystem including WAR (1975), Taylor (1978), USGS
(1984), COE (1985), Raney et al. (1985), Isphording (1985), CSA (1985), and
Barkuloo, et al. (1987).

In December, 1982 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DNR, DER
and the COE was executed. The MOU established a process whereby the
proprietary concerns of the Trustees, stated in Chapter 253, F.S., is integrated into
the DER/COE joint permitting process.

The COE has also served as a member of Interstate Coordinating Committee for
management of water resources in the Apalachicola'-Chafta hoochee-Flint basin and
was involved in an effort to develop a basin-wide water management strategy for
the basin. The Corps has recently submitted a conceptual plan to members of
congress to get funding to continue this effort.

128

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior has the
responsibility to perform surveys, investigations, research pertaining to topography,
geology, and mineral and water resources, and to collect and publish water
resources data. The USGS conducted a four year study on the Apalachicola River
system which has provided valuable insight into the interrelationship between the
river and estuary (Mattraw and Elder, 1984; Elder, 1986).

The USGS operate several streamflow gaging stations in the ACF basin also collect
water quality data at several stations in the basin.

U.S. Environmental Protection Aciency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the control and
abatement of six types of pollution: air, water, noise, solid waste, toxic waste, and
radiation. The DER is the state agency responsible for pollution control in Florida
in lieu of a federal program. In the Apalachicola basin the EPA was involved in the
Nation's largest land restoration- project to date. The original hydrology was
restored to approximately 8,500 acres in the lower Apalachicola River floodplain
which had been damaged by converting floodplain into agricultural land.

United States Coast Guard

The Coast Guard is charged with the protection of the Nation's coastline. In the
preserve, the Coast Guard is involved in the regulation of boating safety, search
and rescue, and the surveillance of narcotics contraband. Additionally, the Coast
Guard regulates the construction of structures, such as bridges, causeways, and
aerial utilities, which may pose navigation hazards, and oversees safety issues
associated with commercial navigation.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal
and Resource Management, administers the National Estuarine Research Reserve
Program which includes the Apalachicola Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
(see discussion under Department of Natural Resources). Management, research,
and education activities within the aquatic preserve will be conducted in conjunction
with ANERR.

NOAA's Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessm ent, Ocean Assessment
Division (OAD) conducts research, assessment, and monitoring activities on
environmental quality issues in estuaries. Through its National Status and Trends
Program, OAD is conducting a nationwide monitoring program to assess chemical
contamination in estuaries throughout the country. Through its National Coastal

129

Pollutant Discharge Inventory, OAD determines the sources and analyzes the
quality of discharged pollutants in estuaries. OAD also has a National Estuarine
Inventory which characterizes the physical and hydrological features of the Nation's
estuaries and coastal areas. NOAA also operates the weather station in
Apalachicola, Florida and collects tidal data from stations within or near the
preserve.

National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), U.S. Department of Commerce records
commercial fish landings, enforces national fishery laws, and protects vital fishery
habitats. The Environmental Assessment Branch of NMFS comments on permit
applications, at the federal level, which may adversely impact fishery habitats.
NMFS also has enforcement officers checking for illegal fishing activity.

STATE AGENCIES

Many state agencies have property interests, land and wildlife management
programs, research activities, regulatory authority and construction activities within
the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve. The interactions of these program with the
management of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve is outlined below:.

Department of Natural Resources

The Division of Marine Resources has several programs relevant to aquatic
preserves. The Marine Research Laboratory in St. Petersburg has several projects
including resource protection area mapping, a survey of the status of oyster bars,
and fishery habitat utilization studies which generate valuable resource management
information.

The Division of Marine Resources also administers a permitting program for the
collection of certain marine species and the use of certain chemicals. The Bureau
of State Lands and Aquatic Preserves receives notification of issuance of permits
within aquatic preserves.

The Division of Marine Resources' Shellfish Environmental Assessment. Section
(SEAS) is responsible for the classification and management of shellfish harvesting
areas. A SEAS field support office and the laboratory support facility are located
in Apalachicola. SEAS performs four primary tasks: conducting shoreline surveys
to locate and evaluate potential pollution sources; establishing and monitoring water
quality monitoring stations; red tide monitoring; and, managing shellfish harvesting
areas for the purpose of protecting public health. Several drogue and dye studies
have been conducted by DNR in Apalachicola Bay with the assistance of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. Through the Shellfish Laboratory the DNR also

130

operates a program to construct and rehabilitate oyster reefs. Through this
program the DNR has employed the Franklin County Seafood Workers Association
to assist in informing the local industry of the project, in selecting relay and harvest
areas, and to be responsible for paying project participants.

The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (ANERR), which is under
the Division of Marine Resources, is the governmental entity in which aquatic
preserve staff interact the most frequently. ANERR's office is located in
Apalachicola and its staff is actively involved in resource management, research
and monitoring, and environmental education. Many of the tasks listed as part of
the program of operating the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve in Chapter 8 are
already being conducted by ANERR.

The Division of Law Enforcement's Marine Patrol, District 2 has a detachment
located in Carrabelle, Florida. The detachment includes 22 people. The Marine
Patrol regulates and enforces safe boating laws and enforces all commercial and
recreational fishing laws.-

The Division of State Lands, in addition to the work related to aquatic preserves,
is charged with overseeing uses, sales, leases, or transfers of all state-o wned lands.
The aquatic preserve staff interact with other staff of State Lands in all transactions
concerning submerged lands within the preserve including education, research, and
acquisition of privately titled submerged lands or contiguous uplands important to
the integrity of the preserve.

The Division of Resource Management is responsible for the management of
aquatic plants, mineral resources, oil and gas exploration, and geologic studies.
It also supervises state Navigation Districts and Canal Authority.

The Division of Beaches and Shores is responsible for managing erosion control,
hurricane protection, coastal flood control, shoreline and offshore rehabilitation the
regulation of work and activities likely to affect the physical condition of the beach
and shore, and in the preparation of beach restoration management plans.

The Division of Recreation and Parks oversees operations at the Cape St. George
State Reserve, and St. George Island State Park.

Marine Fisheries Commission

The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) has been delegated rule making authority
with respect t.o marine life, and regulates the harvesting of all marine life (except
designated species), subject to final approval by the Governor and Cabinet. Their
authority covers gear specifications, prohibited gear, bag limits, size limits, species
that may not be sold,' protected species, closed areas, quality control codes,
harvesting seasons, special considerations related to egg-bearing females, and

131

oyster and clam relaying. The MFC is required to make annual recommendations
to the Governor and Cabinet regarding marine fisheries research priorities, which
can in turn directly influence research efforts and priorities at the preserve.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) has several
programs directly related to resource management at the Preserve. The Office of
Environmental Services reviews projects which may affect local fish and wildlife
habitat. They have developed an inventory of terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the
basin under a grant from the Florida Office of Coastal Management (Edmiston and
Tuck, 1987) and conducted a long-term fisheries ecology study on the Apalachicola
River (Ager et al., 1987). They are also lead management agency for the Lower
Apalachicola River Environmentally Endangered Lands tract. FGFWFC is the state
coordinator of the Non-Game Wildlife and Endangered Species Program in Florida.
The Division of Wildlife is also responsible for designating Critical Wildlife
Management Areas to protect designated species. And, the FGFWFC has law
enforcement officers working in the area.

.Department of Environmental Regulation

The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has a broad range of
responsibilities and receives it's authority from State Law and from- delegation from
the EPA. Generally, the DER responsibilities include water management, water
quality, potable water, air quality, coastal management, wetland protection, power
plant siting, and hazardous and solid wastes.

These responsibilities are accomplished through the following regulatory
mechanisms: (1) establishment of state standards designed to protect natural
systems and prevent harmful pollutants from entering these systems; (2) application
of these standards through the permitting of potential sources of pollution and
monitoring discharges for compliance; and (3) initiation of enforcement action for
non-compliance with these standards.

The DER's rules significant to the aquatic preserve management program are
Chapters 17-4, 17-301, 17-302, and 17-312, F.A.C. Authority for these rules is
based in Chapter 403, F.S. Chapters 17-301 and 17-302, F.A.C., addresses water
quality standards with the most stringent category being "Outstanding Florida
Water". As an aquatic preserve, Apalachicola Bay was automatically designated an
Outstanding Florida Water. Through this designation, ambient conditions become
the water quality standard for the preserve, thereby providing a legal means of
preventing any degradation to the preserve's water quality. Chapter 17-4, F.A.C.,
addresses permit requirements and Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., covers dredge and fill
activities.

132

The DER Office of Coastal Management is charged with coordinating activities
related to coastal -management and reviewing federal actions for consistency with
the State Coastal Management Program. The Office of Coastal Management also
awards grants for research and management planning. Through this grant
program several studies, resource documents, and management programs have
been developed for the preserve area including: a dredge material disposal plan
(Leitman et al., 1986); a resource inventory (Edmiston and Tuck, 1987); an
assessment of the impacts of Sikes Cut on the ecology of the estuary; the
monitoring of bottom sediments as part of a state-wide program; and, funds to
develop several land use ordinances including a county storm-water management
program.

Department of Community Affairs

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is responsible for coordinating
Developments of Regional Impact (DR[), designating Areas of Critical State Concern
(ACSC), and overseeing the local planning process.

DRI's are major developments that may affect more than one county and require
regional review from neighboring local governments, the regional planning council,
and state agencies. A residential and proposed commercial development on the
western portion of St. George Island was designated a DRI in 1977. Specific plans
'
for the commercial area have not been approved by the county or state. A second
DRI, Greenpoint, was sited east of Eastpoint, several miles from the boundary of
the aquatic preserve.

The ACSC program is intended to protect areas of the state where land
development has, or may potentially endanger natural resources. Through the
Apalachicola Bay Protection Act of 1985 the entire area surrounding the aquatic
preserve was designated an ACSC. After this area was designated, a Resource
Planning and Management Committee (RPMC) was established. The RPMC
evaluates the resources and the local government's land use practices, and makes
recommendations to local governments on how to improve land use practices to
ensure orderly, well planned growth that will Protect critical resources. Under
ACSC designation local governments are required to notify DCA of any application
for development permits, and the entire land development process requires state
intervention and approval.

The DCA also oversees the development of Local Government Comprehensive
Plans for counties and municipalities. Local governments are required to adopt
land development regulations which are consistent -with the adopted local
comprehensive plan within one year after submission of their plan for review and
approval by the DCA.

133

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) is responsible for
regulating pesticide usage, overseeing forestry operations, and overseeing
designated plant species. DACS oversees forestry operations in the Apalachicola
River valley and Tate's Hell Swamp to assure that operations are consistent with
Best Management Practices and is involved in the management of the Lower
Apalachicola Environmentally Endangered Lands tract.

Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the planning and
construction of State Roads in Franklin County. The DOT also updates a state-wide
aerial photographic survey every four years.

Degartment of State

The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) has responsibility
for protecting archaeological and historical sites. This includes cultural resources
located on state-owned sovereignty submerged lands.

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

The Department of,Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) administers septic tank
and mosquito control programs at a state level. Proper installation and
maintenance of septic tank systems in the watersheds of the preserve is essential
to the protection of estuarine water quality, especially in an estuary where oysters
are harvested.

Although mosquito control serves a useful public function, the effects of pesticides
in the waters of the preserve can be a primary concern. DNR staff are involved in
the management programs developed by the Florida Coordinating Council on
Mosquito Control, and subsequent policy recommendations resulting from this
group will be evaluated for their potential effects on the aquatic preserve.

