Alligator Harbor aquatic preserve management plan

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

ALLIGATOR HARBOR AQUATIC PRESERVE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

SEPTEMBER 23, 1986

Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner

Executive Director

Department of Natural Resources

This plan was prepared by
The Bureau of Historic and Environmental Land Management
Division of Recreation and Parks

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

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

__ oopetY 0of csc Library

STATE OF FLORIDA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

R E SOL U T ION

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

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

vision, conservation, protection, and disposition of'al1 lands title to which

is vested in the Trustees u~nder 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

r ~~ 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; and

WHEREAS; Section 18-20.13, 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 preserves; and

WHEREAS, the Trustees have recognized the Alligator Harbor Aquatic

Preserve as a biological/scientific preserve in formal action on October 21,

1969; and

WHEREAS, the Trustees recognize the importance and benefits of protecting

the natural resources and preserving the natural ecosystem and aesthetics in.

the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve area; and

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

Improvement Trust Fund hereby adopts the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve

Management Plano, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alligator Harbor 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 natural resources and environmental quality of this aquatic preserve, and

shall provide the overall policy direction for the development and implementa-

tion of all administrative rules and programs related to the management of

state-owned submerged lands within the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Department of Natural Resources, Division

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 twenty-

third day of September, A.D., 1986.

L
Gover

(Seal)

Secretary of State

Commissioner of Education orney General

Commis4oner of Agriculture 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.......................9

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

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

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

B. Community Associations....................25

C. Archaeological and Historical Sites.............36

D . Water Resources .......................38

E . Cultural...........................40

V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .......................41

A. Introduction.........................41

B. Onsite Management Objectives.................41

C. Resource Mapping and Resource Protection Areas. . ......63

D. Administrative Management Objectives ............65

VI. MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK .................75

A. Federal ...........................-75

B. State ............................78

C. Regional...........................85

D. Local Governments and Special Districts ...........86

E. Other Entities........ ............. .. . ..89

Table of Contents (Continued)

CHAPTER Page

VII. PUBLIC USES . . . . . ................. . . . . ...91

A. Consumptive Uses .........................91

B. Mon-Consumptive Uses . . . . ............. . . . ...92

VIII. PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL USES ... . . ........... . . ...93

IX. COMMERCIAL USES. . . ..... . . ................ . . ..97

A. Traditional Commercial Uses ... ............ ....97

B. Non-Traditional Commercial Uses . . . . ....... . . . ...99

X. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH . . . . . ............. . . . . ...101

XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION . . . . . ........... . . . . ...103

XII1. IDENTIFIED PROGRAM NEEDS ....................105

A. Acquisition of Additional Property..............106

B. Boundary Problems and Systems Insufficiences. . .......106

C. Legislative Needs ......................107

D. Administrative Rule Changes .................107

E . Data (Information) Needs.. ... ................ .107

F. Resource Protection and Enforcement Capabilities. . .....108

G. Funding and Staffing Needs ..................109

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................111

CONTENTS OF APPENDICES ..........................113

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

This plan addresses the management of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve,

located on the southeast coast of Franklin County in northwest Florida (Figure

1). The area bordering the aquatic preserve is primarily rural with scattered

concentrations of single family week-end homes. The unincorporated communi-

ties of St. Teresa Beach and Alligator Point lie along the preserve boundary.

The surface water area of the entire preserve is approximately 14,366 acres

including the 4,045 acre Alligator Harbor.

The preserve lies just east of the Apalachicola estuary. Alligator Harbor,

enclosed by the Alligator Point sand spit, has been described as a neutral

estuary (Menzel, 1957), and a barrier spit lagoon (Trott, 1960). There is

little freshwater inflow and salinities do not vary much from those in the

adjacent inshore Gulf of Mexico. The harbor is approximately four and one-

half miles long and one and one-half miles wide. The Alligator Point sand

spit extends about 4.8 miles westward from Lighthouse Point. The western end

of the harbor, connecting with the Gulf, is almost closed by a shallow sandbar

except for a deeper channel on the north end. A channel at the south end of

the sandbar closed as the result of westerly migration of the sand spit.

