North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve Management Plan

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

NORTH FORK-ST, LUCIE RIVER

AQUATIC PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

- Adopted May 22, 1984

QH
90.75
16
G57
1984
c.2 Department of Natural Resources

S, -4L

kJL NORTH FORK ST.* LUCIE RIVER
U@
AQUATIC PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Dr. Elton J. G4ssendanner
Executive Director
Department of Natural Resources

Division of Recreation and Parks

Bureau of Environmental Land Management

Preparation of this report was primarily supported by a
grant from-the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
the Office of Coastal Management, through the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 as amended.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The North Fork of the St. Lucie River is unique on the southeast coast of
Florida. With the exception of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River,
no other river in this region has so much of its floodplain preserved. The
combination of subtropical climate, unusual vegetation mixture and wilderness
qualities in the midst of major residential development make this preserve
distinctive.

A wide variety of fish and wildlife are found in this preserve and contribute
to its productivity. The preserve has provided critical habitat for water
birds during past droughts and important habitat for many endangered species.
The preserve is one of the last remaining freshwater/estuarine wilderness
areas in this region of Florida.

The major objectives of the aquatic preserve management program are to manage
the preserve to ensure maintenance of essentially natural conditions, and to
restore and enhance those conditions which are not in a natural condition.
Management will also be directed to ensure public recreational opportunities
while assuring the continued propagation of fish and wildlife. This task will
be guided by the identification and mapping of natural resources and habitats
necessary to meet these objectives. An additional management objective is the
review and comments on applications for the use of state-owned submerged lands.
This will require, in a fully implemented management program, the onsite
investigation of these proposed uses by field personnel assigned to the
aquatic preserve. These field personnel are critical to the realistic
management of this aquatic preserve.

STATE OF FLORIDA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N

WHEREAS, the Board of-Trustees bf the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is

charged with the acquisition, administration, management, control, super-

vision conservation, protection, and disposition of all lands title to which

is vested in the Trustees under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, directs that state-owned

submerged lands within aquatic preserves be set aside forever in their

essentially natural or existing condition for the benefit of future

generations; and

WHEREAS, the Trustees are charged with the adoption and enforcement of

reasonable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of Sections

258.35 through 258.46, Florida Statutes, regarding the regulation of human

activity within the aquatic preserves so as not to unreasonably interfere with

lawful and traditional public uses of the preserves;

WHEREAS; Section 16Q-20.13, Florida Administrative Code, mandates the

development of management plans for aquatic preserves; and

WHEREAS, the Trustees desire to serve the public by effectively planning,

managing and protecting aquatic preserve; and

WHEREAS, the Trustees recognize the importance and benefits of protecting

the natural resources and preserving the natural ecosystem of the aquati-c

preserves in the North ForK-St. Lucie River area, and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund hereby adopts the North Fork-St. Lucie River Aquatic

Preserve Management Plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Trustees designate the North Fork-St.

Lucie River Aquatic Preserve as a "wilderness preserve" , wherein the primary

management objective will be the maintenance of these ecosystems in an

essentially natural state; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the North Fork-St. Lucie River Aquatic

Preserve Management Plan shall serve as a fundamental policy guideline for the

Trustees and other state and local agencies having jurisdiction relative to

maintaining the North Fork-St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve system, and shall

provide the overall policy direction for the development and implementation of

all administrative rules and programs related to the management of state-owned

submerged lands within the North Fork-St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Department of Natural Resources, Divi$ion

of Recreation and Parks, is hereby designated as agent for the Trustees for

Purposes of aquatic preserve planning and management.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF THE Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust Fund have hereunto subscribed their names and have caused the Official

Seal of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to be

hereunto affixed in the City of Tallahassee, The Capitol, on this the 22nd

day of May A.D.; 1984.

Governor

Secretary of State

Commissioner of Education @Ito rney General

Commis/oner of Ag.riculture Comptroller

As and Constituting the State of

Florida Board of Trustees of the Treasurer

Internal Improvement Trust Fund

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

II. MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY .......................................... 7

III. MAJOR PROGRAM POLICY DIRECTIVES ........................ 6 ...... 19

IV. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION .......................... 6 ............... 23

A. Geologic Features and Landforms ........ 6 .................. 24

B. Community Associations .................................... 24

C. Archaeological and Historical Sites ....................... 33

D. Water Resources .... 6 ...................................... 42

E. Cultural .......................................... 6........ 44

V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ....................................... 6 ... 47

A. Introduction ............................ 6 ................. 47

B. Onsite Management Objectives ......... 6 .................... 48

C. Resource Mapping and Resource Protection Areas ............ 68

D. Administrative Management Objectives ...................... 71

VI. MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK ..... 6 ................ * ...... 79

A. Federal .......................................... 6........ 79

B. State ..................................................... 82

C. Regional ........................ 6 ......................... 87

D. Local Governments and Special Districts ................... 89

E. Other Entities ............................................ 92

Table of Contents (Continued)

CHAPTER Page

VII. PUBLIC USES ................................................... 93

A. -Consumptive Uses .......................................... 93

B. Non-Consumptive Uses ...................................... 94

VIII. PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL USES ................................... 95

IX. COMMERCIAL USES ............................................... 99

A. Traditional Commercial Uses ............................... 99

B. Non-Traditional Commercial Uses ........................... M

X. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ........................................... 103

XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ....................................... 105

XII. IDENTIFIED PROGRAM NEEDS ...................................... 107

A. Acquisition of Additional Property ........................ 108

B. Boundary Problems and Systems Insufficiences .............. 108

C. Legislative Needs ............................ 4 ............ 109

D. Administrative Rule Changes ............................... 109
E. Data (Information) Needs .................................. flo

F. Resource Protection and Enforcement Capabilities .......... 110

G. Funding and Staffing Needs ................................ 111

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................... 113

CONTENTS OF APPENDICES ............................................... 117

vii

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

This management plan addresses the North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve

(Figure 1) in southeast Florida, approximately 40 miles northwest of West

Palm Beach and two miles northwest of Stuart. The surface water area of

the preserve is approximately 5,000 acres while the North Fork-St. Lucie

River's drainage basin encompasses 333 square miles. The major portion of

the preserve is within St. Lucie County, with a small portion in Martin

County. A large section of the preserve lies within the city of Port St.

Lucie.

The preserve encompasses the majority the northern fork of the St. Lucie

River which eventually flows into the Atlantic Ocean at the St. Lucie

inlet. The preserve is generally in freshwater at the northern boundary

and seasonally brackish to saline in the southern portion, with the

majority of preserve in brackish water for most of the year. The

vegetation in the preserve is equally varied in both fresh and salt water

types, and also varied in temperate and tropical type vegetation. Red and

white mangroves are dominant in the lower southern reaches of the preserve,

while extensive hardwood swamps are found in the freshwater of the upper

northern reaches.

The climate in this region is subtropical, with an annual rainfall of

approximately 51 inches. The majority of this rainfall occurs from June

to October (the wet season) as a result of convective thunderstorm events

(Miller, 1978). The subtropical climate is an important factor in

sustaining the great diversity of plant life within the preserve area.

The North Fork-St. Lucie River is supplied with freshwater from the Five-

mile and Tenmile Creeks that flow through the central portion of St. Lucie

County. The North Fork also serves as an outlet for two major drainage

canals (C-23 and C-24). These canals drain the agricultural areas of

western and southwestern St. Lucie County and northwestern Martin County.

The North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve is designated and managed as a

wilderness preserve. The overall emphasis of the managemerLt will be on

maintaining and enhancing the existing wilderness condition. As more site

specific information becomes available, essentially natural conditions

shall be identified and resources in disturbed areas restored to that

condition where possible. This plan advocates a multiple use approach to

management due to the extensive and diverse uses within the North Fork-St.

Lucie Aquatic Preserve. These uses include boating, fishing and swimming.

As there are currently no onsite staff resources, the management program in

this aquatic preserve will be restricted in the scope of operations. Field

support will be furnished on an interim basis by the Florida Park Service

and other state agencies, when possible.

19 1 20 21 22 2 19
PREPARED By T E. WILLIAM3
OIVISIO* OF LAND MANAGEMENT
"a
"'Tromm , to I
29 as 27 t 2

C.
lk
cl,

34 as 1 32 33 54 35 32

T35S
T36S
widwy i
Read
2

AIA tp
9 7 0 10 12

W I IT
to is . . . . . . . . . .
I
Is IT 14 13

22 23 24 19 24 Is
0

27 A I
26 as

S 2

SCALE IN MILES
. . . . . . . . . .*-.--.-...'
T369
. . . . . . . . . . .
T375 5

?A
-J@

PORT ST LUCIE
10

ST. LUCIE CO.
c-
RTIN Co.

17 Is

LEGEND

COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE 2
n CORPORATE LIMITS 21
21 22
INTRACOASTAL. WATERWAY
PAVED ROAD N" TYPE
U@ S. NUMKRED H"WAY
29 v to STATE, WIGH
WAY 27 20 27
30 29 as
AQUATIC PRESERVE AREA
-t-'00

34 35

LOCArl
ON
bVC1E RIV
rx
STUART

MAP OF
?soft NORTH FORK. ST LUCIE AQUATIC PRESERVE
Aron" AQUATIC PRESERVE A- 13
t@it @j
v

ST LUCIE MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
CREATED BY
SWE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL impRovEmEmT TRUST FUND
OC70SER 21.1969
RESOLUTION ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2. 1971

However, this limited program will fill the minimum need for active

management in the preserve and should provide the framework for future

program growth. The administrative support for this management program

will be provided by the Division of Recreation and Parks' Bureau of

Environmental Land Management in Tallahassee, known as the "central

office". On-site staff experience and additional resource information will

likely lead to modifications (i.e., additions and deletions) of the program

and plan, which are both designed to accommodate such changes or at least

identify areas needing improvement.

Initially, the resource inventory will be heavily dependent on LANDSAT

satellite imagery, and existing scientific and other literature. As the

program proceeds and on-site managers.are.present, a better knowledge of

the resources within the preserve and how man interacts and affects them

will develop.

This plan is divided into chapters according to their management

application. Chapter II cites the authorities upon which this management

program and plan are built. Chapter III (Major Program Policy Directives)

highlights the major policy areas that are within this plan. Chapter IV

presents a brief resource description and references of the appendices

which contain more detailed information on the resources.

Ch apter V presents the management objectives of both the on-site managers,

who actually work in the preserve, and the administrative staff in

Tallahassee.

Chapter VI (Management Implementation Network) addresses how this plan will

interface with local, regional, state, and federal agencies and programs;

as well, as its relevance to non-government organizations, interest groups,

and individuals.

Chapters VII through IX address the various resource uses, from public to

private to commercial. Chapters X and XI address the use of the aquatic

preserve for scientific research and environmental education, respectively.

Chapter XII is an internal management improvement section identifying

problems and needs in the progressive improvement of this aquatic preserve

management plan.

This plan was written by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of

Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Environmental Land Management staff.

Funding for the plan was by a coastal management grant (CM-78) through the

U.S. Department of Commerce' National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, and the

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal

Management.

Chapter II

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Chapter 258, F.S., clearly establishes the proprietary management overview

role of the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund are variously referred to as the "Trustees" or the

"Board". Furthermore, all management responsibilities assigned to the

Trustees by this plan may be fulfilled directly by the Governor and Cabinet

or indirectly via staff or agents of the Trustees, pursuant to delegations

of authority, Management agreements, or other legal.mechanisms. All

subsequent references to the Board or Trustees should, therefore, be

presumed to potentially include staff and designated agents, in addition to

the Governor and Cabinet.

In many respects, the authorities available supporting aquatic preserve

planning and management are the cumulative result of the publics' awareness

of the importance of Florida's environment . The establishment of the

present system of aquatic preserves is a direct outgrowth of public concern

with dredge and fill activities rampant in the late 1960's.

The North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve was adopted by the Trustees on

March 30, 1972, by resolution. The boundary line of Figure 1 represents

the gross boundary of the aquatic preserve. The actual preserve includes

those sovereignty submerged lands located waterward of the mean high water

and ordinary high waterline within this boundary area.

In 1967, the Florida Legislature passed the Randall Act (Chapter 67-393,

Laws of Florida), which set up procedures regulating previously

unrestricted dredge and fill activities on state-owned submerged lands.

That same year the legislature also provided statutory authority (Section

253.03, F.S.) for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund (the Governor and Cabinet) to exercise proprietary control over

state-owned lands. In 1967, this governmental focus on protecting

Florida's productive estuaries from the impacts of development led to the

Governor and Cabinet imposing a moratorium on the sale of submerged lands

to private interests. In that same year, this action was followed by the

creation of.an Interagency Advisory Committee on submerged lands

management. In late 1968, that Committee issued a report recommending the

establishment of a series of aquatic preserves. Twenty-six separate

waterbodies were addressed in the original recommendation.

Also in 1968, the Florida Constitution was revised, declaring in Article

II, Section 7, the State's policy of conserving and protecting the natural

resources and scenic beauty of the state. That constitutional provision

also established the authority for the Legislature to enact measures for

the abatement of air and water pollution.

It was not until October 21, 1969 that the Governor and Cabinet acted upon

the recommendations of the Interagency Advisory Committee and adopted, by

resolution, 18 of the water bodies as aquatic preserves. Other preserves

were similarly adopted at various times through 1971.

Prior to the October 1969 action by the Governor and Cabinet, the

Legislature had created the Boca Ciega Aquatic Preserve. Subsequent

Legislative action in 1972, 1973 and 1974, created the Pinellas County,

Lake Jackson and Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves, respectively.

In 1975, the Legislature established a Florida Aquatic Preserve Act

(Codified in Chapter 258 of the Florida Statutes), thereby bringing all

existing preserves under a standardized set of maintenance criteria.

Additional acts were passed subsequent to the 1975 action, such as the

addition of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve in 1976 and the Gasparilla

Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve to the system in 1978.

The primary authorities available to staff in implementing management

directives affecting aquatic preserves are found in Chapters 258 and 253,

Florida Statutes. These authorities stipulate a lead responsibility for

the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund. Acting as "agents" for the Trustees, the staff of

the Bureau of Environmental Land Management (BELM) is able to review all

requests for uses of/or directly affecting state-owned sovereignty

submerged lands within aquatic preserves. The review and subsequent staff

comments are primarily geared toward the environmental consequences of any

proposed use of state-owned submerged land. The review is conducted within

the confines of the criteria contained in the "maintenance" provisions for

aquatic preserves in Chapter 258, Florida Statutes.