Office of Planninci and Budgetina

The Office of Planning and Budgeting in the Executive Office of the Governor is
responsible for administering project reviews applicable to Florida's Coastal
Management Program and the Federal consistency program in conjunction with
DER. This process incorporates all projects in the state that involve federal
permitting, federal assistance, or direct federal activity. Each project must undergo
this additional review to determine if the project is consistent with the established
programs, policies, and rules of the State.

134

Florida Sea Grant

Florida Sea Grant is a State University System program with administrative offices
at the University of Florida. By using seminars, workshops, demonstrations,
publications, and personal contacts, Marine Extension Agents working for Sea
Grant inform the public of current issues of the sea and coast. The Sea Grant
program is actively involved in Apalachicola Bay and has sponsored research
(Blake and Roderick 1984; Conner et al., 1982; Graham et al., 1978; Livingston
1974; 1978, Livingston et al., 1975; 1976), an oyster management seminar (Andree,
1983), and a resource atlas for the estuary (Livingston, 1983). These and other
Sea Grant publications are used in education programs within the preserve.

REGIONAL AGENCIES

In addition to state and federal agencies, two regional agencies have a major role
in the use and management of the preserve: The Northwest Florida Water
Management District and the Apalachee Regional Planning Council.

Northwest Florida Water Management District

The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) administers
permitting programs for consumptive water use, management and storage of
surface water well drilling and operation, regulation of artificial recharge facilities,
and works of the district. This includes withdrawal of water from rivers, streams,
and wells. The types of water uses permitted by the NWFWMD which could affect
the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve include irrigation and public water supply.

The water management district is also involved in various studies on water supply
and management that may be of use to the preserve. Under the Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) program they are currently initiating a study
effort to define the freshwater needs of the Apalachicola estuary. The NWFWMD
also sits on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Interstate Coordinating
Committee for management of the ACIF system.

Through the Save Our Rivers program the NWFWMD is also involved in acquiring
and managing lands. Through this program 35,000 acres of the floodplain in the
middle and lower Apalachicola River have been purchased.

In 1987 the Florida Legislature directed water management districts through the
SWIM act to develop and implement plans to improve the.water quality and related
aspects of the state's surface waters. The Apalachicola River and Bay are the two
top priority designated SWIM water bodies under the NWFWMD's program. A
SWIM Plan for these water bodies has been approved by the NWFWMD's
governing board.

135

Apalachee Rec Council
iional Planning

The Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC) serves as a regional planning
body for the local government of Franklin County. Among its duties, the ARPC : I
aids local governments with planning expertise; is the regional representative for the
DRI review process; serves as a clearinghouse for state and federal projects and
programs; conveys information from the local governments to the state and federal
levels; assists local governments in getting grant aids; and prepares and
administers the Regional Policy Plan.

The DRI review of projects which affect the preserve will be reviewed by *both the
central office staff and field personnel. DRI's for marinas, subdivisions adjacent to
the preserve, and commercial or industrial developments will be reviewed closely
for their potential impact on the preserve.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve is contained entirely within Franklin County,
and its northern boundary is adjacent to the city of Apal achicola. No other
incorporated areas lie adjacent to or within the preserve's boundaries. The key'
area of interaction between county and/or municipal government and the
Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve is in the area of land use on the adjacent
uplands and its associated impacts on and uses of the aquatic resources of the
Preserve. To this end, there are two basic areas of concern: local government
comprehensive plans and local ordinances and regulations.

Local Government Comprehensive Plans

Local (municipal and county) governments are required by the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Section 163.3161, F.S.), (as amended by
Chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida, to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act) to develop and adopt comprehensive plans
to guide their future development. The plans are to be composed of elements
relating to different governmental functions (i.e., housing, physical facilities,
conservation, land use, coastal zone protection, etc.). These plans must meet the
approval of state agencies and be consistent with minimum standards set in
Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.

The coastal management element of the LGCP, along with the land use and
conservation elements, establishes long range plans for, orderly, and balanced
development, with particular attention to the identification and protection of
environmental resources in the planning area. Conformance with the criteria,
policies, and practices of a'local government comprehensive plan is required for all
development within the local government jurisdiction.

136

Local Development Codes

The local development and zoning codes (e.g., building codes) provide the major
local regulation that defines what an owner can do on a particular parcel of
property. The zoning prescribes the allowable uses and the intensity of those uses.
Certain land uses and land use intensities adjacent to an aquatic preserve can lead
to profound impacts on the resources of the preserve.

Within one year after the approval of their Local Government Comprehensive Plan,
local governments are required to amend their land development regulations to be
consistent with the provisions of the plan.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

This section reviews organizations that have an interest in the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve, but are non-govern-mental entities. This includes environmental
interest groups (i.e., Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Florida Defenders of the
Environment, Chipola Basin Protective Group, Friends of the Reserve, and Native
Plant Society), fishing and sport interest groups (i.e., Florida League of Anglers,
Organized Fishermen of Floridai S.E. Fisheries Association, Franklin County
Seafood Workers Association), universities that have research activities in the
preserve (Florida State University, University of Florida, University of South Florida),
recreational groups (Apalachee Canoe Club) and other interest groups or
individuals.

In the past, some of these groups have made substantive contributions to the
management and protection of the preserve. The Florida Defenders of the
Environment sponsored a conference which provided the first compilation of
research in the basin in 1976 (Livingston and Joyce, 1977) and currently has a staff
position dedicated solely to management and protection of the river and bay
system. The Departments of Oceanography, Geology and Biological Sciences,
Florida State University have had numerable theses and dissertations devoted
towards better understanding the ecology and physical morphology of the estuary,
as well the biology of individual species which inhabit the estuary. Significant
research has also been conducted by professors at the University, including the
research efforts of Dr. R.J. Livingston, who has been collecting continuous field
data since 1972. His research has included comprehensive analyses of the
changes in system functions over space and time, populations and community
response, sources of energy flows, and trophic interrelation-ships. Livingston
(1984) provides the most recent synthesis of this work. -He was also instrumental
in organizing the 1976 conference discussed above, and has been closely involved
with decision-makers in Franklin County in an effort to integrate his research
findings into county land use decisions.

137

Effective management of the preserve will be enhanced by continued support from
organized groups, associations, and individuals. Citizen support organizations are
particularly valuable through the provision of technical, non-technical, and financial
assistance. The relationship of non-govern-mental entities to the preserve will
include the coordination of activities such as scientific research, environmental
education, and other activities relating to the protection, management or improved
understanding of the preserve.

138

CHAPTER IX

STAFFING AND FISCAL NEEDS

Historically, the Aquatic Preserve Program has been largely dependent on federal
coastal zone grant funds for its operation, and as a result, the funding of both field
positions and central office positions has been limited.

In order for the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve to be managed in accordance
with goals, objectives, and tasks set forth in this plan, adequate funding, staffing,
and equipment are essential. Currently there is no legislative funding for staffing
at the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve. Instead, management is conducted on
a part-time basis by the manager of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and
permitting is handled by District staff in Pensacola. Many of the tasks discussed
in the management action program for the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve,
however, are already being conducted by staff of the Apalachicola National
Estuarine Research Reserve.

Because of the overlapping focus of the Research Reserve and aquatic preserve
programs, it is anticipated that the above program can be implemented with part-
time assistance from staff at the St. Joseph Bay and/or Alligator Harbor Aquatic
Preserves and/or by sharing a staff position with the Research Reserve. This time
estimate does not include staff-time by DNR and other state agency employees
involved intermittently in the various tasks necessary to manage and conserve the
natural resources of the aquatic preserve. An annual review of the
accomplishments of the program relative to the tasks listed in Chapter VII will help
to determine if the initial staffing estimate is adequate to meet the legislative intent
of the program.

A budget covering projected staff time, equipment, travel, and other expenses for
this area is found in Table 5. The budget is required to fulfill the short-range needs
of the preserve as described in this management plan, and accomplish the
Department of Natural Resources goal of on-site management of all aquatic
preserves by 1991, as expressed in the Agency Functional Plan.

139

TABLE 5

ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR FY 1991-1992 FOR THE
APALACHICOLA BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE

SALARY FIRST YEAR SECONDYEAR

ES 11 (including benefits) $ 12,000 $ 12,365
(15 hours per w6ek average)

Subtotal $ 12,000 $ 12,365

OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY

Charged to the St. Joseph Bay and Alligator Harbor
aquatic preserves.

OPERATING EXPENSES

Travel, Gas, Phone $ 4,500 $ 4,500

TOTAL COST $16,500 $ 16,865

141

CHAPTER X

RESOURCE AND ACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM

To ensure that this management plan is effectively implemented, on-site staffing is
imperative. The position of a preserve manager will be necessary in order to
institute programs targeted at (1) monitoring the status of natural resources, (2)
monitoring usage of the aquatic preserve, and (3) tracking progress and
accomplishments that are directed at retaining the original integrity and value of the
preserve.

RESOURCE MONITORING

In managing an aquatic preserve it is important to regularly review whether the
efforts of the Aquatic Preserve Program and other federal, state, and local
programs to protect the natural resources are meeting their objectives. Therefore,
the status of the natural resources in the preserve will be monitored on a regular
basis. Features which should be monitored include, but should not be limited to,
trends in water and sediment quality (including monitoring point or non-po 'int
sources of pollution), areal coverage, location, and health of salt marshes and
seagrass communities, recr6ational and commercial harvesting of marine
resources, and development trends on adjacent uplands. As Resource
Management Task 5-5 of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve Management
Action Plan (Chapter VII) provides, the preserve manager shall annually prepare a
report,describing the state of the environment of the aquatic preserve. This report
will be the heart of the resource monitoring program. It should discuss the findings
of the resource monitori.ng program; most recent water quality data and any trends
in water quality; any changes in resource community boundaries; status of
designated species within the aquatic preserve; permit applications within the
preserve; land development trends on adjacent uplands; and any enforcement
actions necessary-

To monitor changes in the natural resources, use of a regional geographic
information system (GIS) is highly recommended. A GIS is a computer-based
system that is used to capture, edit, display, and analyze geographic information.
The first GIS programs were developed about 20 years ago to manage large
collections of natural resource and environmental information. Since their
development, they have been used in other areas such as utilities mapping,
inventory management, and land use planning; however, their most important
function continues to be natural resource management. For the Apalachicola Bay
Aquatic Preserve, the GIS will be developed and used in coordination with the
Apalachicola River and Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

143.

Future use of a GIS system at the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve could include
the periodic inventory, compilation, and analysis of temporal and spatial data
concerning the present state of the natural resources within the preserve. Historical
aerial photography could be computerized for comparison with later data to
conduct a temporal analysis of resource abundance. Detailed monitoring of any
re-vegetation or restoration efforts could also be computer analyzed. The on-line
access to these natural resource data bases will facilitate informed management
decisions concerning the use and protection of submerged lands and their
resources. Cooperation and file sharing is possible with other agencies handling
data with identical or similar systems.

ACTIVITY MONITORING

As human interaction in and around the aquatic preserve increases, additional
pressures are to be expected in the form of recreational and development activities.
Monitoring the type of use of activities and their compatibility, their frequency of
occurrence, as well as proven and expected detrimental effects on the preserve's
natural resources, will provide a foundation to amending the policies of the aquatic
preserve to protect its natural resources.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROGRESS MONITORING

For this management plan to be effectively implemented, it is necessary to monitor
the accomplishments of the on-site program on a regular basis. Therefore as
noted above, staff of the Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve will be required to
annually submit a report to the main office and the Franklin County Commission on
the state of the natural'environment of the aquatic preserve, what was done in the
previous year toward the tasks listed in Chapter VII, and what are needs and
directions of the aquatic preserve for the coming year. This report should be
closely keyed to the tasks listed in Chapter VII and will serve as the basis for
judging the adequacy of staffing and funding estimates listed in Chapter IX.