While it appears that the Gulf coast mainland borders the preserve to the

north, the land mass -is actually St. James Island, formed by the Qchlockonee

and Crooked Rivers and the Gulf of Mexico.

S~~~~i:~~~~~~~~~~~~2

LEGEND

- - ~~COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
BITUMINOUS ROAD
....... U. S. HIGHWAY
G.......STATE HIG6HWAY
1, I ~ AQUATIC PRESERVEI 0. 0I2
SHOALS
. ~~~~~~~~~~SCALE IN MILES

II1

17 1 ~1 IS IT

~20 21 22 i 3 24l 20. 42" 23 24 Is "0 2

128. 23~~~~~~~24 :1 ~~~ ISLAND~

32 33' 4e

5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~AUAO

OF M*c

GULF ~~~LOCATION

TAMPA ~~~~~~~~~~~MAP OF

* . ~ALLIGATOR HARBOR AQUATIC PRESERVE
(AQUATIC PRESERVE )
FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
CREATED BY
PREPARED BY F.J. HANSEN 3 TRUSTEES ~~~~~~STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
PREPARED BY F.J. HANSE KEY wes? T R U S T E E S OFTHE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND

UPDATED APRIL.19B5 C-.AK.

Franklin County is renowned for its commercial fishing activities in the

Apalachicola estuary, dependent to a large degree on the nutrient rich

freshwater inflow from the Apalachicola River. In contrast, there is little

freshwater inflow into the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and the rather

stable salinity structure does not create the estuarine conditions character-

istic of the waterbodies lying to the west. However, the grassbe ds, oyster

bars, beaches, saltmarshes and bottom communities found associated with the

Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve make it a productive and integral part of

the marine ecosystem in the Franklin County area. The protected waters of the

harbor and the numerous offshore reefs and channels provide high quality salt-

water fishing opportunities. Spotted seatrout, redfish, and flounder are

frequently caught and offshore areas are productive shrimping grounds.

Franklin County is located in a transitional climatic zone between the

subtropical climate of peninsular Florida and the more temperate climate of

the southeastern United States. Average rainfall is about 57 inches and the

mean monthly temperature ranges from 53.0 degrees in January to 81.4 in July.

The boundary line of Figure I represents the gross boundary of the aquatic

preserve. The actual preserve includes those sovereignty submerged lands

located waterward of the mean high water line within this boundary area.

This aquatic preserve will be managed to emphasize maintenance and enhancement

of the existing conditions. As more site specific information becomes

available, essentially natural conditions shall be identified and resources in

disturbed areas restored to that condition where possi~-]e.

Due to the current limitation of permanent onsite staff resources, the initial

management program described'in-this plan will be limited in the scope of

operations. However, the 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 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and

Park's, Bureau of Land and Aquatic Resource Management (BLARM) in Tallahassee,

known as the "central office". Field personnel support and assistance will be

provided through the Florida Park Service, Division of Marine Resources and

the BLARM staff.

Initially, development of the resource inventory will be heavily dependent on

LANDSAT satellite imagery, DOT aerial photography, and existing scientific and

other literature. As the program proceeds and a full-time and on-site manager

is hired, the experience and additional resource information will likely

result in modifications to the program and plan, which are both designed to

accommodate such changes or at least identify areas needing improvement.

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

descri pti on.

Chapter 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 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 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 (DNR), Division

of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Land and Aquatic Resource Management staff.

Funding for the plan was provided by a coastal management grant (CM-106)

through the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric

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

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Office of Coastal

Management.

Chapter II

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

The primary management authorities available to the staff for implementing

policy directives affecting aquatic preserves are found in Chapters 258 and

253, Florida Statutes (F.S.). These authorities clearly establish the

proprietary management overview role of the Governor and Cabine t, sitting as

the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and 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 be presumed to potentially include staff and designated agents, in

addition to the Governor and Cabinet. The staff of the Bureau of Land and

Aquatic Resource Management (acting as "agents" for the Trustees) will review

all requests for uses of state-owned sovereignty submerged lands within

aquatic preserves. The review and subsequent staff comments are primarily

designed to evaluate 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, F.S.