Formal review comments are provided to the Department of Natural resources,

Division of State Lands by the Bureau of Environmental Land Management for

inclusiorr in the comments and recommendations accompanying agenda items for

Trustees consideration. This mechanism allows the Governor and Cabinet,

sitting as owners of the land, to evaluate public interest and project

merits within the context of environmental impact upon the preserve.

Chapters 16Q-21 and 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code, are two

administrative rules directly applicable to the Department of Natural

Resources/Trustee's actions regarding allowable uses of submerged lands, in

general, and aquatic preserves specifically. Chapter 16Q-21, F.A.C.

controls activities conducted on sovereignty submerged lands, and is

predicated upon the provisions of Sections 258.03 and 253.12, F.S. 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 sov&reignty

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."

Chapter 16Q-20, F.A.C. addresses the aquatic preserves and derives its

authority from Sections 258.35, 258.36, 258.37, and 258.38, F.S. The

intent of this rule is contained in Section 16Q-20.01, F.A.C., which

states:

(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 Section

258.39, 258.391, 258.392, F.S., and in 16Q-20.02,

F.A.C., 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) 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

these waters such as swimming, boating, and

fishing;

management programs, which are compatible with

:i2

the intent of the Legislature in creating the

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, 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 preserve;

(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,

mud flats, estuarine, aquatic and marine mammals,

birds, shellfish and mollusks:

i3'.

(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 beneficial hydrologic and biologic

functions, the benefits of which accrue to the public at

large."

The Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, approved by the

Trustees on May 18, 1983 was the first management plan for an aquatic

preserve. The Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan was approved on

September 6, 1983.

The State Lands Management Plan, adopted on March 17, 1981, by the Governor

and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust Fund, contains specific policies, the Plan-also establishes policies

concerning spoil islands, submerged land leases, "Outstanding Native

Florida Landscapes", unique natural features, submerged grassbeds,

archaeological and historical resources, and endangered species. All of

these issues provide management guidance to the aquatic preserve program.

Other Department of Natural Resources management authorities applicable to

aquatic preserves include fisheries and marine mammal management and

protection, and beach and shore preservation programs outlined in Chapters

370 and 161, F.S. Land acquisition programs conducted under the

Environmentally Endangered Lands authorities of Chapter 259, F.S., or the

Conservation and Recreation Lands Program authorized by Chapter 253, F.S.,

will enhance the protection of the natural resources within the aquatic

preserves.

Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is an important adjunct to Chapter's 253 and

258, F.S. This governs, in part, the State's regulatory programs affecting

water quality. The Department of Environmental Regulation, through a

permitting and certification process, administers this program. Section

253.77, F.S. requires that all state regulatory agencies, such as the

Department of Environmental Regulation, have evidence of approval of the

requested use from the Trustees, prior to issuing permits for projects

utilizing state-owned land. This statutory directive provides an avenue

for staff comments on potential environmental impacts of projects in

aquatic preserves through the Department of Environmental Regulation

permitting process. Additionally, the Department of Environmental

Regulation has designated, by administrative rule, a series of waterbodies

with stringent use criteria called "Outstanding Florida Waters" (OFW). The

inclusion of all aquatic preserve waters within this classification greatly

enhances the protective provisions of Chapter 258, F.S. As the designated

"306" Coastal Zone Management Agency, the Department of Environmental

Regulation also provides a source of funding for data collection and

planning in areas such as the North Fork-St. Lucie River, as well as being

the state agency responsible for implementing the "federal consistency"

provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Department of Environmental Regulation's administrative rules of

primary significance to the aquatic preserve management program include

Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Both rules are

based upon the authorities contained in Chapter 403, F.S. Chapter 17-3,

F.A.C. addresses water quality standards and establishes the category of

"Outstanding Florida Waters", while Chapter 17-4 F.A.C. addresses permit

requirements.

In December, 1982 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the

Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Natural

Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was executed. This MOU

clearly establishes a process whereby the proprietary concerns of the

Trustees, stated in Chapter 253, F.S. can be integrated into the Department

of Environmental Regulation/Corps of Engineers joint permit processing

system.

Other opportunities for environmental review and input into activities

potentially affecting aquatic preserves are afforded by the Department of

Community Affairs, and the Department of State, Division of Archives,

History, and Records Management. The Executive Office of the Governor

also provides a mechanism for public input into federal projects via the

State clearinghouse process.

The Department of Community Affairs is statutorily responsible for

administering the "Development of Regional Impact" (DRI). The DRI program,

authorized by Section 380.06, F.S., was established by the Legislature to

provide a review and monitoring procedure for those development projects

potentially affecting more than one county.

Chapter 267, F.S. establishes the state policy regarding preservation and

management of Florida's archaeological and historical resources. This

responsibility is legislatively assigned to the Department of State,

Division of Archives, History and Records Management, which holds title

to those cultural resources located on state-owned lands. This also

applies to sovereignty submerged lands, including aquatic preserves.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, under their public

mandate, administer two programs directly affecting the aquatic preserve

management program. These programs are (1) septic tank regulation, usually

administered by county health departments and (2) arthropod (mosquito)

control programs, usually implemented through local mosquito control

districts. Each of these programs holds the potential for creating

significant impacts upon the aquatic preserves. Establishment of close

working relationships between the aquatic preserve staff and the Department

of Health and Rehabilitative Services will be a necessary element of the

aquatic preserves management program.

Each of the above referenced programs may provide an effective means of

protecting aquatic preserves and their ecologically sensitive resources.

Appendix A contains a compendium of the appropriate statutes and

administrative rules.

Chapter III

MAJOR PROGRAM POLICY DIRECTIVES

This plan contains a number of management policy issues that are discussed

either generally or definitively. This section highlights those major

policy areas that comprise the basic thrust of this management effort.

Adoption of these policies will provide specific staff direction for

implementing the day-to-day aquatic preserve management program.

(A) Prohibit the disturbance of archaeological and historical sites within

the aquatic preserve, unless prior authorization has been obtained from the

Board of Trustees and Division of Archives, History, and Records

Management, and such disturbance is part of an approved research design or

authorized project.

(B) Manage all submerged lands within the aquatic preserve to ensure the

maintenance of essentially natural conditions, the propagation of fish and

wildlife, and public recreation opportunities.

aquatic preserve, with an emphasis on those habitat types utilized by

threatened and/or endangered species.

(D) Protect and, where possible, enhance threatened and endangered species

habitat within the aquatic preserve.

(E) Prohibit development activities within the aquatic preserve that

adversely impact upon significant grass beds, unless a prior determination

has been made by the Board of overriding public importance with no

reasonable alternatives, and adequate mitigation measures are included.

M Prohibit the trimming and/or removal of mangroves and other natural

shoreline vegetation (freshwater swamp) within the aquatic preserve, except

when necessitated by the pursuit of legally authorized projects.

(G) Provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and

other interested researchers within the framework of a planned research

program in the aquatic preserve.

(H) Acquire, where feasible, privately owned submerged lands located

within the boundaries of the aquatic preserve pursuant to the authorities

contained in Section 253.02(4) F.S.

(I) Prohibit the drilling of oil and gas wells, the mining of minerals,

and dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining upland fill within the

aquatic preserve.

M Prohibit non-water dependent uses of submerged lands within the

aquatic preserve except in those cases where the Board has determined that

the project is overwhelmingly in the public interest and no reasonable

alternatives exist. This prohibition shall include floating residential

units, as defined in Section 125.0106(2), F.S.

W Prohibit storage of toxic, radioactive, or other hazardous materials

within the aquatic preserve.

(L) Prohibit mosquito control practices within the aquatic preserve that

require habitat modification or manipulation (i.e. diking, ditching) unless

failure to conduct such practices would result in a threat to public

health.

(M) Limit pesticide and biocide use within the aquatic preserve to those

that are approved by E.P.A. for wetland and aquatic application.

W Prohibit the construction of new deep water ports within the aquatic

preserve boundaries.

(0) Insure that artificial reef construction does not adversely impact

environmentally fragile areas within the aquatic preserve and that the

construction will maintain the essentially natural condition while

enhancing the quality and utility of the preserve.

(P) Manage state-owned spoil islands within the aquatic preserve as bird

rookeries and wildlife habitat areas.

(Q) Encourage public utilization of the aquatic preserve, consistent with

the continued maintenance of its natural values and functions.

(R) Develop a well coordinated aquatic preserve management mechanism

that recognizes and utilizes local government programs and authorities.

(S) Require through the efforts of DER and the water management districts

the maintenance of the naturally high water quality of the estuary and

ensure the natural seasonal flow fluctuations of freshwater into the

estuary.

(T) Formally recognize and designate the North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic

Preserve as a wilderness preserve in accordance with the provisions of

Section 16Q-20.13(d), F.A.C. This designation recognizes that the flood-

plain of the North Fork-St. Lucie River has been disturbed in the past by

channel dredging, and extensive hydroperiod alteration, and that future

development activities in that floodplain may be permissible, but only to

the extent that the river system and floodplain vegetation are not further

degraded.

(U) Apply the management criteria contained in the adopted North Fork-

St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve Management Plan to all subsequent legislative

additions of land to the aquatic preserve.

(V) Encourage the assistance of federal, state, and local government

agencies in implementing the aquatic preserve management plans, especially

in the areas of protection of natural and cultural resources and the

enforcement of applicable resource laws and ordinances.

Chapter IV

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION

The North Fork-St. Lucie River is unique on the southeast coast of Florida.

With the exception of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, no other

river in this region has so much of its floodplain preserved. The combination

of the subtropical climate, unique vegetation mixture and wilderness qualities

combined in the midst of major residential development make this preserve

distinctive. The wilderness designation of the North Fork-St. Lucie River

Aquatic Preserve is based primarily on the outstanding characteristics of the

floodplain vegetation, associated species habitat, and the presently existing

natural appearance and functions of the river in relation to adjacent east

coast rivers.

A wide variety of fish and wildlife are found in this preserve and contribute

to its productivity. The preserve has provided critical habitat for water

birds during past droughts (Dan Cary, personal communication). The preserve

is also an important habitat for many endangered species. The preserve serves

as one of the last remaining freshwater/estuarine wilderness areas in this

region of Florida.

Detailed information on the resources, such as species lists, water quality

data, archaeological and historical site information, life histories,

geological background, supporting maps, plus cultural resource information are

located in Appendices C and D. The resource information presented in this

chapter is intended to be generally descriptive of the major management

functions and of the area surrounding the riverine and estuarine complex.

A. Geological Features and Landforms.

The North Fork-St. Lucie River separates the Atlantic Coastal Plain to the

east from the Eastern Flatwoods to the west. A major portion of the

freshwater drainage flows from the extensive agricultural areas within the

Eastern Flatwoods. The Eastern Flatwoods is a monotonously flat region with

drainage mainly underground, through fine surface sands. The improved

drainage system for agricultural purposes allows runoff to reach the St. Lucie

River faster than was historically possible. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge to

the east of the preserve, is a low ridge of relatively permeable fine to

medium sand. These areas have historically flooded less frequently than

inland areas (Lichtler, 1960). The St. Lucie River is the major breach in

this area of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge which allows freshwater to flow to the
Indian River and eventually to the Atlantic Ocean.

B. Community Associations.

The plant communities of the North Fork-St. Lucie are a major factor in the

continued health and productivity of the natural systems of the preserve.

Five major community associations are recognized in the Preserve: mangrove,

freshwater swamp, marine grassbeds, tidal flats and deep water areas. Each

community is described separately although in reality these communities are

sometimes-mixed or overlap. The predominate animal species associated with

these plant communities and endangered species with in this preserve are

subsequently identified.

Mangroves. The four species of mangrove trees in the lower North

Fork-St. Lucie River area represent the dominant vegetational association.

The mangroves range from twelve to forty feet in height and generally inhabit

the low energy shorelines of the St. Lucie River estuary system.

The four species of mangroves occurring here are the red mangrove (Rhizophora

mangle) both in and near the water at low tide level; black mangrove
(Avicennia germinansl generally inland of, but some-times mixed with reds;

white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) generally upland of but also mixed

with blacks; and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) upland of and mixed with

whites. These mangrove association species generally indicate areas of

frequent (red mangrove) to infrequent (white mangrove) saline inundation.

There are many variations of the mangrove commu nity within the area. The

major variation is the fringe mangrove which occurs along the shorelines of

the embayments, rivers, streams and other waterways. All four species can

appear in this variation, both in zones and mixed as described above. There

are also areas of overwash mangrove areas, where the mangroves are standing in

water with little or no associated uplands. This variation is generally

dominated by red mangroves (Odum et al., 1982). There are a few other

variations that appear in more inland areas both along natural drainage

channels and sometimes isolated from the normal tides. These communities have

a wide variety of mangrove species mixture and also might include scrub or

dwarfed forms of the mangroves. Communities that become completely isolated

from tidal influence often lead to the death of the more saline tolerant

species as the waters and soils become less saline. The mangrove species have

various root structures, (i.e., prop roots and pneumatophores - the ae@ating

root spikes of the blacks) and extensive underground root mats which capture

and stabilize sediments in the estuarine waters and function as an erosion

control buffer in other areas.

These root networks recycle nutrients and minerals from the anerobic soil

substrate by returning them to the estuary as detritus from the mangrove

leaves. This is the primary basis of the estuary's food chain and

productivity (Heald and Odum, 1970). The mangrove canopy and root tangle also

provide valuable habitat for many marine and estuarine organisms (Savage,

1972). The entire community also functions to buffer the uplands from storm

tides and winds, and as a storage area for those waters.

The mangrove community types and various locations indicate that they can

adapt to many situations, but they are susceptible to both natural and man-

induced disturbances. The natural disturbances can come from freezing

temperatures, hurricanes, new pass formations or a rise in sea level.

Hurricane damage, although not experienced in the recent past, is a potential

threat to these communities.

Man's more subtle influence on the mangrove communities is not as fully

understood as the natural forces that cause the direct removal or killing of

the trees. The effects of changing the upland drainage pattern, both by

bulkhead placement and drainage canals, need much more study.

Protection of the mangrove communities in the preserve will be a major task of

this plan's management activities. The majority of the mangrove communities

in the preserve are already in public ownership by their location on sovereign

lands. The policies and practices of this management are addressed in Chapter

V, Section B.

Other vegetation associated with the mangrove communities include: salt grass

(Distichlis spicata); black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus); spike rush
(Eleocharis cell6losa); cordgrasses (Spartina spp); glass wort (Salicornia

spp.); sea purslane (Sesuvium Portulacastrum); salt wort (Batis maritima); and

sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens).

The tree canopies and root tangles provide habitat for various animals. These

community types are utilized by a wide variety of invertebrates, fishes,

amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.