Specific information which should be included in the annual state of the preserve
report includes any noted change in acreage or health of seagrasses and salt
marshes; numbers of permits applied for, issued, and, denied; whether any
exemptions to standards were granted; number of structures built adjacent to the
preserve; any changes in water quality within the preserve and whether any
violations were uncovered.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ager, L.A., C.L. Mesing, R.S. Land, M.J. Hill, M. Spelman, R. Rosseau and K.
Stone. 1987. Five Year Completion Report: Fisheries Ecology and
Dredging Impacts on the Apalachicola River System. Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Alabama, Georgia, Florida and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. 1984
Water Assessment for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.

Andree, S. editor. 1983. Apalachicola Oyster Industry: Proceedings of a
Conference. Florida Sea Grant Report Number SGR-57.

Andrews, J.D. and S.M. Ray.' 1988. Management strategies to control the disease
caused by Perkinsus marinus. American Fisheries Society Special
Publications 18:257-264.

Apalachee Regional Planning Council. 1980. Franklin County Comprehensive Plan.

Apalachee Regional Planning Council. 1984. Oil Spill Response Manual for the
Apalachicola River.

Barackman, M.A. 1964. A Study of the Mineral Glauconite in Apalachicola Bay,
Florida: Its Distribution, Mode of Occurence and Source. M.S. Thesis,
Department of Geology, Florida State Univeristy. Tallahassee, Florida.

Barkuloo, J.M., L. Patrick, L. Stith and W.J. Troxel. 1987. Natural Resource
Inventory: Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Prepared for the U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers, Mobile
District.

Bedosky, S.J. 1987. Recent Sediment History of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. M.S.
Thesis, Department of Geology, Florida State University. Tallahassee,
Florida.

Blake, N.J. and A.E. Roderick. 1984. Studies Concerning.the Cleansing of Vibrio
cholerae and V. vulnificus in Apalachicola Bay Oysters. IR-83-10. Florida
Sea Grant Program.

Bullen, R.P. 1950. An archaeological survey of the Chattahoochee River valley in
Florida, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science. 40:101-125.

145

Bullen, R.P. 1972. The Orange period of peninsular Florida. Fiber-tempered
Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins,
Context, and Significance. R.P. Bullen and J.B. Stoltman, editors. Florida
Anthropological Society Publication 6:9-33.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1988. 1986 Florida Statistical
Abstract. A.H. Shoemyer, editor. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.

Clark, J.R. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management
. of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C.

Clark, R. R. 1989. Beach conditions in Florida: a statewide inventory and
identification of the beach erosion problem areas in Florida. Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Beaches and Shores Technical and
Design Memorandum No. 89-1.

Clarke, J.T. 1975. An Investigation of the Estuarine Structure and Mass Transport
Processes in the Vicinity of West Pass, Apalachicola Bay, Florida. M.S.
Thesis. Department of Oceanography, Florida State University. Tallahassee,
Florida

Clewell,- A. F. 1986. Natural Setting and Vegetation of the Florida Panhandle: An
Account of the Environments and Plant Communities of Northern Florida
West of the Suwanee River. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District, Contract No. DACW01-77-C-0104.

Colberg, M.R., T.S. Dietrich, and D.M. Windham. 1968. The Social and Economic
Values of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Final Report under Contract No. 14-12-
117. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Cole, S.A. 1986. Birds of the Reserve. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research
Reserve. Apalachicola, Florida.

Conner, C., A. Conway, B. Benedict, and B. Christensen. 1982. Modelling the
Apalachicola System. Sea Grant Technical Paper #23. Florida Sea Grant
Program.

Conservation Founda tion. 1980. Franklin County, Florida: Shoreline Development
Strategy.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1985. Apalachicola Bay Study: Submersed
Vegetation Assessment of the Apalachicola Bay System. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Sea Grant Publication No.
MASGP-84-020.

146

Craig, A., E.N. Powell, R.R. Fay, J.M. Brooks. 1989. Distribution of Perkinsus
marinus in Gulf coast oyster populations. Estuaries. Vol 12, No. 2:82-91.

Danglade, E. 1917. Condition and Extent of the Natural Oyster Beds and Barren
Bottoms in the Vicinity of Apalachicola, Florida. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Fisheries. Appendix V to the Report of U.S. Commissioner of
Fisheries for 1916. Doc. No. 841.

Dawson, C.E. 1955. A Contribution to the Hydrography of Apalachicola Bay,
Florida. Publication of the Texas Institute of Marine Science. 4(l):15-35.

de la Cruz, A.A. 1980. Recent advances in our understanding of salt marsh
ecology. Proc. of Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems Workshop. FWS/OBS-80/30.

Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Florida's Beach Restoration Management
Plan for Planning Districts 1, 11, and V.

Donoghue, Dr. J., personal communication. Florida State University, Department
of Geology.

Donoghue, J. 1987. Evaluation of Sediment Loading Processes in Apalachicola
Bay Estuary. NOAA Technical Report Series. OCRM/SPD.

Dunbar, J. and B.I. Waller. 1983. A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/ Suwanee
Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida: A Geographic Approach. -

Edmiston, H.L. 1979. The Zooplankton of the Apalachicola Bay System. M.S.
Thesis. Department of Oceanography, Florida State University. Tallahassee,
Florida.

Edmiston, H.L. and H.A. Tuck. 1987. Resource Inventory of the Apalachicola River
and Bay Drainage Basin. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Ednoff, M. 1984. A Mariculture Assessment of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. A report
to the Office of Coastal Management, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.

Elder, J.F. and D.V. Cairns. 1982. Production and Decomposition of Forest Litter
Fall on the Apalachicola River Flood Plain, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Supply Paper 2196-B.

Estabrook, R.H. 1973. Phytoplankton Ecology and Hy&bgraphy of Apalachicola
Bay. M.S. Thesis. Department of Oceano-graphy, Florida State University.
Tallahassee, Florida.

147

Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. 1981. Rare and
Endangered Biota of Florida: Plants. D.B. Ward, editor. Vol. 5.

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1986. St. George Island Sewerage
Study. Division of Resource Planning and Management.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1986. Geochemical and
Statistical Approach for Assessing Metals Pollution.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1987. - Official Lists of
Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1986. Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve Draft Management Plan.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1986a. Preliminary Study Describing the
Movement of a Conservative Tracer in Groundwater on St. George Island
Adjacent ot Apalachicola Bay. Division of Marine Resources, Shellfish
Environmental Assessment Section.

Furfari, S.A. 1975. Apalachicola Bay Analysis of 1973-1974 Monitoring Data. U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Futch, C.R. 1983. Oyster reef construction and relaying programs. Apalachicola
Oyster Industry: Conference Proceedings. S: Andree, editor. Florida Sea
Grant Report 57:34-38.

Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster: Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries Bulletin 64:1-480.

Geoscience, Inc. 1984. A Report of the Collection and Analysis of Water and
Bottom Sediments from Five Project Areas at or near Apalachicola Bay,
Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Gorsline, D.S. 1963. Oceanography of Apalachicola Bay. Essays in Marine
Geology in - Honor of K.O. Emory. T. Clements, editor. University of
Southern California Press. Los Angeles California. pp 69-96.

Graham, D.S., K. DeCosta, and B. Christensen. 1978. S tormwater Runoff in the
Apalachicola Estuary. Final Report Project R/EM-11. Florida Sea Grant
Program.

Hand, J., V. Tauxe, and M. Friedemann. 1988. 1988 Florida Water Quality
Assessment: 305b Technical Appendix. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.

148

Hayes, L.R., M.L. Maslia, and W.C. Meeks. 1983. Hydrology and Model Evaluation
of the Principal Artesian Aquifer, Dougherty Plain, Southwest Georgia.
Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin #97.

Heard, R. 1982. Guide to Common Tidal Marsh Invertebrates of the Northeastern
Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. MASGP-79-
004.

Henefield, S.M. and N.M. White. 1986. Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Lower Apalachicola River Environmentally Endangered Lands Tract, Franklin
and Gulf Counties, Florida. Report to the Florida Department of State.

Herbert, T.A. and Associates. 1988. The Franklin County Fisheries Option Report.

Howell, J.T. 1980. Staff Director, Health Program Office, Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services. Letter to Mr. Gary Smith, Office of the Governor.
February 26, 1980.

Imsand, F.D. 1984. Analysis of Sikes Cut Monitoring Data Collected Before and
After Maintenance Dredging, February 1 and 2, 1984- March 8 and 9, 1985.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Ingle, R.M. and C.E. Dawson, Jr. 1952. Growth of the american oyster
Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) in Florida waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carrib.
2(2):393-404.

Ingle, R.M. and C.E. Dawson, Jr. 1953. A Survey of Apalachicola Bay, Florida.
Florida State Board of Conservation Technical Service.

Isphording, W.C. 1985. Sedimentological Investigation of the Apalachicola, Florida
Estuarine System. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile
District.

Isphording, W.C. and F.D. Imsand. 1987. Hurricane Induced Changes in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Coastal Zone '87. p. 616-628.

Jones, B.C. 1973. A semi-subterranean structure at Mission San Joseph de
Ocuya, Jefferson County, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties.
Bulletin Number 3.

Joseph, E.G. 1973. Analysis of a nursery ground, Proceedings of a Workshop on
Egg, Larval, and Juvenile States of Fish in Atlantic Coast Estuaries, A.L.
Pacheco, editor. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Fish Center. Technical Publication No.
1

149

Kofoed, J.W. 1961. Sedimentary Environments in Apalachicola Bay and Vicinity,
Florida Masters Thesis, Department of Geology, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Kofoed, J.W. and D.S. Gorsline. 1963. Sedimentary environments in Apalachicola
Bay and vicinity. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 33, No. 1:205-223.

Laughlin, R.A. 1982. Feeding habits of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun,
in the Apalachicola estuary, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science. 32(4):807-
822.

Leitman, H.M., J.E. Sohm, and M.A. Franklin. 1983. Wetland Hydrology and Tree
Distribution of the Apalachicola River Flood Plain, Florida. U.S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 2196-A.

Leitman, S.F., T. Allen and K. Brady. 1984. Apalachicola River Dredged Material
Disposal Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Leitman, S.F., K.'Brady, H.L. Edmiston, and V. Tauxe. 1985. A Brief History of the
Dredging of the St. George Island Channel (Sikes Cut) and Associated
Impacts. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Leitman, S.F., K. Brady, H.L. Edmiston, V. Tauxe and T. McAlpin. 1986.
Apalachicola Bay Dredged Material Disposal Plan. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.

Leitman, S.F. 1987. Strategies to protect the Apalachicola estuary. Coastal Zone
'87. . Ed. by O.T. Magoon. Vol. 1: 170-185.

Leitman, S.F. 1989. The down.stream perspective on basin-wide water
management in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint river basin. Coastal
Zone '89. edited by O.T. Magoon. Vol. 4:3241-3255.

Leitman, S.F., L. A. Ager, and C.L. Mesing. 1991. The Apalachicola experience:
environmental effects of physical modifications to a river for navigation
purposes. Rivers of Florida. R.J. Livingston, editor. 223-246. Springer-
Verlag.

Livingston, R.J. 197 4. Field and Laboratory Studies Concerning the Effects of
Various Pollutants on Estuarine and Coastal Organisms with Application to
the Management of the Apalachicola Bay System (North Florida, U.S.A).
Final report, State University System of Florida, 9e-a.Grant SUSFSG-04-3-
158-43. Florida Sea Grant Program.

150

Livingston, R.J. 1978. Short- and Long-term Effects of Forestry Operations on
Water Quality and the Biota of the Apalachicola Estuary (North Florida,
U.S.A.). Florida Sea Grant Report (unpublished).

Livingston, R.J. 1980. Critical Habitat Assessment of the Apalachicola Estuary and
Associated Coastal Areas. Coastal Plains Regional Commission.