Formal review comments are provided to the Department of Natural Resources

(DR), Division of State Lands by the Bureau of Land and Aquatic Resource

Management for inclusion in the comments and recommendations accompanying

agenda items for Trustees consideration. This mechanism allows the Trustees,

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

within the context of environmental impact upon the preserve.

BACKGROUND

In many respects, the authorities supporting aquatic preserve planning and

management are the cumulative result of the public's 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.

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

Trustees 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 establishment of a moratorium by the

Governor and Cabinet 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 11,

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 resolu-

tion, 18 of the waterbodies as aquatic preserves, including the Alligator

Harbor Aquatic Preserve.

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

had created the Boca Ciega Aquatic Preserve. Subsequent Legislative action in

19712, 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 258.35-258.46, F.S.), 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 Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, approved by the

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

preserve. The following aquatic preserves also have approved plans: Estero

Bay - September 6, 1983; North Fork--St. Lucie River - May 22, 1984; Loxahat-

chee River--Lake Worth Creek - June 12, 1984; and Indian River Lagoon -

January 22, 1985; Banana River - September 17, 1985; Indian River - Malabar to

Vero Beach- January 21, 1986; Nassau River, St. Johns River Marshes and Fort

Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserves - March 22, 1986.

In June 1985, the Legislature passed S.B. 762 which expanded the boundaries of

the Banana River, Malabar to Vero Beach, Loxahatchee River--Lake Worth Creek,

Wekiva River, and Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserves; and created Guana River Marsh

and Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserves. Lemon Bay and Rainbow Springs were

added as aquatic preserves by the 1986 Legislature.

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

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Chapters 18-21 and 18-20, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), are two

administrative rules directly applicable to the DNR's/Trustee's actions

regarding allowable uses of submerged lands, in general, and aquatic preserves

specifically. Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. controls activities conducted on

sovereignty submerged lands, and is predicated upon the provisions of Sections

253.03 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 sovereignty lands,

especially those important to public drinking water supply,

shellfish harvesting, public recreation, and fish and wildlife

propagation and management;

(5) to insure that all public and private activities on sovereignty

lands which generate revenues or exclude traditional public uses

provide just compensation for such privileges; and,

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

(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 manage-

ment program;

(b) To protect and enhance the waters of the preserves so that

the public may continue to enjoy the traditional recrea-

tional uses of those waters such as swimming'. boating,

and fishing;

programs, which are compatible with the intent of the

Legislature in creating the preserves;

(d) To use applicable federal, state, and local management

programs, which are compatible with the intent and

provisions of the act and these rules, 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 man-made 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 coral, submerged grasses, mangroves,

salt water marshes, fresh water marshes, mud flats,

estuarine, aquatic and marine reptiles, game and nongame

fish species, estuarine, aquatic and marine invertebrates,

estuarine, aquatic and marine mammals, birds, shellfish

and mollusks;

(g) To acquire additional title interests in lands wherever

such acquisitions would serve to protect or enhance the

biological, aesthetic, or scientific values of the

preserves.

(h) To maintain those beneficial hydrologic and biologic func-

tions, the benefits of which accrue to the public at large."

OTHER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

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. respectively; and land acquisition programs conducted under

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

Chapter 403, F.S., is an important adjunct to Chapter's 253 and 258, F.S.

This governs, in part, the State's regulatory programs affecting water quality

and biological resources. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER),

through a permitting and certification process, administers this program.

Section 253.77, F.S., as amended by the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands

Protection Act of 1984, requires that any person requesting use of State-

owned land shall have approval of the proposed use from the Trustees before

commencing the activity. An interagency agreement between DNR and DER

provides an avenue for staff comments on potential environmental impacts of

projects in aquatic preserves through the DER permitting process. Addition-

ally, the DER 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 DER also provides a source of

funding for data collection and planning in areas such as the Alligator Harbor

area, as well as being the state agency responsible for implementing the

"federal consistency" provisions of the Federal Coastal Management Act.