2. Freshwater Swamp Forest.. The floodplain of the upper reaches of the

preserve, including the creeks and sloughs flowing into the preserve, is

vegetated by freshwater swamp plant species. These areas, also known as swamp

hammocks, are formed on the natural levees and dikes that form the shoreline

of the river. The soils in these areas are deep organic muck which are

saturated and often flooded. This generally forested swamp is made up of

dense stands of maple, water ash, sabal palm, sweet bay and laurel oak. The

tree limbs and understory in these areas are heavily vegetated in ferns,

vines, orchids, and bromeliads (Teas, 1971). These freshwater swamp forests

are the best examples of the plant mixtures of temperate and tropical type

vegetation (Table I). These areas are also the major reason for the

wilderness classification of the preserve.

TABLE I

PLANT LIST FOR THE FRESHWATER SWAMP

Psilotum nudum whisk fern
Ophioglossum palmatum hand fern
Osmunda Regalis royal fern
Vittaria lineata shoestring fern
Polypodium polypodioides resurrection fern
Phlebodium aureum golden polybody
Nephrolepsis exaltata Boston fern
Acrostichum danaeaefolium leather fern
Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern
Woodwardia virginica chain fern
Thelypteris palustris wood fern
Thelypteris interrupta wood fern
Campyloneuron phyllitides strap fern
Osmunda cinnomomea cinnamon fern
Panicum joorii
Cladium Jamaicensis saw grass
Serenoa repens saw palmetto
Sabal palmetto sabal palm
Peltandra virginica arrow arum
Colocasia esculentum taro
Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss
Tillandsia recurvata ball moss
Tillandsia fasciculata air pine
Tillandsia setacea needle leaf air pine
Tillandsia utriculata giant air pine
Tillandsia balbisiana reflexed wild pine
Smilax bona-nox greenbrier
Smilax laurifolia bamboo vine
Crinum americanum string lily
Encyclia tampensis butterfly orchid
Saururus cernuus lizard's tail
Salix caroliniana willow
Myrica cerifera wax myrtle
Carya aquatica water hickory
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
Quercus nigra water oak
Ficus aurea strangler fig
Morus rubra mulberry
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
Annona glabra pond apple
Dioscorea blubifera yam vine
Eyrthrina herbacea coral bean
Bursera simaruba gumbo limbo
Schinus terebinthifoliusa Brazilian pepper

Table I (continued)

Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy
Ilex cassine dahoon holly
Acer rubrum maple
VTT-is-rotundifolia grape
TF-is shuttlewoFt-hii calusa grape
Urena lobata caesar weed
Psidium guajava guava
Ludwigia peruviana primrose willow
Cornus foemina stiff cornel dogwood
Myrsine guianensis myrsine
Fraxinus caroliniana water ash
Callicar-Pa 'americana beauty berry
Bacopa monnieri water hyssop
Cephalanthus occidentalis button bush
Psychotria undata wild coffee
Psychotr-ia -s-u-r-zneri wild coffee
Sambucus simpsoni i elderberry
Amorpha fruticosa bastard indigo
Diospyros Virginiana persimmon

Source: General Development Corporation, 1980, and Maggy Hurchalla, pers. comm.

3. Marine Grassbeds. Marine grasses are submerged flowering plants which

stabilize sediments, entrap silt, recycle nutrients, provide shelter, habitat

and substrate for animals and other plant forms, provide important nursery

grounds, and are important direct food sources (Odum, 1974; Wood et al.,

1969). The grassbeds are very productive, possibly the most productive

habitat within the estuary. These beds serve as a food source for the

endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus), as vital nursery areas for juvenile

forms of shellfish, and as substrate for many algal species fed on by

invertebrates which are.in turn eaten by the fishes. Many commercially

important fishes spend at least part of their life in these grassbeds (Zieman,

1982).

Marine grassbeds are a primary vegetation community and will be used as a key

indicator in measuring the natural condition of the aquatic preserve.

Protection of existing and restoration of historic marine grassbeds will be a

major consideration in the field and administrative review of use proposals

(See Appendix D).

Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) is the only significant marine grass in the

North Fork-St. Lucie River area (Phillips, et al., 1960). This is due to the

low salinities in this area due to its location at the mouth of the freshwater

river. Another major factor for the lack of other marine grass types might be

the heavy sediment loading of the system which has been indicated in the

literature (Van Os, et al., 1980).

4. Tidal Flats. These areas in the estuarine system describe a wide variety

of habitats that may have sporadic vegetation from the previous three

communities or no vegetation (vascular) at all. There is extensive algal

growth in these areas. The tidal flats are used primarily by shore and wading

birds as feeding and loafing areas (Barnett et al., 1980). These areas are

also valuable habitat for invertebrates, including crabs, oysters, and worms.

The role of these various tidal flat areas is not fully understood but it is

known that they are important habitats.

These areas, consisting of estuarine beaches, areas waterward of the

mangroves, spoil areas, shoal areas, and mud flats, are important to the

estuary in as much as they contribute to the algal production. The mollusk,

crustacean, and worm communities feed on both the algae and materials from the

other plant communities of the estuary. The bird life is dependent on these

areas for feeding and some of these flat areas surround their nesting sites.

5. Deep Water Areas. These areas within the preserve include: channels,

rivers, creeks, and other deep water areas. These areas are important to the

estuary's tidal exchange. These deeper waters also allow predator fish

access to the river. The bottle-nosed dolphin and manatee are important

mammals potentially found in these areas.

6. Animal Life. The animal life in and associated with the North Fork-St.

Lucie Aquatic Preserve is as diverse as the vegetation of the area. The

animal life of the lower areas of the preserve area are estuarine related and

those of the upper areas freshwater and hammock related. There are also

species visiting this area during migrations, daily feeding and times of

environmental stress (i.e. drought, storms, development activities).

Table 2 represents those animal species that are found within the preserve's

boundary during usual circumstances. Additional species lists can be found in

Appendix C.

7. Endangered Species. The combination of the subtropical climate, diverse

vegetation and habitats, and waterbodies in the North Fork-St. Lucie River

area has resulted in a high incidence of endangered animals and vegetation

species. The plant species found in Table 3 are from the official State of

Florida Plant List (Section 581.185, F. S.). The animal species in Table 4

are from the official lists as designated by the Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission. Critical habitat and food sources such as the Acrostichum

danageifolium giant leather fern which the manatee sometimes feed on, will be

protected.

C. Archaeological and Historical Resources

There are many sites along the North Fork that offer the environmental

characteristics necessary for prehistoric or Indian settlements. That is

assuming that the present conditions, also occurred in that time period. The

drainage activities in the region may have altered this area producing those

characteristics. There have also been many activities, such as agriculture

and timbering, that have disturbed these areas.

The North Fork was used by the Seminole Indians as a transportation route

linking the St. Lucie River area with the lower St. Johns River marshes to the

TABLE 2

ANIMAL SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THE NORTH FORK-ST.LUCIE AQUATIC PRESERVE

AMPHIBIANS

Siren lacertina Greater siren
PseudobrancFu-sstriatus Narrow-striped dwarf siren
Amphiuma means Two-toed amphiuma
Notopthalmus viridescens Peninsula newt
Eurycea qua ridigitata Dwarf salamander
Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrow-mouthed toad
Bufo terrestris Southern toad
Bufo querc cus Oak toad
Hyla .cinerea Green treefrog
@q_
Hyla uirella Squirrel treefrog
Limnaoedus ocularis Little grass frog
A @ris j@nyll'us Florida cricket frog
Muthrodactylus plantrostris Greenhouse frog
Rana grylio Pig frog
Rana utricularia Southern leopard frog

REPTILES

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle
Sternotherus odoratus Musk turtle
Kinosternon bauri Striped mud turtle
Chrysemys nelsoni Florida red-bellied turtle
Terrapene -E-arolina bauri Florida box turtle
Trionyx ferox Florida softshell
Anolis carolinensis Green anole
CnemidoRhorus sexlineatus Six-lined racerunner
Sciencella lateralis Ground skink
Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined
skink
Nerodia fasciata Florida water snake
Thamnophis sirtalis Eastern garter snake
Thamnophis sauritus Peninsula ribbon snake
Storeria dekayi Florida brown snake
Diadophis punctatus Southern ringneck snake
Opheodrys aestivus Rough green snake
Coluber constrictor Southern black racer
Drymarchon corais Eastern indigo snake
Mphe spp. Rat snakes
Lompropeltis spp. King snakes
Micrurus fulvius Eastern coral snake
Agkistrodon piscivorus Florida cottonmouth
Sistrurus miliarius Dusky pygmy rattlesnake

Table 2 (continued)

BIRDS

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga
Ardea Herodias Great blue heron
Casmerodius albus Great egret
Bulbuleus ibis Cattle egret
Egretta tricolor Louisiana heron
Eqretta coerulea Little blue heron
Butorides striatus Green heron
Eudocimtjlq afFu-s White ibis
Anatidae Ducks
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Coragyps atratus Black vulture
Butco jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Butco lineatus Red-shouldered hawk
Butco pTa-typterus Borad-winged hawk
Circus cyaneus Marsh hawk
Pandion hahetus, Osprey
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Gallinola chloropus Common gallinule
Fulica americana American coot
Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo
Otus asio Screech owl
Asio flammeus Short-eared owl
Strix varia Barred owl
Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher
Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker
Centorus carolinusi Red-bellied woodpecker
Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Iridoprocne bicolor Tree swallow
Hirundo rustica Barn swallow
Cynocitta cristata Blue jay
Coryus brachy Fc7hnos Common crow
Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren
Mimus polyglottus Mockingbird
Dumetella carolinensis Catbird
Turdus migratorius Robin
Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing
Virco griseus White-eyed vireo
Mniotilta varia Black-and-white wa rbler
Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler
Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler
Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat
ParuMdae (_@a_ny spp.) Warblers
Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark
Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird
Quiscalus major Boat-tailed grackle
Cardini-lis cardinalis Cardinal

Table 2 (continued)

MAMMALS

Didelphis marsupialis Opossum
ryptotis parva Least shrew
Scalopis aquaticus Eastern mole
Vespertilionidae Bats
Dasypus novemcinctus Armadillo
Sylvilagus palustris Marsh rabbit
Sylvilagus fTo-ridanus Cottontail rabbit
Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel
Oryzomys pafustris Rice rat
.Procyon lotor Raccoon
Lutra canadensis River otter
Mephitis -m-e`pF"i-tT*s Striped skunk
Urocyon cineroargenteus Gray fox
Lynx rufus Bobcat
Sus scrofa Feral pig
Odocoile-u-s virginianus Whitetail deer

Source: General Development Corporation, 1980 modified.

TABLE 3

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES FOUND IN THE NORTH FORK-ST. LUCIE
AQUATIC PRESERVE

ENDANGERED

Ophioglossum palmitum Hand fern

THREATENED

Psilotum nudum Wisk fern
@@ittarialineata Shoestring fern
Phlebodium aureum Golden polypody
@r@qie is exaltata Boston fern
Acrostichum danaeaefolium Leather fern
Thelypteris palustris Shield fern
Thelypteris interrupta Shield fern
Salvinia rotundifolia Water fern
Till'andsia fasciculata Air pine
Tillandsia utriculata Giant air pine
Tillandsia setacea Needle leaved air pine
Enyclia tampensis Butterfly orchid
Annona glabra Pond apple

Classification from the Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act
(Section 581.185, Florida Statutes)

TABLE 4

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED ANIMAL SPECIES
EXPECTED IN THE NORTH FORK-ST. LUCIE
AQUATIC PRESERVE

ENDANGERED

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon
ncteria americana Wood stork
Trichechus manatus latirostris Carribbean manatee

THREATENED

Caracara cherwu auduboni Audubon's caracara
Drymarchon corals couperi Eastern indigo snake
Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern kestrel
Haliaectus leucocephalus Bald eagle

SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

Alligator ississip lensis American alligator
m'
Tr-amus guarauna pictus Limpkin
Florida caerulea Little blue heron
Hydranassa tricolor Louisiana heron
Leucophoyx thula Snowy egret

Classifications from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Section 39-27.02-.05, Florida Administrative Code, July 15, 1983.

northwest. The Seminoles were believed to use these routes in seasonal

hunting excursions from the St. Johns Marshes to Hutchinson Island. There

they would hunt bear and manatee. The North Fork was also used in the

Seminole Wars of the 1800's. Large military forces are believed to have

traveled through this area during the 1838 winter campaign of General Jesup

during the Second Seminole War (Clausen et al., 1979).

D. Water Resources.

Water is the one resource whdse characteristics most directly affect this

estuary's habitability and healthiness for the plants and animals naturally

adapted to living there. The drainage basin of the entire St. Lucie River has

been modified by agricultural drainage and residential development. The North-

Fork-St. Lucie River receives the outfall of two major drainage canals (C-23

and C-24) and many other drainage sources in the upper headwaters. The

freshwater flow from the St. Lucie Canal on the South Fork may also affect the

North Fork indirectly. The uplands surrounding the preserve area are also

modified by the extensive Port St. Lucie residential development and the other

residential developments along the river. The North Fork was also modified by

the U. S. Army during World War II. Those modifications involved the

straightening and channelization of the upper section of the river

(Environmental Quality Laboratory, 1980). The result of all of these

modifications to the river and its basin is that rainfall that may have taken

months to get to the river by natural drainage now takes only hours. The

river that once meandered through a broad floodplain now flows down a deep

channel. Water quality is generally fairly good for the preserve. The

preserve does act as a treatment system for the water quality problems both

upstream and from upland discharges (Davis, 1982).

The basic characteristics of the water in the North Fork vary in response to

daily, seasonal, and long term forces which are related to the area's climate.

Added to this are the artificial conditions of large releases of freshwater

from the canals and the water quality problems associated with agricultural

and urban development. The Fivemile and Tenmile Creeks in the upper reaches

of the North Fork are now being developed as the city of Fort Pierce grows.

The River appears to have an abnormally high sedimentation level (Van Os,

1980). Other water quality problems have been noted.

The combination of the extensive Department of Environmental Regulation
monitoring and water management studies by the South Florida Water Management

District have the potential for the development of a comprehensive water

quality plan for the North Fork. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

has also developed wetlands protection policies that will be helpful in

protecting the floodplain of the North Fork. More and more data is being

gathered on this system, filling data gaps and developing knowledge of how the

system works, and how best to protect this system. The North Fork has been
described as a system that is "holding its own" (Davis, 1982). With the

pressures of increased development in the basin this condition may not

continue without careful management.