Livingston, R.J. 1981. River derived input of detritus into the Apalachicola Estuary,
in Proceedings of the National Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to
Estuaries. FWS/DBS-81/04. Vol. 1:320-329.

Livingston, R.J. 1983. Resource Atlas for the Apalachicola Estuary. Report
Number 55. Florida Sea Grant Program.

Livingston, R.J. 1983a. Identification and Analysis of Sources of Pollution in the
Apalachicola River and Bay System. Unpublished manuscript.

Livingston, R.J. 1984. The Ecology of the Apalachicola Bay System: An Estuarine
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/05.

Livingston, R.J. 1984a. Longterm Effects of Dredging and Spoiling on the
Apalachicola Bay System. Report to the Office of Coastal Management,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Livingston, R.J., A.F. Clewell, R.L. Iversoh, D.B. Means, and H.M. Stevenson. 1975.
St. George Island: Biota, Ecology and Management Program for Controlled
Development. Florida Sea Grant Project R/EM-1.

Livingston, R.J., R.L. Iverson, and D.C. White. 1976. Energy Relationships and
Productivity in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Florida Sea Grant Program.

Livingston, R.J. and E.A. Joyce, editors. 1977. Proceedings of the Conference on
the Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine Resources Publication 26.

Livingston, R.J., N. Thompson, and D. Meeter. 1978. Long-term variation of
organochlorine residues and assemblages of epibenthic organisms in a
shallow north Florida (USA) estuary, Marine Biology. 46:355-372.

Livingston, R.J. and J.L. Duncan. 1979. Short- and long-term effects of forestry
operations on water quality and epibenthic assembleges of a north Florida
estuary. Ecological Processes in Coastal and-.-Marine Systems. R.J.
Livingston, editor. Plenum Press. New York and London. pp. 339-381.

Maristany, A. 1981. Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the Jim Woodruff
Dam on the Strearnflow Distribution of the Apalachicola River. Northwest
Florida Water Management District Technical File Report 81-7.

151

Mattraw, H.C., Jr. and J.F. Elder. 1984. Nutrient and Detritus Transport in the
Apalachicola River, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper
2196-C.

Means, D.B. 1977. Aspects of the significance to terrestrial vertebrates of the
Apalachicola River drainage basin, Florida. Proceedings of the Conference
on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine Research Publications
26:37-67.

Meeter, D.A., R.J. Livingston, and G.J. Woodsum. 1979. Long-term climatological
cycles and population changes in a river-dominated estuarine system.
Ecological Processes in Coastal and Marine Systems. R.J. Livingston,
editor. Plenum Press. New York and London. pp. 315-338.

Mehta, A.J. and T.A. Zeh. 1980. Influence of a small inlet on a large bay. Coastal
Engineering. 4:157-176.

Menzel, R.W., N.C. Hulings, and R.R. Hathaway. 1958. Causes of depletion of
oysters in St. Vincent's bar, Apalachicola Bay, Florida", in Proceedings of the
National Shellfish Association. 48:66-71.

Menzel, R.W., N.C. Hulings, and R.R. Hathaway. 1966. Oyster abundance in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida in relation to biotic associations influenced by
salinity and other factors. Gulf Resource, Report 2(2):73-96.

Menzel, R.W. and E.W. Cake. 1969. Identification and Analysis of the Biological
Value of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Menzel, R.W. 1983. Genetics and the potential for oyster production in
Apalachicola Bay. Apalachicola Oyster Industry: Conference Proceedings.
S. Andree, editor. Florida Sea Grant Report 57:22-26.

Milanich, J.T. and C.H. Fairbanks. 1980. Florida Archaeology. Academic Press.

Miley, W.W. Personal Communication. Apalachicola National Estuarine Research
Reserve, Manager.

Moore, A.B. 1951. History of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Morrison, S.J., J.D. King, R.J. Bobbie, R.E. Bechtold, and D.C. *White. 1977.
Evidence for microfloral succession on allochthonous plant litter in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida, USA, Marine Biology. 4 1:229-240.

152

Myers, V.B. and R.L. Iverson. 1977. Aspects of nutrient limitation of the
phytoplankton productivity in the Apalachicola Bay system. Proceedings of
the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine
Research Publications 26:68-74.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 1976. Proposal to Study the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System and Apalachicola Bay.

Oesterling, M.L. and G.L. Evink. 1977. Relationship between Florida's blue crab
population and Apalachicola Bay. Proceedings of the Conference on the
Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine Research Publications 26:37-
68.

Otwell, W.S. 1983. Alternatives for the seafood industry. Apalachicola Oyster
Industry: Conference Proceedings. S. Andree, editor. Florida Sea Grant
Report- 57:47-52.

Owens, H.P. 1966. Apalachicola Before 1861. PhD Dissertation, Florida State
University.

Pearse, A.S. and G.W. Wharton. 1938. The oyster "leech" Stylochus inimicus
Palombi, associated with oysters on the coasts of Florida. Ecological
Monographs 8:605-655.

Perez-Farfante, 1. 1977. Shrimps and Prawns. Food and Agriculture Organization
Sheets. Fishing Area 31, West Central Atlantic United States.

Phelps, D.S. 1966. Early and late components of the site. Florida Anthropologist.
19(l):11-38.

Phillips, R.C. 1980. Role of seagrasses in estuarine systems. Proc. of Gulf of
Mexico Ecosystems Workshop. FWS/OBS-80/30:67-96.

Prochaska, F.J. and D. Mulkey. 1983. The Apalachicola Bay oyster industry: some
economic considerations. Apalachicola Oyster Industry: Conference
Proceedings. S. Andree, editor., Florida Sea Grant Report 57:47-52.

Porter, W. 1985. The Relationship Between Apalachicola Bay Water Quality and
Septic System Installation in the Coastal Zone with Applications to Other
Estuaries. Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Florida.

Raney, D.C., 1. Huang, and H. Urgun. 1985. A Hydrody-hamic and Salinity Model
for Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.

153

Raney, D.C., W.G. Nichols and D. Brandes. 1985a. Rainfall Trend and Streamflow
Analysis for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Basin, Alabama,
Florida and Georgia. Prepared for the Mobile District, Corps of Engineers,
University of Alabama, BER Report 341-60.

Rodriguez, A. 1988. Internal Memorandum for the Northwest Florida Water
Management District to Douglas Barr, Director of Water Resources.

Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and L.C. Burney. 1984. Deepwater Ports Maintenance
Dredging and Disposal Manual. Office of Coastal Management, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation.

Schade, C.J. 1985. Late Holocene Sedimentology of St. George Island, Florida.
M.S. Thesis, Department of Geology, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida.

Schnable, J.E. 1966. The Evolution and Development of Part of the Northwest
Florida Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida.

Schnable, J.E. and H. Goodell. 1968. Pleistocene- Recent Stratigraphy, Evolution
and Development of the Apalachicola Coast: Florida. Geol. Soc. America
Special Paper No. 112, p72.

Schubel, J.E. and D. Hirschberg. 1978. Estuarine graveyards, climatic change,
and the importance of the estuarine environment. Estuarine Interactions, M.
Wiley, editor, Academic Press, pp. 285-303.

Sheridan, P.F. and R.J. Livingston. 1979. Cyclic trophic relationship of fishes in an
unpolluted, river dominated estuary in north Florida. Ecological Processes
in Coastal and Marine Systems. R.J. Livingston, editor. Plenum Press. New
York and London. pp. 143-161.

Sheridan, P.F. and R.J. Livingston. 1983. Abundance and Seasonality of infauna
and epifauna inhabiting a Halodule wrightii meadow in Apalachi-ola Bay,
Florida. Estuaries 6:407-419.

Stapor, F. 1971. Sediment budgets on a compartmented low-to-moderate energy
coast in northwest Florida. Marine Geology, V. 10, No. 2, M1-M7.

Stapor, F.W. 1973. Coastal Sand Budgets and Holocene Beach Ridge
Development: Northwest Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Geology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

154

Stapor, F.W. and W.F. Tanner. 1977. Late holocene mean sea level data from St.
Vincent Island and the shape of the late Holocene mean sea level curve.
Coastal Sedimentology Proceedings of the 1977 Symposium on Nearshore
Sedimentation. W.F. Tanner, editor. Florida State University. pp. 35-68.

Stout, J. P. 1984. The Ecology of Irregularly Flooded Salt Marshes of the
Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Report 85(7.1).

Swift, Lt. F. 1898. Report on the Survey of the Oyster Regions of St. Vincent's
Sound, Apalachicola Bay and St. George Island Sound, Florida. U.S.
Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 22:187-221.

Tanner, W.F. 1983. Apalachicola Bay: geology and sedimentology. Apalachicola
Oyster Industry: Conference Proceedings. S. Andree, editor. Florida Sea
Grant Report 57:8-10.

Taylor, J.L., D.L. Feigenbaum, and M.L. Stursa. 1973. Utilization of marine and
coastal resources. Summary of Knowledge of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
SUSIO, p. IV-1-IV-63.

Taylor, J.L. 1978. Evaluation of Dredging and Open-water Disposal on Benthic
Environments: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Apalachicola Bay, Florida to Lake
Borgne, Louisiana. Unpublished report prepared for the,U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Mobile District.

Thompson, D. 1970. Vegetative Cover Types of St. Vincent Island Refuge. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished Reports.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 1981. Preliminary Section 404 (b)
evaluation: Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Alabama State line to Carrabelle,
Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 1981. Preliminary Section 404
(b)(1) evaluation of maintenance dredging of the federal navigation projects,
Apalachicola Bay (Scipio Creek, St. George Island, Eastpoint, and Two Mile),
Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 1985. Apalachicola Bay Study:
Final Report for the Field Data Collection Program, Technical Methodologies
and Data Summaries. Six Volumes. Sea Grant Publication MASGP-84-020.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the States of Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia. 1986. Navigation Maintenance Plan for the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint Waterway.

155

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and the States of Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia. 1987. Plan of Study: Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
Comprehensive "308" Basin Study.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Draft Post-authorization Change Notification
Report for the Reallocation of Storage from Hydropower to Water Supply at
Lake Lanier, Georgia.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management and Department of Environmental
Regulation. 1979. Lower Apalachicola River and Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981, Water Quality and Sanitary Survey:
Apalachicola, Florida-May-June, 1981. Surveillance and Analysis Division,
Athens, Georgia.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. Data on the Movement and Compaction of
Deposited Dredged Material in Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Data collected and
report prepared under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile
District..

Water and Air Research, Inc. 1975. A Study on the Effects of Maintenance
Dredging on Selected Ecological Parameters in the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District.

Weisberg, R. H. - 1987. A Review of Data and Physical Model Studies by the COE
on the Salinity Effects for Apalachicola Bay. Prepared for the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District.

Weisberg, R.H. 1989. Sikes Cut: A review of Data and Physical Model Studies by
the -COE on the Salinity Effects for Apalachicola Bay. Prepared for the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. . I
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The Ecology
of Bottomland Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community Profile.
FWS/OBS-81/37.

White, N.M. 1981. Archaeological Survey of Lake Seminole. Cleveland Museum
of Natural History Archaeological Research Report #29.

156

White, N.M. 1984. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology in the Apalachicola Valley: The
Evolution of Native Chiefdoms in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the
Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, Pensacola, Florida.

White, N.M. Personal Communications. Assistant Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of South Florida.

Whitfield, W.K., J*r. 1973. Construction and Rehabilitation of Commercial Oyster
Reefs in Florida from 1949 through 1971 with Emphasis on Economic Impact
in Franklin County. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine
Resources Laboratory, Special Science Report No. 38.

Whitfield W.K. Jr., and D.S. Beaumariage. 1977. Shellfish management in ,
Apalachicola Bay: past, present, and future. Proceedings of the Conference
on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine Research Publications
26:130-140.

Willey, G.R. 1949. Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collection, Vol 113.

Winger, P.J., C. Sieckman, T.W. May, and W.W. Johnson. 1984. Residues of
organochlorine insecticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and heavy metals in
biota from the Apalachicola River, Florida, 1978. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
12:54-79.

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The Ecology of the Seagrasses of South Florida: A Community
Profile. FWS/OBS-82/25.

157

APPENDIX A

Administrative Codes
(R. 3/87)
V. 9, p. 692-20 18-20.002

CHAPTER 18-20
FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES

18-20.001 Intent.
18-20.002 Boundaries and Scope of the
Preserves.
18-20.003 Definitions.
18-20.004 Management Policies, Standards
and Criteria.
18-20.005 Uses, Sales, Leases, or Transfer of
Interests in Lands, or Materials,
Held by the Board. (Repealed)
18-20.006 Cumulative Impacts
18-20.007 Protection of Riparian RIghts.
(Repealed)
18-20.008 Inclusion of Lands, Title in Which
Is Not Vested in the Board, in a
Presserve.
18-20.009 Establishment or Expansion of
Aquatic Preserves.
18-20.010 Exchange of Lands.
18-20.011 Gifts of Lands.
18-20.012 Protection of Indigenous Life
Forms.
18-20.013 Development of Resource
Inventories and Management
Plans for Preserves.
18-20.014 Enforcement.
18-20.015 Application Form. (Repealed)
18-20.016 Coordination with Other
Governmental Agencies.
18-20.017 Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve.

Library References: Riparian rights to navigable waters;
I. Henry Dean, 55 Fla Bar j. 247, 250 (Mar. 1981).

18-20.001 Intent.
(1) All sovereignty lands within a preserve shall
be managed primarily for the maintenance of
essentially natural conditions, the propagation of
fish and wildlife, and public recreation, including
hunting and fishing where deemed appropriate by
the board, and the managing agency.

(2) The aquatic preserves which are described in
73-534, Laws of Florida, Secions 258.39, 258.391,
258.392 and 258.393, Florida Statutes, future
aquatic preserves established pursuant to general or
special acts of the legislature, and in Rule
18-20.002, Florida Administrative Code, were
established for the purpose of being preserved in an
essentially natural or existing condition so that their
aesthetic, biological and scientific values may
endure for the enjoyment of future generations.

(3) The preserves shall be administered and
managed in accordance with the following goals:

(a) To preserve, protect, and enhance these
exceptional areas of sovereignty submerged lands by
reasonable regulation of human activity within the
preserves through the development and
implementation of a comprehensive management
program;

(b) To protect and enhance the waters of the
preserves to that the public may continue to enjoy
the traditional recreational uses of those waters such
as swimming, boating and fishing;

(c) To coordinate with federal, state, and local
agencies in aid in carrying out the intent of the
Legislature in creating the preserves;

(d) To use applicable federal, state, and local
management programs, which are compatible with
the intent and provisions of the act and these rules,
and to assist in managing the preserves;

(e) To encourage the protection, enhancement
or restoration of the biological, aesthetic, or
scientific values of the preserves, including but not
limited to the modification of existing manmade
conditions toward their natural condition, and
discourage activities which would degrade the
aesthetic, biological, or scientific values, or the
quality, or utility of a preserve, when reviewing
applications, or when developing and implementing
management plans for the preserves;

(f) To preserve, promote, and utilize indigenous
life ofrms and habitats, including but not limited to:
sponges, soft croal, hard corals, submerged grasses,
mangroves, salt water marshes, fresh water
marshes, mud flats, estuarine, aquatic, and marine
reptiles, games and non-game fish species, estuarine,
aquatic and marine invertebrates, estuarine,
aquatic and marine mammals, birds, shellfish and
mollusks;

(g) To acquire additional title interests in lands
wherever such acquisitions would serve to protect or
enhance the biological, aesthetic, or scientific values
of the preserves;

(h) TO maintain those benefical hydrologic and
biologic functions, the benefits of which accrue to
the public at large.

(4) Nothing in these rules shall serve to
eliminate or alter the requirements or authority of
other governmental agencies, including counties
and municipalities, to protect or enhance the
preserves provided that such requirements or
authority are not inconsistent with the act and this
chapter.

Specific Authority 120.53. 258.43(1) FS. Law
Implement 258.35, 258.36, 258.37, 258.39, 258.393 FS,
Chapter 80-280 Laws of FLorida. History-New 2-23-81,
Amended 6-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.01, Transferred from
16Q20.001.

18-20.002 Boundaries and Scope of the
Preserves.
(1) These rules shall only apply to those
sovereignty lands withins a preserve, title to whichis
vested in the board, and those other lands for which
the board has an appropriate instrument in writing,
executed by the owner, authorizing the inclusion of
specific lands in an aquatic preserve pursuant to
Section 2(2) of Chapter 73-534, Laws of Florida,
Secions 258.40(1) and 258.41(5), FLorida Statutes,
future aquatic preserves estabished through
general or special acts of the legislature, and
pursuant to Rule 16-20.008, Florida
Administrative Code. Any publicly owned and
maintained navigation channel authorized by the
United States Congress, or other public works
project authorized by the United States Congress,
designed to imporve or maintain commerce and
navigation shall be deemed to be excluded from the

159

(R. 3/87)
18-20.002

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

V. 9 p. 692-2P

provisions of this chapter, pursuant to Subsection
258.40(2), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, all lands
lost by avulsion or by artificially induced erosion
shall be deemed excluded from the provisions of this
chapter pursuant to Subsection 258.40(3), Florida
Statutes.

(2) These rules do not apply to Boca Ciega Bay,
Pinellas County or biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserves.

(3) These rules are promulgrated to clarify the
responsibilities of the board in carrying out its land
management functions as those functions apply
within the preserves. Implementation and
responsibility for environmental permitting of
activities and water quality protection within the
preserves are vested in the Department of
Environmental Regulation. Since these rules are
considered cumulative with other rules, a person
planning an activity within the preserves should
also consult the other applicable department rules
(Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code, for
example) as well as the rules of the Department of
Environmental Regulation.

(4) These rules shall not affect previous actions
of the board concerning the issuance of any
easement or lease or any disclaimer concerning
sovereignty lands.

(5) The intent and specific provisions expressed
in 18-20.001(e) and (f) apply generally to all
existing or future aquatic preserves within the scope
of this chapter. Upon completion of a resource
inventory and approval of a management plan for a
preserve, pursuant to 18-20.013, the type
designation and the resource sought to be preserved
may be readdressed by the Board.

(6) For the purpose of clarification and
interpretation, the legal description set forth as
follows do not include any land which is expressly
recognized as privately owned upland in a
pre-existing recorded mean high water line
settlement agreement between the board and a
private owner or owners. Provided, however, in
those instances wherein a settlement agreement was
executed subsequent to the passage of the Florida
Coastal Mapping Act, the determination of the
mean high water line shall be in accordance with the
provisions of such act.

(7) Persons interested in obtatining details of
particular preserves should contact the Bureau of
State Lands Management, Department of Natural
Resources, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd.,
Tallahassee, FL 32303 (telephone 904-488-2297).

(a) The preserves are described as follows:

1. Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Nassau County
in Book 108, pages 343-346, and in Book 111, page
409.

2. Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official
Records of Duval County in Volume 3183, pages
547-552, and in the Official Records of Nassau
County in Book 108, pages 232-237.

3. Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve, as described
in the Official Records of St. Johns County in Book
181, pages 363-366, and in the Official Records of
Flagler County in Book 33, pages 131-134.

4. Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Flagler County
in Book 33, pages 135-138, and in the Official
Records of Volusia County in BOok 1244, pages
615-618.

5. Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve, as described
in Section 258.39(30). F.S.

6. Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Volusia County
in Book 1244, pages 619-623, and in the Official
Records of Brevard County in Book 1143, pages
190-194.

7. Banana River Aquatic Preserve, as described
in the Official Records of Brevard County in Book
1143, pages 195-198, less those lands dedicated to
the U.S.A. prior to the enactment of the act, until
such time as the U.S.A. no longer wishes to
maintain such lands for the purpose for which they
were dedicated, at which time such lands would
revert to the board, and be managed as part of the
preserve.

8. Indian River - Malabar in Sebastian
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official
Records of Brevard County in Book 1143, pages
199-202, and in the Official Records of Indian
River County in Book 368, pages 5-8.

9. Indian River - Vero Beach in Fort Pierce
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official
Records of Indian River County in Book 368, pages
9-12, and in the Official Records of St. Lucie
County in Book 187, pages 1083-1086.

10. Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic
Preserve, as described in the Official Records of St.
Lucie County in Book 218, pages 2865-2869.

11. North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Martin County
in Book 337, pages 2159-2162, and in the Official
Records of St. Lucie County in Book 201, pages
1676-1679.

12. Loxahatchee River - Lake Worth Creek
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official
Records of Martin County in Book 320, pages
193-196, ane in the Official Records of Palm Beach
County in Volume 1860, pages 806-809.

13. Biscayne Bay - Cape Florida to Monroe
County LIne Aquatic Preserve, as described in the
Official Records of Dade County in Book 7055,
pages 852-856, less, however, those lands and
waters as described in Section 258.165, F.S.,
(Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act of 1974), and
those lands and waters within the Biscayne
National Park.

14. Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Monroe County
in Book 502, pages 139-142.

15. Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Monroe County
in Book 502, pages 143-146.

16. Cape Romano - Ten Thousand Islands
Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official
Records of Collier County in Book 381, pages
298-301.

160

V.9, p. 692-2Q

FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES

17. Ronkery Bay Aquatic Preserve, as described
in Section 258.39 (31), FS.

18. Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve as described in
Section 258.39 (28), Florida Statutes.

19. Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Lee County in
Book 648, pages 732-736.

20. Mailacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Lee County in
Book 800, pages 725-728.

21. Gasparilla Sound - Charlotte Harbor
Aquatic Preserve, as described in Section 258.392,
F.S.

22. Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve, as described in
Section 258.39(29), F.S.

23. Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as
described in Section 258.391, F.S.

24. St. Marins Marsh Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Citrus County
in Book 276, pages 238-241.

25. Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Franklin
County in Volume 98, pages 82-85.

26. Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Gulf County in
Book 46, pages 77-81, and in the Official Records of
Franklin County in Volume 98, pages 102-106.

27. St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Gulf County in
Book 46, pages 73-76.

28. St. Andrews State Park Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Bay County in
Book 379, pages 547-550.

29. Rocky Bayou State Park Aquatic Preserve,
as described in the Official Records of Okaloosa
County in Book 593, pages 742-745.

30. Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Santa Rosa
County in Book 206, pages 568-571.

31. Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic Preserve, as
described in the Official Records of Santa Rosa
County in Book 220, pages 60-63, in the Official
Records of Escambia County in Book 518, pages
659-662, less the lands dedicated to the U.S.A. for
the establishment of the Gulf Islands National
Seashore prior to the enactment of the act, until such
time as the U.S.A. no longer wishes to maintain
such lands for the purpose for which they were
dedicated, at which time such lands woulds revert to
the board and be managed as part of the preserve.

32. For the purpose of this section the
boundaries of the Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve,
shall be the body of water in Leon County known as
Lake Jackson in Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 14,
Township 1 North, Range 1 West and Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34,
and 35, Township 2 North, Range 1 West lying
below the ordinary high water line. Such lands shall
include the submerged bottom lands and the water
column upon such lands, as well as all publicly
owned islands, within the boundaries of the
preserve. Any privately held upland within the
boundaries of the preserve shall be deemed to be
excluded therefrom; provided that the Board may

negotiate an arrangement with any such private
upland owner by which such land may be included
in the preserve.

33. Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, as described in
Section 258.393, Florida Statutes.

34. Future aquatic preserves established
pursuant to general or special acts of the legislature.
Specific Authority 120.53, 258.43(1), FS. Law
Implemented 258.30, 258.391, 258.392, 258.393, 258.40,
258.41, 258.42, 258.43, 258.44, 258.45 FS. History-
New 2-23-81, Amended 8-7-85. Formerly 16Q-20.02,
Transferred from 16Q-20.002.

18-20.003 Definitions. When used in these
rules, the following words shall have the indicated
meaning unless, the context clearly indicates
otherwise:

(1) "Act" means the provisions of Section 258.35
through 258.46, F.S., the Florida Aquatic Preserve
Act.

(2) "Activity" means any project and such other
human action within the preserve requiring board
approval for the use, sale, lease or transfer of
interest in sovereignty lands or materials, or which
may require a license from the Department of
Environmental Regulation.

(3) "Aesthetic values" means scenic
characteristics or amenities of the preserve in its
essentially natural state or condition, and the
maintenance thereof.

(4) "Applicant" means any person making
application for a permit, license, conveyance of an
interest in state owned lands or any other necessary
form of governmental approval in order to perform
an activity within the preserve.

(5) "Beneficial biological functions" means
interactions between flora, launa and physical or
chemical attributes of the environment, which
provide benefits that accrue to the public at large,
including, but not limited to: nutrient, pesticide and
heavy metal uptake; sediment retention; nutrient
conversion to biomass; nutrient recycling and
oxyzenation.

(6) "Beneficial hydrological functions" means
interactins between flora, fauna and physical
geological or geographical attributes of the
environment, which provde benefits that accrue to
the public at large, including, but not limited to:
retardation of storm water flow; storm water
retention; and water storage, and periodical release;

(7) "Biological values" means the preservation
and promotion of indigenous life forms and habitats
including, but not limited to: sponges, soft corals,
hard corals, submerged grasses, mangroves,
saltwter marshes, fresh water marshes, mud flats,
marine, estuarine, and aquatic reptiles, games and
non-games fish species, marine, estuarine, and
aquatic mammals, marine, estuarine, and aquatic
invertebrates, birds and shellfish.

(8) "Board" means the Governor and Cabinet
sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund.

(9) "Channel" means a trench, the bottom of
which is normally entirely by water, with
the upper edges of its sides normally below water.

161

(R. 3/87)
18-20.003

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

V. 0, p. 692-2R

(10) "Commercial, industrial and other revenue
generating/income related docks" means docking
facilities for an activity which produces income,
through rental or any other means, or which serves
as an accessory facility to other rental commercial
or industrial operations. It shall include, but not be
limited to docking for: marinas, restaurants, hotels,
motels, commercial fishing, shipping, boat or ship
construciton repair and sales.

(11) "Department" means the State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources, as adminsitrator
for the board.

(12) "Division" means the Division of State
Lands, which performs all staff duties and functions
related to the administration of lands title to which
is, or will be, vested in the board, pursuant to section
253.002, F.S.

(13) "Dock" means a fixed or floating structure,
including moorings, used for the purpose of
berthing buoyant vessels either temporarily or
indefinitely.

(14) "Essentially natural condition" means
those functions which support the continued
existence or encourage the restoration of the diverse
popluation of indigenous life forms and habitats to
the extend they existed prior to the significant
development adjacent to and within the preserve.

(15) "Extreme hardship" means a significant
burden, unique to the applicant and not shared by
property owners in the area. Self-imposed
circumstances caused to any degree by actions of any
person subsequent to the enactment of the Act shall
not be construed as an extreme hardship. Extreme
hardship under this act shall not be construed to
include any hardship which arises in whole or in
part from the effect of other federal, state or local
laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. The term
may be inherent in public projects which are shown
to be a public necessity.

(16) "Fill" means materials from any source,
deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands,
either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for
any other purpose, including spoiling of dredged
materials. For the purpose of this rule, the
placement of pilings or riprap shall not be
considered to be filling.

(17) "Lease" means a conveyance of intererst in
lands, title to which is vested in the board, granted in
accordance with specific terms set forth in writing.

(18) "Marina" means a small craft harbor
complex used primarily for recreation.

(19) "Oil and gas transportation facilities"
means those structures necessary for the movement
of oil and gas from the production site to the
consumer.

(20) "Person" means individuals, minors,
partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, estates,
trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, firms, and all other
associations and combinations whether public or
private, including governmental entities.

(21) "Pier" means a structure in, on, or over
sovereignty lands, which is used by the public
primarily for fishing, swimming, or viewing the
preserve. A pier shall not include a dock.

(22) "Preserve" means any and all of those areas
which are exceptional areas of sovereignty lands
and the associated water body so designated in
Section 258.30, 258.391, and 258.392. F.S.,
including all sovereignty lands, title to which is
vested in the board, and such other lands as the
board may acquire or approve for inclusion, and the
water column over such lands, which have been set
aside to be maintained in an essentially natural or
existing condition of indigenous flora and fauna and
their supporting habitat and the natural scenic
qualities and amenities thereof.

(23) "Private reisdential single dock" means a
dock which is used for private, recreational or
leisure purposes for a single family residence,
cottage or other such single dwelling unit and which
is deisgned to moor no more than two boats.

(24) "Private residential multi-slip dock" means
a docking facility which is used for private
recreational or leisure purposes for multi-unit
residential dwellings which shall include but is not
limited to condominiums, townhouses, subdivisions
and other such dwellings or residential areas and
which is designed to moor three or more boats.
Yacht clubs associated with residential
developments, whose memberships or utilization of
the docking facility requires some real property
interest in the residential area, shall also be
included.

(25) "Public interest" means demonstrable
environmental, social, and economic benefits which
would accrue to the public at large as a result of a
proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all
demonstrable environmental, social, and economic
costs of the proposed action. In determining the
public interest in a request for use, sale, lease, or
transfer of intererst in sovereignty lands or severeance
of materisls from sovereignty lands, the board shall
consider the ultimate project and purpose to be
served by said use, sale, lease, or transfer of lands or
materials.

(26) "Public navigation project" means a project
primarily for the purpose of navigation which is
authorized and funded by the United States
Congress or by port authorities as defined by
Section 315.02(2), F.S.

(27) "Public necessity" means the works or
improvements required for the protection of the
health and safety of the public, consistent with the
Act and these rules, for which no other reasonable
alternative exists.

(28) "Public utilities" means those serves,
provided by persons regulated by the Public Service
Commission, or which are provided by rural
cooperatives, municipalities, or other governmental
agencies, including electricity, telephone, public
water and wastewater services, and structures
necessary for the provision of these services.

(29) "Quality of the preserve" means the degree
of the biological, aesthetic and scientific values of the
preserve necessary for present and future enjoyment
of it in an essentially natural condition.

(30) "Resource management agreement" means
a contractual agreement between the board and one

162

V. 9, p. 692-2S

FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES

(R. 3/87)
18-20.004

or more parties which does not create an interest in
real property but merely authorizes conduct of
certain management activities on lands held by the
board.

(31) "Resource Protection Area (RPA) 1" -
Areas within the aquatic preserves which have
resources of the highest quality and condition for
that area. These resources may include, but are not
limited to corals; marine grassbeds; mangrove
swamps; salt-water marsh; oyster bars;
archaeological and historical sites; endangered or
threatened species habitat; and, colonial water bird
nesting sites.

(32) "Resource Protection Area 2" - Areas
within the aquatic preserves which are in transition
with either declining resource protection area 1
resources or new pioneering resources within
resource protection area 3.

(33) "Resource Protection Area 3" - Areas
within the aquatic preserve that are characterized
by the absence of any significant natural resource
attributes.

(34) "Riparian rights" means those rights
incident to lands bordering upon navigable waters,
as recognized by the courts of this state and common
law.

(35) "Sale" means a conveyance of interest in
lands, by the board, for consideration.

(36) "Scientific values" means the preservation
and promotion of certain qualities or features which
have scientific significance.

(37) "Shore protection structure" means a type
of coastal construction designed to minimize the rate
of erosion. Coastal construction includes any work
or activity which is likely to have a material physical
effect on existing coastal conditions or natural shore
processes.

(38) "Sovereignty lands" means those lands
included, but not limited to: tidal lands, islands,
sandbars, shallow banks, and lands waterward of
the ordinary or mean highwater line, to which the
State of Florida acquuired title on March 3, 1845, by
virtue of statehood, and of which it has not since
divested its title interest. For the purposes of this
rule sovereignty lands shall include all submerged
lands within the boundaries of the preserve, title to
which is held by the board.

(39) "Spoil" means materials dredged from
sovereignty lands which are redeposited or
discarded by any means, onto either sovereignty
lands or uplands.

(40) "Transfer" means the act of the board by
which any interest in lands, including easements,
other than sale or lease, is conveyed.

(41) "Utility of the preserve" means fitness of
the preserve for the present and future enjoyment of
its biological , aesthetic and scientific values, in an
essentially natural condition.

(42) "Water dependent activity" means an
activity which can only be conducted on, in, over, or
adjacent to water areas because the activity
requuires direct access to the water body or
sovereignty lands for transportation, recreation,
enregy production or transmission, or source of

water and where the use of the water or sovereignty
lands is an integral part of the activity.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.37, 258.43(1) FS. History-New 2-23-81. Amended
8-7-85. Formerly 16Q-20.03. Tranferred from
16Q-20.003.

18-20.004 Management Policies, Standards
and Criteria. The following management policies,
standards and criteria are supplemental to Chapter
18-21, Florida Administrative Code (Sovereignty
Submerged Lands Management) and shall be
utilized in determining whether to approve,
approve with conditions or modifications or deny all
requests for activities on sovereignty lands in
aquatic preserves.

(1) GENERAL PROPRIETARY

(a) In determining whether to approve or deny
any request the Board will evaluate each on a
case-by-case basis and weigh any factors relevant
under Chapter 253 and/or 258. Florida Statutes.
The Board, acting as Trustees for all state-owned
lands, reserves the right to approve, modify or reject
any proposal.

(b) There shall be no further sale, lease or
transfer of sovereignty lands except when such sale,
lease or transfer is in the public interest (see Section
18-20.004(2) Public Interest Assessment Criteria).

(c) There shall be no construction of seawalls
waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line,
or fillign waterward of the mean or ordinary high
water line except in the case of public road and
bridge projects where no reasonable alternative
exists.

(d) There shall, in no case, be any dredging
waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line
for the sole or primary purpose of providing fill for
any area landward of the mean or ordinary high
water line.

(e) A lease, easement or consent of use may be
authorized only for the following activities:

1. a public navigation project;

2. maintenance of an existing navigational
channel;

3. installation or maintenance of approved
navigational aids;

4. creation or maintenance of a
commercial/industrial dock, pier or a marina;

5. creation or maintenance of private docks for
reasonable ingress and egress of riparian owners;

6. minimum dredging for navigation channels
attendant to docking facilities;

7. creation or maintenance of a shore protection
structure;

8. installation of maintenance of oil and gas
transportation facilities;

9. creation, maintenance, replacement or
expansion of facilities required for the provision of
public utilities; and

10. other activities which are a public necessity
or which are necessary to enhance the quality or
utility of the preserve and which are consistent with
the act and this chapter.