E. Cultural

This section addresses the human influence and development of this area, as it

affects the aquatic preserve. The 1980 U.S. Census population for Martin

County was 64,014 and St. Lucie County was 87,182. The 1982 populations for

those counties respectively were 71,635 and 100,984. This represents a 11.9

and 15.8 percent increase, respectively (Terhune, 1983). The increase in

population for Port St. Lucie is 55.8 percent, from 14,690 in 1980 to 22,887

in 1982. This graphically indicates that the population increases with

increased residential development in the immediate area are quite significant.
The pressures on the St. Lucie River syste"m from this growth increase the

potential for water quality degradation.

The section of the North Fork that flows through the City of Port'St. Lucie

has remained generally intact with the exception of the effects of the canals

projecting off the river. There are a few areas in this middle section which

still may receive development. That part of the preserve north of Port St.

Lucie extending to the preserve's northern boundary has received only minor

residential development,, but has been modified for agriculture. The southern

section of the preserve, below C-23, has the majority of the eastern shoreline

developed. The western shoreline is presently receiving extensive development

pressure.

There are two major Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) along the river

corridor: Sharrett on the northwest boundary and Harbor Ridge on the southwest

A A

boundary. Both developments have received approvals. The Sharrett

development has a projected population of over 22,000 people. The Harbor

Ridge projected population is over 1,700.

The North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve area is presently undergoing a great

deal of development. The corridor along the preserve will probably be fully

developed in the next ten years if the present growth trends are maintained.

The North Fork river basin is also receiving extensive growth pressure west of

Fort Pierce. The river is presently indicating a tendency toward increased

water quality degradation and the projected growth will further stress the

river's viability in the future.

Chapter V

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

A. Introduction

The main objective of the resource management plan in the aquatic preserve is

to protect the resources of the aquatic preserves for the benefit of future

generations (Section 258.35, F.S.). The North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve

is designated as a wilderness preserve and the management will be directed

toward the maintenance and enhancement of that condition. This part of the

management plan addresses the policies and procedures that the onsite and

administrative personnel will pursue. The onsite personnel in this respect

are described as the field personnel. The full realization of the field

personnel's duties and responsibilities will not be realized until the Bureau

of Environmental Land Management has established onsite personnel in this

area. During the interim period the Florida Park Service and other state

agencies will fill the minimum field needs for the review of applications for

use of state owned lands and related activities. Section B will fully apply

only as onsite personnel are assigned to this preserve. The administrative
management will involve Bureau ,of Environmental Lands Management personnel

(both in the field and in Tallahassee) and Division of State Lands personnel,

cooperating in the review of applications for use of state owned lands and

related activities surrounding the preserve. The field personnel will be

interacting with various government and non-government entities, interest

groups, and individuals..

B. Onsite Management Objectives

The onsite management objectives are reflected by the activities that the

staff become involved in (i.e., observation, research, public interaction,

emergency responses, etc.) to protect and enhance the resources within the

aquatic preserve. Other activities, such as the interaction with other

government and non-government entities, are covered in more detail in Chapter
VI (Management Implementation Network). The field personnel's duties, with

respect to management of the various uses of the aquatic preserve, are

addressed in more detail in Chapters VII through XI.. The field personnel will

generally be involved in all management activities concerning the North

Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve.

1. Plant Communities

The communities of aquatic and wetland plants within the Preserve perform five

major functions vital to the health and productivity of the estuarine system:

a. they tend to stabilize geologic features in the face of dynamic

forces (i.e. currents, tides-, winds, and waves), which often

act in concert to both erode and deposit;

b. they create, from recycled nutrients and solar energy, the

organic material that fuels the estuarine food web which

supports the area's fisheries, endangered species, migratory

waterfowl, colonial waterbird nesting colonies, raptors, marine

mammals and marine and estuarine invertebrates;

c. they provide protected fisheries h6bitat for spawning and

juvenile development;

d. they provide roosting and nesting habitat for water birds;

and,

e. they physically buffer estuarine waters from contaminated

and channelized runoff from uplands within the estuarine

watershed and in some cases buffer the uplands from storm

waves and winds.

The management objectives for plant communities will be to maintain and

enhance these functions. Because these plant communities are critically

important to the well-being of the Preserve, the field personnel will

develop a program to work toward the restoration of plant communities

now damaged or destroyed by human activities and to prevent such damage in the

future.

Management Policy

a. Field Familiarization and Documentation. Aquatic preserve field personnel

will become familiar with the plant species and communities present in the

aquatic preserve, and locations of their occurrences.

b. Literature Familiarization.. Field personnel will assemble a working

library of existing pertinent literature concerning the species and

communities present in the aquatic preserve. Staff will become familiar with

the ranges, life histories, ecological requirements, productivity, importance

to water quality, contribution to landform stabilization, wildlife habitat

provision, fisheries habitat provision, and fisheries food production of the

plant communities within the aquatic preserve.

c. Preparation of Guidelines for Management of Endangered Species. Field

personnel, based on their field observations and literature reviews, will

develop maps (using 7.5 minute quadrangles) showing the locations of

threatened and endangered plant species within the aquatic preserve. A set of

management guidelines for each species, outlining the habitat requirements and

the methods to sustain and/or restore these habitats will be developed. Field

personnel, in the course of documenting the occurrence of threatened and

endangered animals, will develop maps showing the locations and types of plant

communities used by these animals for nesting, roosting, feeding, resting,

spawning, etc. Literature information and personal observations will then be
used to develop guide-lines to maintaining (or restoring if necessary) the

"critical habitat" required by each species.

d. Monitoring of Plant Communities for Natural Changes. Field personnel will

become familiar with the use of aerial photography and LANDSAT imagery, for

the study and monitoring of plant communities and will use this remote sensing

in conjunction with field observations to monitor and document natural changes

such as:

1. freeze damage to and recovery of mangrove communities:

2. wind and wave damage to mangrove communities from storms and

hurricanes;

3. accretion-related seaward extension of mangrove communities;

4. erosion-related landward retraction of mangrove communities;

5. depositional burying of sea grass communities;

6. invasions of exotic plant species and revegetation by native

species after exotic removal projects; and

7. pathogen damage to and recovery of plant communities.

e. Identification of Areas and Communities in Need of Restoration. Field

personnel will, as time permits, systematically survey the aquatic preserve to

determine the location, nature, and extent of environmental damages from human

activities and assess the possibility of restoring each of the sites according

to whether the site i@ publicly or privately owned, and the cost and effort

required.

f. Protection of Plant Communities. Field personnel shall protect the plant

communities from the various uses of sovereign lands within the aquatic

preserve according to the following guidelines.

1. Field personnel in their biological reports shall not recommend

for approval any proposed use for sovereignty submerged lands

when the plant communities in the proposed use area appear to

be jeopardized.

i. Pruning of mangroves shall only be permitted for access

from the mean high water line to a dock or pier. The

destructive clearing of mangroves in sovereignty lands

shall be strictly prohibited.

ii. Sea grass communities shall,not be removed or shaded to

such an extent as to cause the death of a significant

area of the community or subjected to unacceptable

turbidity, decreased light penetration, propeller or net

damage.

2. Field personnel shall be notified of applications for uses of

submerged lands within the aquatic preserve by the Bureau

of Environmental Land Management central office. No applica-

tions will be approved within Class 1 and 2 Resource Protection

areas (see section B(6) of this chapter) without a thorough

review by the field personnel. The field personnel will

inspect the site, assess the potential impacts to the plant

communities, and then convey their recommendations to the

central office as required.

3. Field personnel will initiate various educational programs

and supplement existing educational programs designed to

increase public awareness of the damage recreational, private

and commercial uses (i.e., propeller damage) can inflict on

seagrass communities.

4. Field personnel will develop an exotic plant control and

removal plan after monitoring the rate and extent of invasion

by exotic species, such as Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and

melaleuca.

5. In cooperation with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning

Council, field personnel will familiarize themselves with the

results of a study under the Coastal Energy Impact Program, in

assessing the potential impacts of an oil tanker spill or

drilling rig accident on the natural resources of St. Lucie

estuary.

g. Restoration of Plant Communities. Field personnel will consult with

professionals in the wetlands restoration/revegetation field to determine the

advisability of using healthy beds of marine grasses as a stock source to

restore damaged grassbeds. They will develop guidelines for restoring marine

grassbeds in the aquatic preserve.

Field personnel will identify easily accessible mangrove communities within

the aquatic preserve where a high density of mangrove seedlings could serve as

a nursery stock source for transplanting to restoration sites. Field personnel

will consult with professionals in the wetlands restoration/revegetation field

concerning proven procedures for transplanting and nurturing mangroves, and

will develop guidelines in restoring mangrove communities in the aquatic

preserve.

In the event that plant restoration is required as the result of a permit

application with DER, or as a result of any other process, the field personnel

will be responsible for monitoring the restoration activity. This might

include advising the individuals involved in the actual restoration work on

the best techniques under the available restoration guidelines. The field

personnel will monitor the success of the restoration project after the work

is completed.

h. Identification of Research Needs. Field personnel will identify research

needs concerning plant communities within the aquatic preserve with special

emphasis given to data needs that would increase the capability of field

personnel to manage plant communities under environmental stress, and to

determine threshold tolerances for plant community health and diversity in

relation to degraded environmental conditions.

i. Coordination with Other Researchers: Field personnel will become faniliar

with research projects being conducted within the aquatic preserve by state

and federal agency biologists and-non-government researchers, and will offer

logistical and professional assistance with data collection in the field, as

time permits. This familiarization and assistance should lead to a better

understanding of both other agencies' personnel and a better awareness of the

data findings and uses. The research liaison will also be addressed in

Chapter X (Scientific Research).

2. ANIMAL LIFE

The richness of the animal life of the North Fork-St. Lucie is a major reason

for the designation of the aquatic preserve. The fish, shrimp, and crabs

within the the aquatic preserve are valuable resources on which recreational

and commercial fisheries depend. The large area of undisturbed wetlands is

excellent habitat for many types of wildlife. These wildlife include

extensive list of endangered species, migratory waterfowl, colonial waterbird

nesting invertebrates and vertebrates.

Management objective for animal life within the aquatic preserve will be that

of protection through preservation of their habitats and living conditions in

the most natural condition possible.

MANAGEMENT POLICY

a. Field Familiarization and Documentation. Field personnel will become

familiar with.the major animal species in each habitat in the aquatic

preserve. This identification process will include the location, number,

season of sighting, weather conditions and any other factors which may be

necessary to build a working knowledge of the species, and their interaction

and occurrence in the aquatic preserve.

b. Literature Familiarization. The field personnel will assemble a working

library of existing literature concerning the major animal species and

communities within the aquatic preserve. The field personnel will become

familiar with life histories, ecological requirements, position in the

community, habitat and other factors necessary to their management.

c. Preparation of Guidelines for the Management of the Endangered Species

Within the Aquatic Preserve. The field personnel will become familiar with

the guidelines of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources' Division of Marine

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and any other applicable agencies

and non-government organizations involved in the management of endangered

species. These guidelines will be used in conjunction with the field

familiarization, documentation, and mapping to develop management guidelines

for each endangered species within the aquatic preserve. Special guidelines

shall be developed and implemented for the management of areas within the

aquatic preserve that are identified as critical habitat for endangered

species.

d. Monitoring of Animal Species for Changes Due to Natural Causes.

Field personnel will study and monitor changes in animal species that are

caused by natural phenomena, such as:

i. freezes;

ii. storms and hurricanes;

iii. changes in habitat due to changes in plant types; and

iv. geologic or hydrologic changes including.erosion,

estuarine current flow changes, and any other physical

changes.

e. Protection of Animal Life From Human Uses of the Aquatic Preserve.

Field personnel, during the process of resource impact analysis in the review

of use applications in or affecting the preserve, shall consider the

protection of animal species. The review shall also consider the potential

effects of the proposed use on the plant communities as they function as

habitat for the animal life and uses that may cause a disturbance in the

natural activities and functions of the animal life (e.g., air pollution,

excessive noise or bright lights affecting a bird rookery). The field

personnel should be notified of any proposed activities (e.g., seismic

testing, mammal capture by permit) within the aquatic preserve as they might

relate to the well being of animal life and be involved in planning the

activity so as to cause the least amount of stress on animal life.

f. Identification of Research Needs. The field personnel in the course of

their duties shall identify research needs required to improve the management

of animal life in the aquatic preserve. This identification process is more

fully described in Chapter XII (Identified Program Need). Data/Information

Needs.

3. GEOLOGIC FEATURES

The management of geologic features will require the field personnel being

aware of the natural geologic features and the changes, both human and

natural, which affect these features within the aquatic preserve to better

enable a review of applications for state-owned land uses that might affect

these features. These geologic features will include islands, shoals,

shorelines, embayments, and channels. The overall objective of the management

of these features is to allow the naturally dynamic system to operate without

man s influence or interference. Active management in this area shall include

the review of proposed uses that might affect the geologic features within the

aquatic preserve. The majority of these reviews will probably concern

bulkheads as they might affect state-owned lands. The objective in the

placement of bulkheads on lands upland of the aquatic preserve shall be that

the natural contour and drainage be altered to the least amount practicable.

The use of rip rap with mangrove or other suitable native plantings would be

preferable to bulkheads within the preserve. Bulkheads are not allowed

within the preserve, except as stated in Sections 258.42(2), and 258.44 F.S.

and in accordance with the management objectives of the preserve.

The field personnel shall also be involved in the review of project proposals

submitted to other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or water

management district, and shall formally review.and comment on any permit

application that impacts the aquatic preserve. These projects shall be

reviewed jointly with those agencies' personnel whenever possible. Channel

maintenance and drainage canal placement and.operation are examples of such

projects. The field personnel will review these projects on behalf of the

aquatic preserve and its resources.

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES

Archaeological and historical sites have several characteristics which must be

recognized in a resource management program.

i. They are a finite and non-renewable resource.

ii. Each site is unique because individually it represents the

tangible remains of events which occurred at a specific time and

place.

iii. While these sites uniquely reflect localized events, these

events and the origin of particular sites are related to

conditions and events in other times and places. They also

preserve traces of past biotic communities, climate, and other

elements of the environment that may be of interest to other

scientific disciplines.

iv. These sites, particularly archaeological sites, are very fragile

because their significance is derived not only from the

individual artifacts within them, but especially from the

spatial arrangement of those artifacts in both horizontal and

vertical planes.

A. Administering Agency. The management of the archaeological and historical

sites is authorized and administered by the Division of Archives, History and

Records Management (DHARM) in the Florida Department of State. The management

authority for this area of management is presented in Chapter II (Management

Authority).