(f) For activities listed in paragraphs
18-20.004(1)(e)1.-10. above, the activity shall be

163

~(~qK 31~97)
18~20.004 I~'TERN~L IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND V. 9~ p. 6~92-~~~7

designed in that ~h~ s~ru~~ur~ or s~ruc~ur~~ it, be 2. p~~~~~id~ ~I~~~~~~in~g and marina services ~(rcp~mr~
built in. an or over s~o~m~.,~er~e~v~ir~qm~qy lands are limited to pump~ou~t~. etc.).
s~tru~qcur~e~s necessary in co~n~qdu~L~t water dependent 3 improve and enhance public health. safety,
Activities~. welfare, and law ~en~qf~o~. c~e.. en~t;
(~q9) For activities listed in paragraphs 4. improved public land management.
~q1~2q&20.004~q(~ql~q)~q(~e~q)~q7.. ~qS.. 9. and 10. ~a~qb~e~e~vc. it must b~e ~qS. improve and enhance public navigation~;
demonstrated that no other r~eas~t~pr~iab~l~e alternative 6. improve and enhance water quality-,
exists which would allow th~e proposed activity ~i~s~, be 7. enh~anc~e~qm~en~t/r~es~t~ara~t ion of natural h~a~qb~s~t~a~t
constructed or undertaken ~c~qwtsid~e the preserve. and functions; and
(h) ~6qT~qh~e~usc~o~qfs~t~a~t~e~-n~qw~ne~qd lands for the purpose ~q9. imp~r~i~rw~e/p~r~qmec~t
of providing private or public road ~a~L~x~v~qn its islands endan~qge~re~qd/~thr~ea~t~en~ed/uniqu~e ~sp~qm~qic~s.
where such access did not previously ~exi~qit Shall be ~2qW COSTS:
prohibited. The use ~o~qf s~ta~tc-~s~q-ne~t~qi lands for the 1. r~edu~c~e~qd/~qd~e~qrrad~e~qd water quality;
purpose of providing private ~f~or public water Supply 2- reduced /degraded natural habitat and
~to islands where such wafer ~supp~ql~qy~i~, did not function;
previously exist shall be prohibited. 3. destruction, harm or harassment ~a~i~qr
(i) Except for public navigation p~rn~qi~qm~qu and endangered or threatened species and habitat;
maintenance dredging for existing channels and 4. preemption of public use;
hasin~s~, any areas dredged to improve or create 5. increasing navigational . hazards and
navigational a ~r ~- shall be incorporated into the congestion;
preempted area of any required lease or be su~qb~qiccl to 6. reduced /degraded aesthetics, and
the payment of a negotiated private casement fee~. 7. adverse cumulative impacts.
~q0) Private residential multi-slip docking (d) EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC BENEFITS:
facilities shall require a lease. ~q1. donation of land, conservation casements.
(k) Aqua~cu~qlLU~r~e and beach r~e~nouri~shmcn~i restrictive covenants or other title interests in ~o~r
activities which comply with the standards ~f~o~qr this contiguous to the aquatic preserve which will
rule chapter and Chapter 18-21, Florida protect or enhance the aquatic preserve-.
Administrative Code~. may be approved by t~qh~e 2~. providing access or facilities for public land
board, but only subsequent to a formal finding o~qf management activities;
compatibility with t~qh~e put of Chapter 2~q5~q8, ~. providing public a~r~g~-~r~q- casements and/or
Florida Statute&. and this rule chapter. facilities, such as beach access, boat ramps, ~c~t~r~-~;
(~q1) Other uses of the preserve, or human activity 4. r~e~noration/~c~nhanc~e~qm~en~t~ara~qlt~er~edh~abi~La~t (or
within the p~r~q=~w~7v~c~, although not originally natural functions, such as conversion or vertical
contemplated, ~qm~ay be approved ~qb~y th~e board, but bulkheads to ripr~ap and/or ~v~e~qm~qu~ti~on for shoreline
only subsequent to a formal f~qindin~qg~'~o~qf compatibility stabilization or r~t~-~cs~L~ab~qii~shm~en~t of shoreline or
with the purposes or Chapter 258, Florida Statutes~, submerged ~V~e~qL~r~e~La~tio~qN
and ~t~'his rule chapter. 5. improving fishery habitat through the
(2) PUBLIC INTEREST ASSESSMENT establishment of artificial ~rc~e~qfs or other such
CR~6qX~qT~2q7~_~qP~L~q1~0qA projects~, where appropriate;
In evaluating requests for the sale- lease or 6. providing s~irwa~r~e pump~ou~t facilities where
~t~rw~L~s~qf~er or interest.. a balancing test will be* utilized normally not ~r~e~qquir~c~c~qE in particular. facilities open
to determine whether the social, economic and/or to the general public;
~c~n~v~qi~r~o~nmc~n~2qW b~en~6qe~i~ts clearly exceed the cam. 7. improvements to water quality such as
(a) GENERAL BENEFIT/COST removal of toxic ~sed~qim~en~t~z~, increased r~qiushin~qg and
C~qF~6qJ~0qT~8qZ~6qR~q1~8qA~. circulation, etc.;
1. any benefits that are balanced against ~th~e ~qS. providing upland dry st~ora~e~ca~san alternative
costs or a particular project shall be related to the to w~c~qu~qli~qp; and
affected ~a~cuatic p~r~e~s~e~r~.~,~r~, 9. marking navigation channels to avoid
~q2. it evaluating the b~enc~qr~i~ts and c~o~qm or each disruption of shallow water habitats.
requ~e~r, specific consideration and w~ci~qght ~shall-bc (3) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
given to th~e quality and ~naLU~qM or the specific (a) All proposed activities in aquatic preserves
aquatic preserve. Projects in t~qh~e less developed, having management plans ~a~qdop~i~c~a by the Board
more pristine aquatic preserves such as must demonstrate that such activities are consistent
Apalachicola Bay shall be subject to a higher with the management plan.
s~6q=dard than th~qe more developed urban aquatic (b) No drilling or oi~6ql, ~0qgas or other such wells
preserves such as Boca Ci~qc~6qL~qra Bay; and, shall be allowed.
3. for pr~qo~2qj~qe~0qms in aquatic preserves with adopted (c) Utility-. -cables, pipes and other such
~qf~6qm~qn~qa~6qg~qern~qe~qnt plans, consistency with the structures shall b~qe constructed and located in a
management plan will be weighed heavily when manner that will cause minimal disturbance ~qt~qo
determining whether the project is in th~qe pubiic submerged land resources such as oyster bars and
i~qn~qt~8q" ~qC~qS . submerged grass beds and do not interfere with
(b) BENEFIT CATEGORIES: traditional public uses.
~8q1. public access (public boat ramps. b~qt~qia~qLs~4ql~2qips~q, (d) Spoil disposal within the preserves shall be
~qc~q1c.~2q)~q; strongly discouraged and may be approved only

164

V.9, p. 692-2U

FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES

(R. 9/88)
18-20.004

structures shall be constructed and located in a
manner that will cause minimal disturbance to
submerged land resources such as oyster bars and
submerged grass beds and do not interfere with
traditional public uses.

(d) Spoil disposal within the preserves shall be
strongly discouraged and may be approved only
where the applicant has demonstrated that there is
no other reasonable alternative and that activity
may be beneficial to, or at a minimum, not harmful
to the quality and utility of the preserve.

(4) RIPARIAN RIGHTS

(a) None of the provisions of this rule shall be
implemented in a manner that would unreasonably
infringe upon the traditional, common law and
statutory riparian rights of upland riparian
property owners adjacent to sovereignty lands.

(b) The evaluation and determination of the
reasonable riparian rights of ingress and egress for
private, residential multi-slip docks shall be based
upon the number of linear feet of riparian shoreline.

(c) For the purposes of this rule, a private,
residential, single docking facility which meets all
the requiremetns of Rule 18-20.004(5) shall be
deemed to meet the public interest requirements of
Rule 18-20.004(1)(b), Florida Administrative
Code. However, the applicants for such docking
facilities must apply for such consent and must meet
all of the requirements and standards of this rule
chapter.

(5) STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR
DOCKING FACILITIES

(a) All docking facilities, whether for a single or
multi-slip residential or commercial, shall be
subject to the following standards and criteria:

1. no dock shall extend waterward or the mean
or ordinary high water line more than 500 feet or 20
percent of the width of the waterbody at that
particular location whichever is less;

2. certain docks may fall within areas of special
or unique importance. These areas may be of
significant biological, scientific, historic and/or
aesthetic value and require special management
considerations. Modifications may be more
restrictive than the normally accepted criteria. Such
modifications shall be determined on a case-by-case
analysis, and may include, but shalll not be limited to
changes in location, configuration, length, width
and height;

3. the number, lengths, drafts and types of
vessels allowed to utilize the proposed facility may
also be stipulated; and

4. where local governments have more stringent
standards and criteria for docking facilities, the
more stringent standards for the protection and
enchancement of the aquatic preserve shall prevail.

(b) Private residential single docks shall
conform to the following specific design standards
and criteria:

1. any main access dock shall be limited to a
maximum width of four (4) feet;

2. the dock decking design and construction will
insure maximum light penetration, with full
consideration of safety and practicality;

3. the dock will extend out from the shoreline no
further than to a maximum depth of minus four
(-4) feet (mean low water);

4. when the water dept is minus four (-4) feet
(mean low water) at an existing bulkhead the
maximum dock length fromt he bulkhead shall be
25 feet, subject to modifications accommodating
shoreline vegetation overhang;

5. wave break devices, when necessary, shall be
designed to allow for maximum water circulation
and shall be built in such a manner as to be part of
the dock structure;

6. terminal platform size shll be no more than
160 square feet; and

7. dredging to obtain navigable water depths in
conjunction with private residential, single dock
applications is strongly discouraged.

1. the area of sovereignty, submerged land
preempted by the docking facility shall not exceed
the square footage amounting to ten times the
riparian waterfront footage of the affected
waterbody of the applicant, or the square footage
attendant to providing a single dock in accordance
with the criteria for private residential single docks,
whichever is greater. A conservation easement or
other such use restriction acceptable to the Board
must be placed on the riparian shoreline, used for
the calculation of the 10:1 threshold, to conserve and
protect shoreline resources and subordinate/waive
any further riparian rights of ingress and egress for
additional docking facilities;

2. docking facilities and access channels shall be
prohibited in Resource Protection Area 1 or 2,
except as allowed pursuant to Section
258.42(3)(e)1., Florida Statutes, while dredging in
Resource Protection Area 3 shall be strongly
discouraged;

3. docking facilities shall only be approved in
locations have adequate existing water depths in
the boat mooring, turning basin, access channels,
and other such areas which will accommodate the
proposed boat use in order to insure that a minimum
of one foot clearance is provided between the deepest
draft of a vessel and the bottom at mean low water;

4. main access docks and connecting or cross
walks shall not exceed six (6) feet in width;

5. terminal platforms shall not exceed eight (8)
feet in width;

6. finger piers shall not exceed three (3) feet in
width, and 25 feet in length;

7. pilings may be utilized as required to provide
adequate mooring capabilities; and

8. the following provisions of Rule
18-20.004(5)(d) shall also apply to private
residential multi-slip docks.