B. Management Policy. The management policy presented here is one of

conservation, recommended by the Division of Archives, History and Records

Management, and subject to that agency's changes. Their policy is as follows:

1. The field personnel and all other agencies planning activities

within the aquatic preserve shall coordinate closely with DAHRM in

order to prevent any unauthorized disturbance of archaeological

and historical sites that may exist on the affected tract. DAHRM

is vested with the title to archaedlogical and historical resources

abandoned on state lands and is responsible for administration and

protection of such resources (Section 267.061(l)(b), F.S.). It is

illegal to destroy or otherwise alter sites on state lands without a

permit from DAHRM (Section 267.13, D.S.). Therefore, agencies

planning activities should coordinate their plans with DAHRM at a

sufficiently early stage to preclude inadvertent damage or destruc-

tion to these resources.

2. The nature of these sites' fragility and vulnerability to looting and

other destruction requires that the location of these sites not be

widely known if the location is known at all. In many instances

DAHRM will have knowledge of the known and expected site distribution

in an area. Special field surveys for unknown areas may be required

by DAHRM to identify potential endangerment of a proposed activity to

these archaeological and historical sites. This will be especially

necessary in the case of activities contemplating ground disturbance

over large areas.

3. In the case of known sites, activities that are expected to alter or

damage these sites shall alter their management or development plans

as necessary, or make special provisions so as not to disturb or

damage such sites prior to professionally acceptable and authorized

mitigation.

4. If in the course of a management activity, or as a result of

development or the permitting of dredge/fill activities, it is

determined that valuable historic or archaeological sites will be

damaged or destroyed, DORM reserves the right to require salvage

measures to mitigate the destructive impact of such activities on

such sites (Section 267.061(l)(b), F.S.). Such salvage measures

shall be accomplished before DAHRM would grant permission for site

destruction.

5. Excavation of archaeological sites in the near future is discouraged.

Archaeological sites within the aquatic preserve should be left

undisturbed for the present, with particular attention devoted to

preventing site looting by "treasure hunters".

6. Field personnel will note suspected sites for future surveys by

DAHRM. Cooperation with other agencies in this activity is also

encouraged by DAHRM. The DAHRM will help inform the field personnel

about the characteristics and appearance of these sites.

7. Any discovery of instances of looting or unauthorized destruction of

these sites will be reported to the DAHRM so that appropriate action

may be initiated. The Florida Marine Patrol and other enforcement

personnel of DNR shall provide enforcement assistance to DAHRM and

make arrests or investigate cases of looting or other unauthorized

destruction of archaeological sites. The field personnel will follow

the above management policy and become familiar with the personnel

involved with this task in DAHRM and their procedures for identifying

suspected sites.

5. WATER RESOURCES

Responsible management of water resources for the protection of human health

and recreational enjoyment of aquatic preserve waters, as well as for the

protection and enhancement of the preserves' plant and animal communities, is

without a doubt the most critical aspect of aquatic preserve management.

Research to understand how human activity can alter or detrimentally affect

the dynamic characteristics of the preserve's various habitat can be

approached confidently after monitoring data has been used to model the

effects of naturally occurring variations on the same habitat. Only a single

toxic substance may be necessary to initiate irreparable ecologically damaging

changes in the water resources of the aquatic preserve since they function as

one hydrologic system supporting a biologically interdependent estuarine

ecosystem.

Management Policy

The successful management of the water resources of the aquatic preserve

depends heavily.on other government agencies (i.e., Department of Environ-

mental Regulation and the Water Management District) charged with regulating

water quality and quantity. The objective of the water resources management

shall be to maintain the naturally high water quality and to ensure the

natural seasonal fluctuations of fresh water into the estuary. Sources of

data on water resources, other than from government agencies, are dependent on

or may be found among colleges, universities, scientific foundations and

private consultants working in the North Fork-St. Lucie area. These various

entities have interests at many different levels and areas within the riverine

and estuarine system, The aquatic preserve management program will manage the

water resources through coordination with these various entitites. The field

personnel will not have the ability to do water sampling, but through the

analysis of the data from these other entities and their own field

observations they will be able to identify water resource problems in the

aquatic preserve.

a. Familiarization with the Jurisdiction, Personnel, and Monitoring Programs

of Government Agencies and Other Entities. Aquatic preserve field personnel

will become thoroughly familiar with the jurisdiction, personnel and moni-

toring programs of other agencies, institutions and corporations involved in

studying, monitoring, regulating and managing water resources within the

aquatic preserve and the drainage basins which provide.fresh water to this

preserve. The drainage basin in this case is the North Fork-St. Lucie

Drainage Basin which flows directly into aquatic preserve waters. Those

agencies known to be working or have potential activities affecting the

preserve are listed below; others may be added as they are identified.

1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

2. St. Lucie County

3. Martin County

4. South Florida Water Management District

5. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

6. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory

7. North St. Lucie Water Control District

8. U. S. Geological Survey

9. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

10. Florida Power and Light Company

11. Florida Institute of Technology

b. Monitoring of Water Resources by Cooperative Data Collection and Review..

Field personnel will: 1. lend cooperative assistance to other agencies

monitoring water resources within the aquatic preserve and its basin;

2. promote coordination among involved agencies in planning monitoring

programs and in evaluating monitoring data; and 3. themselves monitor water

resources within the preserve by reviewing the data collected and compiled by

those agencies as it applies to the aquatic preserve and its resources.

C. Review of Permit and Lease Application for Aquatic.Preserve Uses and
Watershed Activities that would affect the Preserve Water Resources., Field

personnel will review sovereign land lease applications, development of

regional impact reviews, and DER/COE permit applications in cooperation with

other agencies as necessary, and as outlined in Chapter V(C) for their

potential impact on the water resources of the aquatic preserve.

d. Familiarization with and Monitoring of Activities and Users which

Regularly Contribute Pollutants to Preserve Waters. Field personnel will

become familiar with the activities and users which regularly or potentially

contribute pollutants to the waters of the aquatic preserve. This monitoring

will be accomplished directly by field observations and indirectly by review

of other entities' water resources data. Field personnel will encourage and

coordinate with other agencies involved with water resources monitoring to

consider more detailed field monitoring in areas of the preserve where the

incidence of polluting activities is found to be high.

These activities will also be applicable to Chapter X (Scientific Research),

and the coordination through Chapter VI (Management Implementation Network).

The field personnel's onsite presence will be complemented by their reliance

on other agencies and entities for data and regulation. The field personnel

will have the ability to visually monitor water resource crises and phenomena

as they affect other resources.

6. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

Cumulative Impacts are the sum total of major and minor changes or effects

upon a natural system. Taken singularly these effects may not constitute a

notable change in the condition of the natural system, but as these single

changes or uses accumulate, their combined impact may result in a substan-

tive environmental disturbance or degradation of the natural system.

The review of proposed uses in the aquatic preserve from the perspective of

cumulative impact analysis requires a thorough knowledge of the natural system

and the various interactions and dynamics within that system. This aquatic

preserve management program will, with staffing, initiate development of a

cumulative impact analysis program. The evaluation of cumulative impacts

shall include the following criteria (Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.):

"a. 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,

b. the similar activities within the preserve which are

currently under consideration by the Department; and

c. direct and indirect effects upon the preserve and

adjacent preserve, if applicable, which may reason-

ably be expected to result from the activity; and

d. the extent to which the activity is consistent

with management plans for the preserve, when

developed; and

e. the extent to which the activity is permissible

within the preserve in accordance with comprehen sive

plans adopted by affected local governments, pursuant

to Section 163.3161, F.S., and other applicable plans

adopted by local, state and federal government agencies.

f. the extent to which the loss of beneficial hydrologic

and biologic functions could adversely impact the quality

or utility of the preserve; and

g. the extent to which mitigation measures may compensate

for adverse impacts."

The availability of onsite reserve staff who are familiar with the distinctive

characteristics of this system, coupled with their ability to access LANDSAT

imagery and mapping, and other data sources, is the key to development of a

successful cumulative impact analysis program. As cumulative impacts are

-identified for specific areas and/or resources, they will become an integral

part of the project analysis and decision-making process.

7. MANAGEMENT OF ENCROACHMENTS

The management of encroachments in the preserve will concern the unauthorized

placement of structures or other illegal uses in the aquatic preserve. These

encroachments might also include illegal activities associated with an

approved use (e.g., extension of a dock, construction of boat houses, extend-

ing an approved channel).

The management policy for the field personnel, after identification of a

suspected illegal encroachment, will involve a reporting procedure and the

monitoring of the remedial action. After a field identification of suspected

encroachments, field personnel will notify the central office to verify the

title of the property and res7earch the possibility of the use being an

approved activity. Due to the extensive areas involved in the aquatic

preserve, this will be a progressive activity depending on the field

personnel's eventual familiarization with the preserve and the approved uses.

The potential for unauthorized activities in such an extensive area may

possibly require some type of mapping and recording system to assist the field

personnel in their monitoring.

The management action for verified illegal encroachment will be developed by

the agencies specifically involved (i.e., Department of Natural Resources,

Department of Environmental Regulation, etc) the field personnel will assist.

in this process, as necessary, with the field evaluation or other support

activities. The final action will be monitored by the field personnel, at the

direction of the Trustees to the central office. The procedures followed in

these applications will be decided on a case by case basis.

C. RESOURCE MAPPING AND RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS

The efficient description and location of resources within such a large area

requires the use of remote sensing and resource mapping. Both standard aerial

photography and LANDSAT imagery will be used in this preserve in the mapping

of critical resources. LANDSAT imagery will be developed in conjunction with

DNR's Marine Research Laboratory.

The vegetation and land use mapping done in this study will become the basis

for developing a Resource Protection Area management system for the North

Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve. This mapping system will identify and

classify various resources within the aquatic preserve that require protection

by the management program. The vegetation portion of the mapping will be

augmented over time by wildlife and fisheries information (endangered species,

bird rookeries, etc.), archaeological and historical site information and

other resource factors deemed crucial to the continued health and viability of

the aquatic preserve.

The LANDSAT generated mapping will be the basis for the development of a

Resource Protection Area (RPA) mapping program. The RPA mapping system is

based on three levels of resource classification. The Class 1 level will

contain resources of the highest quality. Uses proposed for these areas will

receive the most rigorous review. The Class 1 level will include the

following: marine g'rassbeds; mangrove swamp; freshwater swamp; saltwater

marsh; oyster bars; archaeological and historical sites (upland and

submerged); endangered species habitat; colonial waterbird nesting sites; and

other appropriate factors.

The Class 2 areas will b.e defined as those areas containing the resources of

Class 1, but in a transitional condition compared to Class 1. These resources

will either be building toward Class 1 status or declining to Class 3 status.

Class 2 areas will require careful field review as to the specific area's

sensitivity to each proposed use. In some respects, these areas may be as

sensitive or more so to disturbances as Class 1 areas. The resources of Class

2 will include: marine grassbeds; mangroves in scrub condition or colonizing

new lands; freshwater swamp; salwater marsh colonizing new lands; and other

resources of Class 1 type that fit in the Class 2 condition.

Class 3 areas will be characterized by the general absence of the attributes

of the above two classes. Class 3 areas may have small localized Class I or 2

areas within them. Class 3 will generally have deep water areas or areas with

no significant vegetation or wildlife attributes. These areas will generally

be more suitable traditional aquatic preserve uses.

These RPA maps will require periodic revisions as the onsite managers learn

more about the resource's reactions to man's uses. Scientific research and

other data additions may also require modification of this system. Natural

changes will also require modification of this classification system.

Periodic checking by LANDSAT satellite imagery will become useful for remote

sensing monitoring as its use is more fully developed.

The RPA maps will become a planning tool for both on site and central office

staff. More detailed field review will still be required to supplement this

information on a case by case basis, as necessary.

The initial development, as well as periodic review, will require the support

and assistance of the many other resource regulating and management agencies,

as well as local and regional government entities. Support will also be

required of the colleges, universities, foundations and other interest groups

and individuals.

The RPA mapping will use the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map format for

vegetation and these maps will be attached to the aquatic preserve management

plan in Appendix D.

D. -ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

This section of the chapter addresses the role of the Division of Recreation

and Parks, Bureau of Environmental Land Management's central office, in the

aquatic preserve management planning and implementation process. The central

office's role is generally interpreted within the context of coordinating

activities with the preserve's field personnel. This coordination linkage is

important to many program aspects, including proJect review and evaluation,

local contact initiation, administrative rule development, contractual

services and conflict resolution, not to mention the routine support (payroll,

operating expenses, etc.) usually extended by the central office to the onsite

managers. All program activities identified within this context are designed

to protect and enhance the environmental, educational, scientific, and

aesthetic qualities of the natural systems of the aquatic preserve.

1. Objectives

Specifically, the following administrative objectives are an essential part of

the aquatic preserve management program.

a. To ensure a comprehensive, coordinated review and evaluation of proposed

activities potentially affecting the environmental integrity of the

aquatic preserve.

b. To serve as the link between aquatic preserve field personnel and state

agencies and programs which originate in Tallahassee.

c. To serve as the primary staff in the development of administrative rule

additions, deletions, and revisions.

d. To serve as the administrative staff for contractual agreements and

services.

e. To establish and maintain a conflict resolution process.

f. To review all existing and past activities as to their affect on the

environmental integrity of the aquatic preserve.

2. Project Review and Evaluation

A major element in the administration of an aquatic preserve management system

is the establishment of a thorough project review process. It is the program

intent that the central office staff review all proposed activities requiring

the use of state-owned lands within the preserve.

Sections 258.42 through 258.44, F.S., establish the legal context within which

all proposed uses of the aquatic preserve must be evaluated. Essentially,

these sections require that projects be basicly water dependent or

water-enhanced, not contrary to the lawful and traditional uses of the

preserve, and not infringe upon the traditional riparian rights of the upland

property owner.

The primary mechanism through which proposed uses are reviewed is accomplished

by participation in the state lands management process as established by

Chapter 253, F.S., and modified by Chapter 258, F.S. The central office has

been administratively designated, on October 4, 1982, as an agent of the

Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund, for the purposes of evaluating the environmental

consequences of all proposed uses of state-owned lands within aquatic

preserves. These proposed uses range from private single-family docks and

navigation buoys to large commercial marinas.
I

In conducting the environmental evaluations, the central office staff will

rely heavily upon the most current, readily available data such as LANDSAT

imagery, Department of Environmental Regulation biological reports, and other
data resources (see Appendices C and D). If a proposed activity is legally

consistent with the maintenance criteria outlined in Section 258.42 F.S. and

Chapter 16Q-20, F.A.C., and is generally of negligible environmental concern,

then the project review will likely be conducted in its entirety by the

central office staff, utilizing the generalized environmental data.

The field personnel will be requested to conduct a more detailed environmental

assessment of the project if the central office staff, during the course of

the preliminary application review, determines that the requested use of

state-owned lands may have a significant effect upon the environmental

integrity of the preserve. Copies of all applications received will be

provided to the field personnel for project monitoring and assessment of the

possible cumulative impacts.

Field personnel will be encouraged to establish direct communication links

with the various regulatory and management agencies for purposes of obtaining

advance notification of projects potentially affecting the preserve. All

environmental review and assessments, however, will be channeled through the

central office unless other arrangements have been previously cleared with the

central office.

While the State Lands Management authorized by Chapters 253 and 258, F.S. and

Chapters 16Q-20 and 16Q-21, F.A.C. is expected to be the primary management

implementation vehicle for the aquatic preserve, it is by no means the only

vehicle. Section 253.77, F.S. and the December, 1982 Memorandum of Under-

standing between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental

Regulation and Department of Natural Resources provide direct access to the

permitting process of the Department of Environmental Regulation for the

Department of Natural Resources. The D.R.I. and other regional or state level

review processes represent other implementation mechanisms.. The basic review

approach and the evaluation relationship between the field personnel and the

central office staff will be the same as the case involving the State Lands

Management program.

One aspect of the aquatic preserve review and evaluation program is the

identification of proposed activities that are either generally or specifi-

cally prohibited. Immediately upon review of such project applications, the
central office staff will notify the Division of State Lands (or other program

managers) that the proposed activity is unapprovable for the stated reasons.

For those proposals which are subject to denial due to their adverse

environmental impacts, even though the activity may be permissible, Chapter

258,F.S., specifically provides that:

"(1) No further sale, lease or transfer of sovereignty submerged

lands shall be approved or consummated by the Trustees except

when such sale, lease, oy"transfer is in the public interest.

(2) The trustees shall not approve the waterward relocation or setting

of bulkhead lines waterward of the line of mean high water within

the preserve except when public road and bridge construction

projects have no reasonable alternative and it is shown to be

not contrary to the public interest.

(3) (a) No further dredging or filling of submerged lands shall

be approved by the Trustees except the following activities

may be authorized pursuant to a permit:

1. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized for

public navigation projects.

2. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be a.uthorized for

creation and maintenance of marinas, piers, and docks and

their attendant navigation channels. .

3. Such other alteration of physical conditions as may, in the

opinion of the Trustees, be necessary to enhance the quality

or utility of the preserve or the public health generally.

4. Such other maintenance dredging as may be required for

existing navigation channels.

5. Such restoration of land as authorized by S. 253.124(8).

6. Such reasonable improvements as may be necessary for public

utility installation or expansion.

7. Installation and maintenance of oil and gas transportation

facilities, provided such facilities are properly marked

with marine aids to navigation as prescribdd by federal law.

(b) There shall, in no case, be any dredging seaward of a

bulkhead line for the sole or primary purpose of providing

fill for any area landward of a bulkhead line.

gas rights and permitting drilling from outside the

preserve to explore for oil and gas if approved by the

board.

(d) There shall be no excavation of minerals, except the

dredging of dead oyster shells as approved by the

Department of Natural Resources.

(e) There shall be no erection of structures within the

preserve except:

1. Private docks for reasonable ingress or egress of

riparian owners;

2. Commercial docking facilities shown to be consistent

with the use or management criteria of the preserve;

and

3. Structures for shore protection, approved navigational

aids, or public utility crossings authorized under

subsection (3)(a).

(f) No wastes or effluents shall be discharged into the

preserve which substantially inhibit the accomplishment

of the purposes of this act.

(g) No nonpermitted wastes or effluents shall be directly

discharged into the preserve which substantially

inhibit the accomplishment of the purposes of this act."

Generally, applicants desirous of appealing staff recommendations will have to

follow those appellate procedures outlined in the appropriate authorizing

statutes. In the case of applications requesting the use of state-owned

lands, three appellate procedures are available to the applicant.

Depending upon the type of application submitted, an applicant may:

a. Ask the Governor and Cabinet to overturn an application decision

rendered by the Executive Director of Department of Natural Resources

(or his designee) under a delegation of authority;

b. Request an Administrative Hearing under the procedures outlined in

Chapter 120, F.S.; or

C. Appeal the action of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust Fund to the District Court of Appeals.

3. Liaison Between Field Personnel and Other Interested Parties

One of the most important aspects of the field personnel's job is to establish

a mutually beneficial communication link with pertinent interest groups. The

central office staff will assist the onsite personnel in initially identi-

fying and contacting governmental bodies, special interest groups and

interested individuals requiring aquatic preserve program coordination.

When requested by the onsite managers, the central office staff will assist

in arranging for specialized management expertise not generally available

locally. This may include, for example, such things as arranging for

Archives, History and Records Management to conduct a detailed cultural

resource assessment for certain areas of the the preserve.

4. Administrative Rule Responsibilities.

The central office will provide the staff for any required administrative rule

additions, deletions or revisions arising from the aquatic preserve program.

In all likelihood, the adoption of the individual aquatic preserve management

plans will require amendments to Chapter 16Q-20, F.A.C. to reflect the

preserve management as presented in this plan. Rule revisions will also be

required if the Governor and Cabinet issue changes or additions to existing

Cabinet policy concerning aquatic preserve management or if the Legislature

authorizes substantive amendments to the existing statutory authorities. All

rule development will follow the procedures outlined in Chapter 120, F.S.

CHAPTER VI

MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK

This chapter of the management plan will address the various

relationships of aquatic preserve management to the different government

agencies and programs, and non-government entities, interest groups, and

individuals within the aquatic preserve area. The activities of both field

personnel and central office staff as they relate to these other organizations

wi.11 be presented.

A. FEDERAL

Many federal agencies have property interests, land and wildlife management

programs, research activities, construction activities, and regulation

programs existing or potentially existing within the aquatic preserves. The

objective of the aquatic preserve management program will be to complement the

various activities wherever possible. The field personnel will assist those

federal agencies in areas where they have common goals. The field personnel

and central office staff will also review the federal activities as to their

effect on the objectives of the aquatic preserve management. This review

shall be coordinated through the Department of Environmental Regulation,

Office of Coastal Management for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of

the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

1. United States Fish and Wildlife' Service. The aquatic preserve program

will be involved in the review of proposed preserve uses in conjunction with

the Fish and Wildlife's Division of Ecological Services. This division

reviews dredge and fill requests and other federal level permitting under the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

Another management program in which the field personnel could possibly

interact with the Fish and Wildlife Service is the protection and recovery of

endangered species and bird rookeries within the aquatic preserve. Field

personnel will become involved in using available techniques for this purpose.

2. U S._Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) is

charged with providing technical guidance and planning assistance for the

Nation's water resources development. The COE also provides supervision and

direction to many engineering works such as harbors, waterways and many other

types of structures. Their major responsibility, as it applies to the aquatic

preserve, is the protection of navigable waters, pollution abatement and

maintaining water quality and the enhancement of fish and wildlife.

The COE activities in the North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve include their

involvement with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in the

dredge and fill permitting process, technical oversight of channel and canal

maintenance, and evaluating requests for new channels, canals and other such

public works projects. The field personnel will become familiar with the

various programs, policies and procedures as they apply to the aquatic

preserve. The field personnel and central office staff will also review

activities proposed by the COE for conformance to the objectives of aquatic

preserves management plan. This involvement should begin in the early stages

of project planning in order to facilitate the best protection of the aquatic

preserve possible.

3. U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under the

Department of the Interior, has the responsibility to perform surveys,

investigations, and research pertaining to topography, geology, and the

mineral and water resources of the United States. USGS also publishes and

disseminates data relative to those preceding activities. In the past the

USGS has conducted many studies on various resources in the region.

The field personnel and central office staff will become familiar with these

studies and the data results as they apply to their management activities.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), in cooperation with state and local governments, is the federal

agency responsible for the control and abatement of environmental pollution.

The six areas of pollution within which the EPA is concerned are air, water,

solid waste, noise, radiation and toxic substances. The Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation (DER) is the state agency responsible for handling

most of these programs on a state level in lieu of a federal program. Within

the aquatic preserve, the field personnel will assist the EPA in planning

field activities in which they may be involved and where there are common

goals.

5. U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard is the federal agency involved in

boating safety, including search and rescue when necessary. The Coast Guard

is also charged with the permitting of structures which affect navigation and

boating safety. These structures include bridges, causeways, aerial utilities

and other structures which may be in conflict with navigational uses. The

field personnel, in conjunction with the central office staff, will also

review projects which the Coast Guard may be evaluating for permits.

6. National Marine Fisheries Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) under the U.S. Department of Commerce is active in the St. Lucie River

area in recording commercial fish landings. The NMFS also has enforcement

officers in the area checking for illegal fishery activities. The field

personnel will work with these personnel whenever they have common goals

within the aquatic preserve.

B. STATE

Many state agencies have programs which affect the resource or regulate

activities within the aquatic preserve. There are also other programs within

the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that are within or affect the North

Fork-St. Lucie area aquatic preserve. This section will describe the

interactions and relationships of these various agency programs and how they

relate to aquatic preserve management.

1. Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department of Environmental

Regulation (DER) is responsible for regulating air and water quality and, in

some cases, water quantity (through the water management district) within the

North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve. The DER is also the local contact for

the initiation of dredge and fill applications in conjunction with the COE and

DNR. With respect to water quality and dredge and fill regulation, the DER is

possibly one of the most important agencies to the management of the aquatic

preserve. The water quality of the preserve is the most important factor to

the health of the estuarine complex, and dredge and fill activities are one of

the most potentially destructive activities within the preserve. The DER also

regulates other forms of pollution, such as air, noise, wastewater and hazard-

ous waste, which may be important in the future to the preserve.

The field personnel will become familiar with the water quality, dredge and

fill, and other regulatory programs that are important to the aquatic

preserve. The field personnel should develop a close working relationship

with DER staff and become familiar with DER field activities and programs that
are in common with the objectives of the aquatic preserve management program._
The field personnel should open the most efficient line of communication with

the local offices to receive the permit applications from DER as soon as

possible to improve the response time within the review process.

The DER, Office of Coastal Management is charged with coordinating activities

related to coastal management in the state and @eviewing federal actions for

consistency with the State Coastal Management Program, Section 380.20, F.S.

The central office staff will maintain a close relationship with the Office of

Coastal Management for assistance in the review of federal actions, data and

research needs, and other program support.

2. Department of Community Affairs. The Department of Community Affairs is

responsible for reviewing Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). DRI's are

major developments that have impacts on a scale which is greater than county

level and require a regional review from neighboring local governments and

state agencies. Both the central office staff and field personnel of the

aquatic preserve program will be involved in reviewing DRI's. The field

personnel should receive notice of a DRI through the central office staff and

will proceed with the field review. The central office staff will coordinate

the field review findings and work with the other state agencies in

Tallahassee in the review of the DRI.

3. Department of Natural Resources. The aquatic preserve management program

is associated with several other land management programs in the Department

of Natural Resources (DNR) in the North Fork-St. Lucie River area.

The Florida Park Service, under the Division of Recreation and Parks, has

several State parks in the two county area surrounding this preserve.

The initial management of this preserve will depend on personnel from the

Florida Park Service on an interim basis until onsite personnel can be

provided. The Bureau of Environmental Land Management has management

responsibility of the Savannas State Reserve in southeast St. Lucie County and

northeast Martin County. The Savannas are not presently staffed, but as they

receive staff in the future these personnel will also be working in the North

Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve.

DNR's St. Petersburg Marine Research Laboratory, under the Division of

Marine Resources, has several programs and projects within the North Fork-St.

Lucie River area which will benefit the aquatic preserve program. The Marine

Lab is studying fishery habitat losses along the coast of Florida. The

mapping, developed from LANDSAT which will be used in the management of this

aquatic preserve, was created as a product of that fishery habitat loss study.

The data from this project, when it is completed, will be incorporated into

this management plan. The Marine Lab staff is also involved in manatee

protection programs. The field personnel will become familiar with these

studies and programs, and will consult the Marine Lab for their data needs

within the North Fork-St. Lucie River area whenever possible.

The Division of Marine Resources also handles the permitting for the

collection of certain marine species and use of certain chemicals. The field

and central office staff will become familiar with this permitting process and

request notification of these permits within the aquatic preserve.

The Marine Patrol, under ONR's Division of Law Enforcement, also operates in

the North Fork-St. Lucie River area. The field personnel will become familiar

with their programs and operation, and will call on the Marine Patrol for law

enforcement support as required.

The aquatic preserve program will work closely with the Division of State

Lands in the review of applications for the use of sovereignty lands and other

related issues. This relationship is more fully described in Chapter V(C).

The Division of Resource Management, through the Bureau of Geology and Aquatic

Plant Research and Development, is responsible for various programs potenti-

ally affecting the aquatic preserve. Staff will establish communication links

with this Division to ensure that adequate consideration is given to potential

impacts upon the preserve that may result from the conduct of their various

programs.

4. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. (GFWFC) The GFWFC's

Environmental Services office in Vero Beach sends biologists to the North

Fork-St. Lucie River area to review projects which may have potential impacts

on local fish and wildlife habitat as necessary. These personnel will also be

assisting in field management activities on an interim basis. The field

personnel will use the GFWFC's assistance in their review process, when

possible, and in developing fish and wildlife management for the aquatic

preserve.

The GFWFC has enforcement officers working in the St. Lucie River area. The

field personnel will interact with these officers where there are common

goals.

The GFWFC is also the state coordinator of the Endangered Species 1-h Florida.

The field personnel and central office staff will work with GFWFC personnel in

developing program needs in this area.

5. Department of Transportation. (DOT) The DOT has an office in Ft. Pierce

County and the field personnel and the central office will work with the

resident engineer on anticipated projects having possible impacts on the

aquatic preserve and their major tributaries. The field personnel and

administrative staff will review any major highway or bridge projects that may

be proposed in the future.

6. Department of State. The Division of Archives, History and Records

Management (DAHRM) in the Department of State will have a close working

relationship with the field personnel and central office staff in the

protection of archaeological and historical sites. The field personnel will

be directed by DAHRM through the central office in any activities or

management policy needs for these sites.

7. Health and Rehabilitative Services. (HRS) Both the central office staff

and field personnel will establish communication and coordination linkages

with HRS and their locally conducted programs of septic tank regulation and

mosquito control. Additionally, the central office staff will become involved

in future meetings of the Governor's Working Group on mosquito control.

Subsequent policy recommendations coming out of this group will be evaluated.

for applicability-to the ongoing aquatic preserve management program.