(d) Commercial, industrial and other revenue
generating/income related docking facilities shall
conform to the following specific design standards
and criteria:

1. docking facilities shall only be located in or
near areas with good circulation, flushing and
adequate water depths;

165

(R. 9/88)
18-20.006

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

V. 9, p. 692-2V

2. docking facilities and access channels shall be
prohibited in Resource Protection Area 1 or 2,
except as allowed pursuant to Secitons
258.42(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes; while dredging in
Resource Protection Area 3 shall be strongly
discouraged:

3. the docking facilities shall not be located in
Resource Protection Area 1 or 2; however, main
access docks may be allowed to pass through
Resource Protection Area 1 or 2, that are located
along the shoreline, to reach an acceptable Resource
Protection Area 3, provided that such crossing will
generate minimal environmental impact;

4. beginning July 1, 1986 new docking facilities
may obtain a lease only where the local governments
have an adopted marina plan and/or policies
dealing with the siting of commercial/industrial
and private, residential, multi-slip docking facilities
in their local government comprehensive plan;

5. the siting of the docking facilities shall also
take into account the access of the boat traffic to
avoid marine grassbeds or other aquatic resources in
the surrounding areas;

6. the siting of new facilities within the preserve
shall be secondary to the expansions of existing
facilities within the preserve when such expansion
is consistent with the other standards;

7. the location of new facilities and expansion of
existing facilities shall consider the use of upland
dry storage as an alternative to multiple wet-slip
docking;

8. marina siting will be coodinated with local
governments to insure consistency with all local
plans and ordinances;

9. marinas shall not be sited within state
designated manatee sanctuaries; and

10. in any areas with known manatee
concentrations, manatee warning/notice and/or
speed limit signs shall be erected at the marina
and/or ingress and egress channels according to
Florida Marine Patrol specifications.

(e) Exceptions to the standards and criteria
listed in Rule 18-20.004(5). Florida Administrative
Code, may be considered, but only upon
demonstration by the applicant that such exceptions
are necessary to insure reasonable riparian ingress
and egress.

(6) MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

The board may enter into management
agreements with local agencies for the
administration and enforcement of standards and
criteria for private residential single docks.

(7) In addition to the policies, standards and
criteria delineated in subsections (1) through(6),
the provisions of the following management plans
apply to specific aquatic preserves and are
incorporated herein by reference. Where regulatory
criteria in 18-20, F.A.C., may differ with specific
policies in the management plans listed herein, the
general rule criteria shall prevail.

Date Adopted

Alligator Harbor September 23, 1986
Banana River September 17, 1985

Cockroach Bay April 21, 1987
Estero Bay September 6, 1983
Charlotte Harbor
(Cape Haze,
Gasparilla
Sound-Charlotte
Harbor, Matlacha
Pass and Pine Island
Sound) May 18, 1983
Indian River-Malabar
to Vero Beach January 21, 1986
Indian River Lagoon
(Vero Beach to Fort
Pierce and Jensen
Beach to Jupiter
Inlet) January 22, 1985
Loxahatchee
River-Worth
Creek June 12, 1984
Nassau River-St.
Johns River Marshes
and Fort Clinch
State Park April 22, 1986
North Fork of the St.
Lucie River May 22, 1984
St. Joseph Bay June 2, 1987
St. Marins Marsh September 9, 1967
Terra Ceiz April 21, 1967
Wekiva River August 25, 1987
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.41, 258.42, 258.43(1), 258.44 FS. History-New
2-25-81, Amended 6-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.004,
Transferred from 16Q-20.004, Amended 9-4-88.

18-20.005 Uses, Sales, Leases, or Transfer of
Interests in Lands, or Materials, Held by the
Board.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
253.02, 253.12, 258.42 FS. History-New 2-25-81,
Repealed 8-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.05, Transferred from
16Q-20.005.

18-20.006 Cumulative Impacts. In evaluating
applications for activities within the preserves or
which may impact the preserves, the department
recognizes that, while a particular alteration of the
preserve may constitute a minor change, the
cumulative effect of numerous such changes often
results in major impairments to the resources of the
preserve. Therefore, the department shall evaluate
a particular site for which the activity is proposed
with the recognition that the activity may, in
conjunction with other activities adversely affect the
preserve which is part of a complete and interrelated
system. The impact of a proposed activity shall be
considered in light of its cumulative impact on the
preserve's natural system. The department shall
include as a part of its evaluation of an activity:

(1) The number and extent of similar human
actions within the preserve which have previously
affected or are likely to affect the preserve, whether
considered by the department under its current
authority or which existed prior to or since the
enactment of the Act; and

(2) The similar activities within the preserve

166

V. 9, p. 692-2W

FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES

(R. 9/88)
18-20.012

which are currently under consideration by the
department; and

(3) Direct and indirect effects upon the preserve
and adjacent preserves, if applicable, which may
reasonably be excpected to result from the activity;
and

(4) The extent to which the activity is consistent
with management plans for the preserve, when
developed; and

(5) The extent to which the activity is
permissible within the preserve in accordance with
comprhensive plans adopted by affected local
governmetns, pursuant to section 163.3161, F.S.,
and other applicable plans adopted by local, state,
and federal governmental agencies;

(6) The extent to which the loss of beneficial
hydrologic and biologic functions would adversely
impact the quality or utility of the preserve; and

(7) The extent to which mitigation measures
may compensate for adverse impacts.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.36, 258.43, 258.44 FS. History-New 2-25-81,
Formerly 16Q-20.06. Transferred from 16Q-20.006.

18-20.007 Protection of Riparian Rights.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.123, 258.124(8), 258.44 FS. History-New 2-25-81,
Repealed 6-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.07, Transferred from
16Q-20.007.

18-20.008 Inclusion of Lands, Title to Which
Is Not Vested in the Board, in a Preserve.

(1) Lands and water bottoms which are within
designated aquatic preserve boundaries, or adjacent
thereto and which are owned by other governmental
agencies, may be included in an aquatic preserve
upon specific authorization for inclusion by an
appropriate instrument in writing executed by the
agency.

(2) Lands and water bottoms which are within
designated aquatic preserve boundaries, or adjacent
thereto, and which are in private ownership, may be
included in an aquatic preserve upon specific
authorization for inclusion by an appropriate
instrument in writing executed by the owner.

(3) The appropriate instrument shall be either a
dedication in perpetuity, or a lease. Such lease shall
contain the following conditons:

(a) The term of the lease shall be for a minimum
period of ten years.

(b) The board shall have the power and duty to
enforce the provisions of each lease agreement, and
shall additionally have the power to terminate any
lease if the termination is in the best interest of the
aquatic preserve system, and shall have the power to
include such lands in any agreement for
management of such lands.

(c) The board shall pay no more than $1 per year
for any such lease.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.40, 258.41 FS. History-New 2-25-81. Formerly
16Q-20.08. Transferred from 16Q-20.008.

18-20.009 Establishment or Expansion of
Aquatic Preserves.

(1) The board may expand existing preserves or
establish additional areas to be included in the

aquatic preserve system, subject to confirmation by
the legislature.

(2) The board may, after public notice and
public hearing in the county or counties in which the
proposed expanded or new preserve is to be located,
adopt a resolution formally setting aside such areas
to be included in the system.

(3) The resolution setting aside an aquatic
preserve area shall include:

(a) A legal description of the area to be included.
A map depicting the legal description shall also be
attached.

(b) The designation of the type of aquatic
preserve.

(d) A statement that the area established as a
preserve shall be subject to the management criteria
and directives of this chapter.

(e) A directive to develop a natural resource
inventory and a management plan for the area being
established as an aquatic preserve.

(4) Within 30 days of the designation and
establishment of an aquatic preserve, the board
shall record in the public records of the county or
counties in which the preserve is located a legal
description of the preserve.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.41 FS. History-New 2-25-81. Formerly 16Q-20.09.
Transferred from 16Q-20.009.

18-20.010 Exchange of Lands. The board in its
discretion may exchange lands for the benefit of the
preserve, provided that:

(1) In no case shall an exchange result in any
land or water area being withdrawn from the
preserve; and

(2) Exchanges shall be in the public interrest and
shall maintain or enhance the quality of utility of
the preserve.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.41(5), 258.42(1) FS. History-New 2-25-81,
Formerly 16Q-20.10, Transferred from 16Q-20.010.

18-20.011 Gifts of Lands. The board in its
discretion may accept any gifts of lands or interests
in lands within or contiguous to the preserve to
maintain or enhance the quality and utility of the
preserve.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.42(5) FS. History-New 2-25-81, Formerly
16Q-20.11, Transferred from 16Q-20.011.

18-20.012 Protection of Indigenous Life
Forms. The taking of indigenous life forms for sale
aor commercial use is prohibited, except that this
prohibition shall not extend to the commercial
taking of fin fish, crustacca or mollusks, except as
prohibited under applicable laws, rules or
regulations. Members of the public may exercise
their rights to fish, so long as not contrary to other
statutory and regulatory provisions controlling such
activities.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.43(1) FS. History-New 2-25-81, Formerly
16Q-20.12, Transferred from 16Q-20.012.

167

(R. 9/88)
18-20.017

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

V. 9, p. 692-2X

18-20.013 Development of Resource
Inventories and Management Plans for
Preserves.

(1) The board authoriezes and directs the division
to develop a resource inventory and management
plan for each preserve.

(2) The division may perform the work to
develop the inventories and plans, or may enter into
agreements with other persons to perform the work.
In either case, all work performed shall be subject to
board approval.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
253.03(7), 253.03(8) FS. History-New 2-25-81,
Amended 6-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.13, Transferred from
16Q-20.013.

18-20.014 Enforcement. The rules shall be
enforced as provided in Section 258.46.
Specific Authority 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.46 FS. History-New 2-25-81. Formerly 16Q-20.14.
Transferred from 16Q-20.014.

18-20.015 Application Form.
Specific Authority 253.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.43 FS. History-New 2-25-81. Repealed 6-7-85.
Formerly 16Q-20.15. Transferred from 16Q-20.015.

18-20.016 Coordination with Other
Governmental Agencies. Where a Department of
Environmental Regulation permit is required for
activities on sovereignty lands the department will
coordinate with the Department of Environmental
Regulation to obtain a copy of the joint Department
of Army/Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation permit application and the biological
survey. The information contained inthe joint
permit application and biological assessment shall
be considered by the department in preparing its
staff recommendations to the board. The board may
also consider the reports of other governmental
agencies that have related management or
permitting responsibilities regarding the proposed
activity.
Specific Authority 253.43(1) FS. Law Implemented
258.43 FS. History-New 2-25-81. Formerly 16Q-20.16.
Transferred from 16Q-20.016.

18-20.017 Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve. In
addition to the provisions of Rules 18-20.001
through 18-20.016, the following requirements
shall also apply to all proposed activities within the
Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve. If any provisions of
this Rule are in conflict with any provisions of Rules
18-20.001 through 18-20.016 or Chapter 73-534,
Laws of Florida, the stronger provision for the
protection or enhancement of the aquatic preserve
shall prevail.

(1) No further sale, transfer or lease of
sovereignty lands in the preserve shall be approved
or consummated by the Board, except upon a
showing of extreme hardship on the part of the
applicant or when the board shall determine such
sale, transfer or lease to be in the public interest.

(2) No further dredging or filling of sovereignty
lands of the preserve shall be approved or tolerated
by the Board of Trustees except:

(a) Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may
be authorized for public navigation projects or for
preservation of the lake according to the expressed
intent of Chapter 73-534, Laws of Florida; and

(b) Such other alteration of physical conditions
as may be necessary to enhance the quality or utility
of the preserve.

(3) There shall be no drilling of wells,
excavation for shell or minerals, and no erection of
structures (other than docks), within the preserve,
unless such activity is associated with activity
authorized by Chapter 73-534, Laws of Florida.

(4) The Board shall not approve the relocations
of bulkhead lines within the preserve.

(5) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act,
the board may, respecting lands lying within the
Lake Jackson basin:

(a) Enter into agreements for and establish lines
delineating sovereignty and privately owned lands;

(b) Enter into agreements for the exchange and
exchange sovereignty lands for privately owned
lands;

(c) Accept gifts of land within or contiguous to
the preserve.
Specific Authority 258.39(26)FS. Law Implemented
258.39(26), 258.43 FS. History-New 6-7-85. Formerly
16Q-20.017. Transferred from 16Q-20.017.

168

"JIMNIIIIIIIIII
3 6668 14104 0479 :