C. REGIONAL

The regional level of the management implementation network as it applies to

the aquatic preserve on the North Fork-St. Lucie River will include the South

Florida Water Management District and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning

Council. These organizations have activities that are broader than the local

government, but are on a smaller scale than the state level.

1. South Florida Water Management District. The district boundaries of the

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) contain the entire North

Fork-ST. Lucie River drainage basin. The water management district

administers permitting programs for the local consumptive use of water, storm

. 87

water discharges, and dredge and fill type activities. This includes the

withdrawal and use of water from rivers, streams, and wells. The types of

water uses they permit in the North Fork-St. Lucie River Basin include

irrigation and public water supply. The field personnel will become familiar

with the review and permitting procedures as they might apply to water supply

in this basin. The water management district is also involved in various

studies on water supply and management, and other related research that may be

of use to aquatic preserve management.

2. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.. The Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council (TCRPC) serves the local governments of Martin and St. Lucie

Counties, as well as two cities within these counties and other southeast

Florida counties as a regional planning body. Among its duties, the TCRPC:

a. aids local governments with planning expertise;

b. is the regional representative for the Development of Regional

Impact (DRI) review process;

C. serves as a regional clearinghouse for state and federal projects

and programs; and

d. conveys information from the local governments to the state and

federal levels.

The field personnel will become familiar with the various projects, programs,

and data sources that the TCRPC has within its administration that may effect

or prove useful to the aquatic preserve program.

The DRI review of projects which affects the aquatic preserve will be reviewed

by the central office staff, with the field personnel's field review, when

necessary. DRIs for large marinas, large subdivisions on the uplands above

the preserve, and commercial or industrial developments will require a field
review by the field personnel as to their effect on the aq6atic preserve.

D. Local Governments and Special Districts.

This section will address the relationship of the aquatic preserve management

program to the various local government agencies, special districts and their

programs. The local governments are the incorporated cities and counties that

surround the aquatic preserve. The only incorporated cities within the North

Fork-St. Lucie basin are Port St. Lucie, bisected by the preserve and Ft.

Pierce, to the North. The Special districts include each county's mosquito

control, the North St. Lucie Water Control District, and any other special

districts that might affect the aquatic preserve. The field personnel will be

the local liaison for the aquatic preserve to these local government entities.

The field personnel will be available to these local entities to assist them

in modifying their policies and practices to conform to the objectives of the

aquatic preserve's management plan, and to exchange information and expertise

for mutual benefits.

1. Relationship to local management plans. The local governments are

required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (LGCPA),

(Section 163.3161, F.S.) to have a comprehensive management plan with elements

relating to the different governmental functions (i.e. housing, physical

facilities, conservation, land use, and coastal zone protection). These

plans, in effect, are long-range plans for the orderly and balanced

development of the city or county. The comprehensive plans guide local zoning

policies and practices toward a future as set out in the plan. No development

is permitted that does not conform to the local government's comprehensive

plan.

The aim of the aquatic preserve, with respect to these local government

comprehensive plans, is to have their plans be consistent with the aquatic

preserve management plans. The field personnel will become familiar with the

above plans and how they support or are in conflict with the objectives of

aquatic preserve management. The field personnel will assist local planning

officials in having their plans meet these objectives. The field personnel

and central office staff will assist these officials in the preparation of

their Marina Element, as required in Chapter IX. It is hoped that local

governments will join in the spirit of aquatic preserve management and be

willing to work for these changes.

The special districts may not have an official comprehensive management plan

equivalent to the LGCPA plans, but they do have management policies and

program statements that may be similar to such a plan. The field personnel

will become familiar with these policies and the activities of these districts

and monitor their effect on the aquatic preserve. For example, the field

personnel might recommend identifying areas that should not receive mosquito

spraying or other alternative management because of remoteness to inhabited

areas and possible, but unnecessary damage to the resources of the aquatic

preserve; or drainage districts might be asked not to use certain types of

herbicides or use them only at certain times of the year. The operations of

drainage districts have a considerable effect on this preserve.

2. Relation to local development codes. The local zoning and development

codes (e.g., building codes) provide the major local regulation as to what an

owner can do on a particular parcel of property. The zoning prescribes the

allowable uses and the intensity of those uses. Certain uses along an aquatic

preserve can potentially have a profound effect on a preserve.

This section will operate in conjunction with the preceding section on local

management plans. The field personnel will become familiar with the local

zoning and its potential effects on the nearby aquatic preserve. The field

personnel will assist local planning and zoning officials in identifying areas

where changes in zoning would better conform to the obJectives of the aquatic

preserve management. The field personnel might also offer to assist local

planning and zoning officials in the review of proposed subdivisions upland of

the preserve.

3. Suggested policies and practices in support of Aquatic Preserve

Management. This section will address any other policy or practice not

covered in the two proceeding sections. These policies and practices might

include local government mangrove ordinances, recreation problems where a park

is in or near an aquatic preserve, or any other problem as it might apply to

local governments to offer assistance or information to local officials or in

coordinating with other agencies to help solve these problems as they occur.

The field personnel will also comment, through the central office, on any

local practice that is identified as endangering the well being of the aquatic

preserve.

E. Other Entities

This section will apply to the numerous entities that have an interest in*the

aquatic preserve but are non-governmental agencies. This will include, but

not be limited to, the environmental interest groups (i.e., Audubon Society,

Sierra Club), the scientific organizations, the fishing ans sports interest

groups (i.e., Florida League of Anglers, Organized Fishermen of Florida), the

universities that may have research activities in the preserve (i.e.,

University of Miami, University of Florida, Florida Institute of Technology),

and any other interest groups or individuals. The relationship of these

entities to aquatic preserve management might include the coordination of

activities, such as scientific research, environmental education, management
of rookeries or other natural areas, or numerous other possible activities. .-A
worthwhile aquatic preserve management process will depend on the continued

support and help of these interest groups in all of the aquatic preserves.

The field personnel will be active in communicating the aquatic preserve

management process and activities to the various groups and consulting with

them for their help in their areas of expertise.

Chapter VII

PUBLIC USES

This chapter addresses the public use of the aquatic preserve. The public in

this case shall refer to the general public or those persons without riparian

rights. The "Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975" (Section 258.35, F.S.)

allows for the lawful and traditional public uses of the aquatic preserve,

such as sport fishing, boating and swimming (as adapted from Section

258.43(l), F.S.). These and other traditional uses that do not involve a

commercial intent or the use of a riparian right to place a structure in the

preserve, and do not degrade or otherwise destroy the preserve will be

considered public uses. This section will be further divided into consumptive

and non-consumptive uses as applicable to each resource.

A. Consumptive Uses.

Consumptive uses involves the removal of resources from the preserve.

These uses include fishing, hunting, shellfishing, and other related

activities. The management of these uses (see Chapter V. Resource

Management, Section B: Onsite Management Objectives) will include the

observation and monitoring of the effects of these uses on the resources.

The field personnel will periodically assess the impacts through the use

of the Marine Research Laboratory's LANDSAT capabilities for habitat

losses or disturbance in the North Fork-St. Lucie area plus any other

studies or data sources that might become available. This management

will also include the protection of the resources from unlawful or excess

practices of these uses. The legality of these uses will be controlled

by existing applicable state laws and local ordinances. These uses will

also be monitored for their effect on other resources (e.g., bird

rookeries, marine grassbeds, oyster bars, archaeological and historical

sites). The field personnel will also be sensitive to additional

enforcement needs (i.e., the need for additional enforcement staff during

nesting seasons).

B. Non-consumptive Uses..

These uses are those which do not generally remove resources from the

preserve. Examples of these uses include swimming, diving, boating,

bird-watching, and other related activities. The management practices

involved with these uses will be the same as those previously described

under Section A., except that these uses are not generally controlled by,

law. The guiding principle in these cases will be whether or not the

activity causes a disruption of the preserve resource (e.g., destruction

of marine grassbeds, disturbs rookeries). Only in the event of these

disruptions will the field personnel become involved. Some of these uses

may possibly be involved in environmental educational (Chapter XI)

programs.

-94

Chapter VIII

PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL USES

This section will apply to those private, non-commercial, uses which are

derived from riparian rights (e.g., docks, piers). The management of the

aquatic preserve must recognize the rightful and traditional uses of those

near-shore sovereignty lands lying adjacent to upland property. This right of

ingress, egress, boating, swimming, fishing, and other incidental uses of

sovereignty lands normally allows for the placement of certain structures,

such as docks, within the preserve. This right, however, can only be

exercised with the prior consent of the Board, and does not include approval

of activities that destroy or damage areas of environmental significance. The

review of these will require the interaction of the Resource Protection Area

mapping with the administrative and possible field review with later

monitoring by field personnel as projected by Chapter V., Section B.

Private non-commercial uses shall be designed to avoid Critical Resource

Protection Areas (Class 1 and 2) and shall be designed to reduce the use's

impact to the preserve in general. Individual applications for these

private non-commercial uses shall be reviewed by the applicable Resource

Protection Area Map and criteria. In addition, private dock proposals will be

reviewed by the following criteria as to specific design and location:

a. private dock structures shall have a maximum width of four (4)

feet,

b. the dock decking design and construction will insure maximum

light penetration,

c. the dock will extend out from the shoreline to a maximum

depth of four (4) feet,

d. when the water depth is at four (4) feet at an existing bulkhead

the maximum dock length from the bulkhead shall be twenty five

(25) feet, and

e. wave break devices, when necessary, shall be designed to allow

for maximum water circulation and in such a manner as to be part

of the dock structure.

When allowed, Bulkheads should be placed A such a way as to be the least

destructive and disruptive to the vegetation and other resource factors in

each area. Uses which do disrupt or destroy resources on state-owned lands

will require mitigation. This mitigation will include restoration by the

applicant or other remedy which will compensate for the loss of the affected

resource to the aquatic preserve.

Dredging within the aquatic preserve shall be held to a minimum. Dredging

proposals shall be reviewed according to the procedures in Chapter V depending

on the proposed activities location within the RPA. Proposals within Class I

areas (Chapter V (B)[61) will be scrutinized to the maximum extent in order to

find the best practicable method of development and location if that use is

acceptable in that particular area of the preserve. The mitigation of lost or

disturbed resources shall be required. There shall be no dredging allowed in

critical habitat areas or in nearby areas if it will adversely impact critical

habitat areas.

The location of proposed multiple docking facilities, such as for condominium

developments, shall be based on the marina siting criteria described in

Chapter IX, because their impact is generally the same as marinas. No

multiple docking facilities shall be located in Class I or 2 resource

protection areas; provision for reasonable riparian ingress and egress shall

be specifically allowable. The multiple docking facility designation will
include any multiple docking facility for multiple unit developments,

subdivision facilities or other non-profit operation. Docks and piers need to

be located so that they cause the least amount of destruction or displacement

of resources within the preserve. These resources should include all the
factors used in the designation of RPA's (mangroves, marine grassbeds, etc.).

The use of seaplanes within this preserve is seen as a non-traditional use.

Applications for seaplane use within the preserve will be reviewed on a case

by case basis. These uses will only be recommended where such use will not

affect resource protection areas or natural values of the preserve, not effect

endangered species habitat, can be utilized in a safe manner and will not

preempt traditional uses within the proposed use area.

CHAPTER IX

COMMERCIAL USES

This section addresses the variety of traditional and non-traditional (i.e.,

new uses to this area) commercial uses which might occur within the aquatic

preserve. Among the traditional uses in the North Fork-St. Lucie River area

are utility crossings, marinas and yacht clubs, commercial fishing, and other

types of fishing or boating for hire. Non-traditional uses in this area which

have also occurred i'n other areas of this or other states include power

plants, oil and gas transportation facilities, aquaculture, seaplane

facilities, ferry services in or over the water, and other such commercial

uses.

A. TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES.

1. Utility Crossings. There are at present time both aerial and

underwater utility crossings in the aquatic preserve. Future proposals should

be designed so the preserve is crossed by the least destructive method in the

least vulnerable areas according to the RPA maps (see Chapter VEB]).

Increased or additional use of any existing utility crossings is preferable,

if their condition at the time of the proposal is acceptable. The field

personnel should eventually develop a utility crossing plan for all areas with

anticipated utility crossing needs to allow for clear and advance planning of

these crossings in the best environmental location possible. The utility

crossing plans, when completed, will become a part of this plan. Crossings

should be limited to open water areas to minimize disturbance to marine

grassbeds, mangroves or other critical habitat areas.

2. Commercial Fishing. The management of the aquatic preserve shall

not include the direct management of commercial fishing activities. Field

personnel will monitor these activities and assess their affects on the

preserve only in conjunction with the Division of Marine Resources and as part

of a cooperative effort with that division. The field personnel will also

notify the requisite authority in the event of illegal activities (Chapter 370

F. S. or by special act). The field personnel, along with other agencies and

division's programs and studies, will monitor fishing activities within the

aquatic preserve with respect to the need to manage access of boats in certain

areas, prevention of marine grassbed destruction and other needs of the

aquatic preserve as they are associated with commercial fishing activities.

3. Marina. The locating of marinas and their related uses will be a

major concern of the North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve management.

Marinas represent a use with many potential impacts on the preserve's

resources. The siting policy of the Blue Ribbon Marina Committee (Final

Report-January, 1983), as adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, is modified and

shall be used for siting marinas in the aquatic preserve. This policy will be

that:

100

a. marinas shall only be located in or near well flushed, deep

water areas,

b. the design of the marina should not rely on dredge or fill

activities,

C. the marina shall not be located in Class 1 or 2 resource

protection areas,

d. the site location shall also take into account the access of

the boat traffic to avoid marine grassbeds in the surrounding

areas,

e. the location of new facilities shall be secondary to the

expansion of existing facilities,

f. new facilities shall be discouraged in any location and shall

be allowed only in Class 3 resource areas, and then only where

the local governments have a marina element and after careful

review and approval by the Board,

g. marinas should be specifically sited away from critical manatee

habitat.

h. field personnel will work with local governments (see Chapter

VI) on location of marinas close to demand areas and in areas

with sufficient uplands to support activity needs, and

i. field personnel will work with those agencies in finding marina

sites that meet the above policies and are protected from

hurricanes.

4. Deep Water Port Facilities. There are no facilities of this type

within the North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve at the present time and new

port facilities shall be prohibited.

5. Other Docking. Any other type of commercial docking, not mentioned

in the preceding sections, will follow the marina siting policy as stated in

Section A93) of this Chapter.

B. Non-traditional Commercial Uses

1. Power Plants. Power plants have the potential for causing major

changes in the air quality, water quality, plant and animal life of the

aquatic preserve. For these reasons they are incompatible with the

purpose of this aquatic preserve. The location of proposed power plants

upstream of a preserve should also be evaluated as to the effects on the

downstream preserve.

2. Seaplane Areas. Uses of this sort, which cause high noise levels,

high speed disturbances or constant activity over a standard route or

landing area, will require careful placement in areas that will not

disturb wildlife., affect marine grassbeds, or otherwise degrade the

natural condition of the aquatic preserve. The field personnel should be

involved in the planning, time of operation scheduling and the later

monitoring of this type of activity in conjunction with the central

office staff.

3. Other Uses. Any other use that qualifies as a commercial use of

state-owned submerged lands not mentioned above will require a review for

its anticipated impact on the aquatic preserve and the best location for

the activity compatible to the resource protection areas within each

preserve.

102

CHAPTER X

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The field personnel attached to the North Fork-St. Lucie Aq6atic Preserve

should serve as the area coordinator of scientific research in the preserves.

Scientific research, and any other type of research or testing within the

aquatic preserve, should require the clearance of both the field personnel and

the central office staff before these activities can proceed. Certain

activities could be detrimental to the resources of the preserve and should be

carefully reviewed before allowing them to occur. Factors including location,

species procedures, and time of year, should be carefully reviewed for the

possible disturbance or affect of the research on the other resources of the

aquatic preserve. The field personnel will be aware of the possibility of

working with other government agencies, colleges, universities, research

foundations and government programs to fill the data needs of the aquatic

preserve (see Chapter V and XII). The field personnel will assist in the

selection of possible test sites and other research needs within the preserve.

103

CHAPTER XI

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The aquatic preserve should be used to enhance environmental educational

programs at every opportunity. The goal of maintaining the aquatic preserve

for the benefit of future generations can begin to be realized through the use

of aquatic preserve for environmental education. The education of the youth

of Martin and St. Lucie Counties is a very good way of enhancing the knowledge

of the natural systems and future support of the aquatic preserve program.

Knowledge of the resources in the preserve and their values are a major factor

in the continued protection of the aquatic preserve in the future.

The field personnel will, through their normal activities in the aquatic

preserve, select good examples of habitats and resources within these aquatic

environments for use during educational group tours. This might include the

development of environmental educational boat or canoe.tours through the

preserve. These activities may also include the eventual development of a

brochure outlining the major points of management within the preserve. These

brochures could then be circulated to the various user groups.

The field personnel should also prepare programs on the aquatic preserve for

presentation to interested groups of all ages on the values of management

activities of the aquatic preserve to government units and private interest

groups. The education of the public on aquatic preserve management is the key

to the success and future of the preserve.

105

CHAPTER XII

IDENTIFIED PROGRAM NEEDS

This chapter of the management plan will address the various internal program

needs that are expected to be identified during management activities.

Meeting these needs will correct or generally relieve some stress on the

preserve or the personnel involved in the management of the aquatic preserve.

These needs may, in some cases, require legislative or administrative rule

changes or acquisition of critical areas by the state. The need to identify

problem areas and adjust the management plan in a manner that will positively

address these problems and management needs is an essential element of any

good management program. Both field personnel and central office staff will

continually monitor the management plan implementation process and

specifically identify observed program needs and problems. The areas to be

considered include, but are not limited to:

A. Acquisition of additional property,

B. Boundary problems,

C. Legislative needs,

D. Administrative rule changes,

E. Data needs,

F. Resource protection capabilities, and

G. Funding and staffing needs.

Staff will annually develop an implementation status report that will contain

107

a summary of identified management needs and suggested measures to be taken in

meeting these needs.

A. Acquisition of Additional Property

There are areas both within and upland of the aquatic preserve that are in

public ownership under the jurisdiction of various local, state and federal

agencies. Many of these lands contain important resources, such as bird

rookeries, archaeological or historical sites, endangered species habitat, and

freshwater source wetlands. The protection of these areas is necessary to the

wilderness preserve designation. Formal management agreements, memoranda of

understanding, etc., that will ensure the compatible management of these areas

shall be developed. Other areas within or adjacent to the preserve that are.

in private ownership should be closely examined to determine the advisability

of bringing them into public ownership. The acquisition of these lands might

act as a buffer to critical resources, prevent development of sensitive areas,

allow the restoration of areas adversely affected by previous development or

allow removal of disrupting uses within a preserve. The field personnel,

during normal management activities, should be aware of significant upland

areas .and sovereign land conveyances which, if developed, would compromise the

integrity of the aquatic preserve. The field personnel will keep a running

record of these areas and will prioritize these areas for possible public

acquisition.

B. Boundary Problems and Systems Insufficiencies

The boundaries of the aquatic preserve are often artificial delineations of

108

the natural systems within and surrounding the preserves. A variety of

scientific studies are presently being conducted both within and outside of

the preserve boundaries, and their results could conceivably suggest a change

in these boundaries. These changes may include the extension of the present

boundaries in some areas or exclude other areas. The field personnel, in

their normal management activities, will be sensitive to the possible need for

boundary modifications. Potential boundary changes and acquisition projects

might include areas upstream of the present boundary in the streams flowing

into the preserves, previously conveyed sovereign lands or other areas not

presently within the preserve. Any boundary change will require legislative

approval.

C. Legislative Needs

Management needs could conceivably involve changes in the legislation

pertaining to aquatic preserve or the other statutes upon which aquatic

preserve management is based. These changes may include boundary realignments

or the strengthening of certain management authorities.

D. Administrative Rule Changes

Administrative rules are statements addressing the organization, procedures

and practices used in the implementation of aquatic preserve management plans

and policies. -This process includes identifying problems within the

Department of Natural Resources, as well as other agencies, that affect the

management of the preserve.

109

E. Data (Information) Needs

The field personnel and central office staff will note data needs and promote

research or other means to fulfill them. Data needs in the near future could

possibly be supplied by such ongoing projects as the South Florida Water

Management Districts studies, Department of Environmental Regulation water

quality monitoring or other agencies. The field person nel will be aware of

data needs as they interact with the various levels of government and other

entities. These data needs might include additional mapping, ownership

information, water quality data or any other data. The major suppliers of

data will probably be other public agencies conducting programs in and around

the preserve. Other potential sources of data are the colleges and

universities that have, in the past, conducted research projects in the area.

F. Resource Protection and Enforcement Capabilities

The protection of the preserve's resources depend on the Florida Park Service,

the Florida Marine Patrol and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, in

addition to field personnel. These protection needs might also require

additional enforcement support from local government or other state agencies.

The need for additional manpower, authority, equipment or vehicles for this

task will be identified.

The field personnel will become familiar with the capabilities of both

Department of Natural Resources' staff and the other agencies with enforcement

110

responsibilities in the preserve. Annually, staff should fully assess the

effectiveness of the protective and enforcement capabilities of these combined

agencies.

G. Funding and Staffing Needs

The present aquatic preserve management program has been minimally implemented

with funds from a variety of sources. The writing of this management plan was

funded through a grant from the U. S. Office of Coastal Zone Management,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through "the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972", as amended. This grant will end in 1984.

In order for the management program proposed'in this plan to function and

succeed, the program must have its own funding and staffing. The workload

required by this program is too much for an interim staff from other agencies

to handle in addition to their other obligations. Funding and staffing needs

are critically important to the success of the aquatic preserve program.

The management of North Fork-St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve would be integrated

into the management program and needs of other BELM management programs in

the area. This preserve's management would be combined with two other aquatic

preserves (Indian River-Vero Beach to Fort Pierce and Jensen Beach to Jupiter

Inlet). A proposed budget given these needs has been estimated at $82,000 for

staff, equipment, office and expenses for the first year. The proposed staff

would include a biologist and one ranger.

NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE AQUATIC PRESERVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnett, Brian S., Raymond T. Fernald, Andreas Goetzfried and Stephen
R. Lau. The Fish and Wildlife Resource of the Charlotte Harbor Area.
Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water-FT-s-h
Commission, Vero Beach, Florida, 1980.

Bearden, H.W. Water Availability in Canals and Shallow Sediments in St.
Lucie County, F75-rida. Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations No. 62, 1972.

Clausen, C.J. and C.S. Clausen. Proposed response to Question
19, Parts A and B for Sharrett Tract, St. Lucie County Florida,
Sharrett Development of Regional Impact, 1979.

Davis, Terry L. North Fork of the St. Lucie River Water Quality Survey
Through 198 . Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Port
St. Lucie, circa 1982.

Earle, J.E. Progress Report on the Water Resources Investigation of Martin
County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report FL- 1,
1975.

Environmental Quality Laboratory, Inc. North Fork of St. Lucie River Water
Quality Summary: 1974 to 1980. Port Charlotte, Florida, 1980

Water Quality Survey Blakeslee and Winters Creeks 27 August, 1980. Port
St. Lucie, 1980.

Water Quality Surveys Winters and Blakesliee Creeks and Kitching cove
23 April and 25 September, 1981. Port St. Lucie, 1981.

North Fork of the St. Lucie River Diurnal Water Quality and Tidal Study
24 and 25 June, 1981. Port St. Lucie, 1982.

Winters and Blakeslee Creek and Kitching Cove Water Quality Surveys 13
January and 20 May 1982. Port St. Lucie, 1982.

North Fork of the St. Lucie River Diurnal Water Quality Study 23 and 24
March, 198Z. Port St. Lucie, 1991. -

General Development Corpoaration. Sharettt: Application for Development
Approval. Development of Regional Impact Application, 1980.

Gunter, G. Biolo5ical Investigations of the St. Lucie Estuary in Connection
with Lake Okeechobee Discharges through St. Lucie Canal. U.S. Corps
of Engineers Reprt, Part IV, September 10, 1959.

113

Haunert, Daniel E. and J. Robb Startzman. Some Seasonal Fisheries Trends
and Effects of a 1,000 cfs Fresh Water Discharge on the Fishes and
Macroinvertebrates in the St. Lucie Estuary, Florida. South Florida
Water Management District, Technica-F-Publication No. 80-3, 1980.

Heald, E.J. and William E. Odum. "The Contributions of Mangrove Swamps to
Florida Estuaries." Proceedings of the Gulf Caribbean Fish Institute,
Vol.22, 1970.

Lichtler, William F. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Martin County,
Florida. Florida tate Board of Conservation, Florida Geological
Survey, Report of Investigations No. 23, 1960.

Lyons, William G. Plankton.Collections with Pertinent Data St. Lucie Inlet
and Jupiter In7-etAreas of Florida (November 1963-August 1965).
Florida Board of Conservation, Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg,
Special Scientific Report No. 13, 1966.

Martin County Commissioners-Martin County Comprehensive Plan, April 1, 1982

Miller, R. Adam. Water Resources Setting Martin County, Florida U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources investigagion 77-68, 1978.

Murdock, James F. Survey of the effect of the release of water from lake
Okeechobee through the St. Lucie Canal. Interim Report of the Marine
Laboratory of the University of Miami to the Corps of Engineerts, U.S.
Army, Coral Gables, Florida 1954.

Odum, Howard T. "Tropical Marine Meadows." Coastal Ecological Systems of
the United States. Volume 1, Odum, H.T., D.J. Copeland, and E.A.
McMahan, eds., Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Odum, William E, Carole C. McIvor and Thomas J. Smith, III. The Ecology of
the Mangroves of South Florida: A Community Profile. U Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife-Service, FWS/OBS--81/24, January,

Phillips, C. Phillips and Robert M. Ingle. Report on the Marine Plants,
Bottom Tupes and H drography of the St. Lucie Estuary and Adjacent
Indian River, F ori da. Florida State Board of Conservation, Marine
Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida, Special Scientific Report No. 4,
1960.

Phillips, Ronald C. "Seasonal Aspects of the Marine Algal Flora of St.
Lucie Inlet and Adjacent Indian River, Florida. Quart J. Fla. Acad.
Sci. 24(2): 135-147, 1961.

Pitt, W. A. Sediment Loads in Canals 18, 23, and 24 in Southeastern
Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file No. 72013, 1972.
i
Savage, Thomas, Florida Mangroves as Shoreline Stabilizers. Florida
Department of Natural Resources. Professional Paper No. 19, 1972.

-114

Springer, Victor G. Ichthyological Surveys of the Lower St. Lucie and
Indian Rivers, FTo-Fir-da East Coast. Florida Board of Conservit'ion,
Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg, 1960.

Stone, Edward, Jr. and Associates. Harbor Ridge: Application for
Development Approval. Development of Regional Impact A-ppTIcation,
1982.

Teas, Howard J. Biological Survey of the North Fork of The St. Lucie River.
Report submitted to the General Development Corporation, 1971.

Terhune, Frances W. ed. 1983 Florida Statistical Abstract. University of
Florida, Gainesville, 17th edition, 19M.

U.S. Army Cprjs pf Engineers. Fresh Water in St. Lucie Estuary-Good or
Bad? Jacksonville District, Serial NO. 37, 1969.

Van Os, Eleanor, Jospeh D. Carroll and James Dunn, Creel Census and the
Effects of Freshwater Dischages on Sportfishin4 -Catch Rates in the St.
Lucie Estuau, Martin County, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Vero Beach, Florida, circa 1980.

Wood, E.J., William E. Odum, and Joseph C. Zieman. "influence of
Seagrasses on the Productivity of Coastal Lagoons". em. Simp. Intern.
Lagunas Consteras, UNAM-UNESCO, 1969.

Zieman, Jospeh C. The Ecology of the Seagrasses of South Florida: A
Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, FWS/OBS-82/25, September, 1982.

115

CONTENTS OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Management Authorities

All laws, rules, memoranda of understanding, and other

directives mentioned or related to in the Plan.

Appendix B. References

Pertinent References; basis for formulation of Plan USGS

Bi bl i ography

Appendix C. Resource Data

Resource Inventorites for each preserve

DOT Vegetation and Land Use Acreages by quad and preserve

Species Lists

Streams and Lakes data

Colonial Waterbird Areas

Water Quality: STORET

Archaeological Profiles

Cultural Information (Population, etc.)

Appendix D: Maps

Map Packet: by quad size for each quad in the preserve areas

USGS 7.5 Minute quadrangel topographic maps

117

Appendices Contents (Continued)

Appendix D: Maps (Con't)

Mark Hund Aerial Photography (73-79)

DOT Vegetation and Land Use Maps

Flood-prone (-USGS)

St.ate-Owned Lands Maps

National Wetland Inventory Maps

Gulf Coast Ecological Inventory (1:250,000 scale)

Shellfish Atlas for Martin and St. Lucie Counties

CZM Maps--Martin and St. Lucie Counties

Navigation Charts (North Fork of the St. Lucie River)

DOT County Maps --- Martin and St. Lucie Counties

118

3 6668 14103 6550