The DER's administrative rules of primary significance to the aquatic

preserve management program include Chapters 17-3, 17-4 and 17-12, F.A.C.

These 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 Chapters 17-4 and 17-12, F.A.C.

address permit requirements and dredge and fill activities, respectively.

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

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 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 DER/COE joint permit proces-

sing system.

Other opportunities for environmental review and input into activities

potentially affecting aquatic preserves are afforded by the Department of

Community Affairs (DCA), and the Department of State, Division of Archives,

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

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

clearinghouse process.

The DCA 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 pro-

cedure 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 DAHRM, 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, administers 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.

Chapter III

MAJIOR 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. Major program policy

directives are:

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

maintenance of essentially natural conditions to ensure the propagation of

fish and wildlife, and public recreation opportunities.

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

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

Trustees and DAHRM, and such disturbance is part of an approved research

design or authorized project.

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 adverse-

ly impact upon grassbeds and other valuable submerged habitat, unless a prior

determination has been made by the Board of overriding public importance with

no reasonable alternatives, and adequate mitigation measures are included.

(F) Prohibit the removal of saltmarsh and other natural shoreline vegetation

within the aquatic preserve, except when necessitated by the pursuit of

legally authorized projects and local protection ordinances.

(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.

(~J) 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.

(K Prohibit storage of toxic, radioactive, or other hazardous materials

within the aquatic preserve.

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

that would result in habitat modification or manipulation (i.e. diking,

ditching) unless there are no reasonable alternatives and 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for wetland and

aquatic appl icati on.

(N) Prohibit the construction of new deep water ports within the aquatic

preserve boundaries.

(0) Insure that any 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 any state-owned spoil islands within the aquatic preserve as bird

rookeries and wildlife habitat areas.

()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 tfTe naturally high water quality of the estuary and ensure

the natural seasonal flow fluctuations of freshwater into the estuary.

(T) Apply the management criteria contained in the adopted Alligator Harbor

Aquatic Preserve Management Plan to all subsequent legislative additions of

land to the aquatic preserve.

(U) 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.

(V) Prohibit marinas in Class 1 or 2 Resource Protection Areas.

(W) Identify and document any problems caused by fishing activities and

report them to the Marine Fisheries Commission.

Chapter IV

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION

The Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve is a shallow system with rather constant

salinities., The preserve boundaries include Alligator Harbor (delimited by

Alligator Point sand spit) and coastal areas as far west as Turkey Point. The

system includes salt marshes, oyster bars, soft bottom communities and grass-

beds. The protected waters of the Harbor, as well as the numerous offshore

reefs and channels, provide some of the better small boat saltwater fishing to

be found along the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (COE, 1981). Spotted sea-

trout is the most popular sportfish followed by redfish, pompano, jack, blue-

fish and Spanish mackeral.

Much of the eastern portion of Franklin County is rural, but some sections are

popular vacation spots. There are many single family, seasonal cottages on

Alligator Point and along sections of the coastline (St. Teresa and Wilson

Be ach).

Several endangered species are attracted to the preserve area and, along with

the barrier islands in the area, Alligator spit is an important landfall for

migratory birds.

The major problems in the continued health of the area include septic tank

leakage (exacerbated by high water table), development and associated habitat

destruction, and shoaling and erosion.

A. Geological Features and Landforms

The Alligator Harbor area is part of a broad, sandy shore plain which is

constantly being altered by wind, rainfall and sea level change (Livingston,

1984). Mean sea level fluctuated greatly during the Pleistocene. At the

height of the Wisconsin glaciation, roughly 20,000 years ago, sea level was

about 410 feet lower than it is today. The coastline was considerably seaward

of its present position. The barrier islands and spits in the area began to

be formed about 5,000 years ago when sea level had risen essentially to its

present position. These islands began as beach ridges which formed on top of

the eroded remains of the previous islands and dunes that dated to earlier

time of Pleistocene interglacial high sea levels (Clewell, 1977). Sea level

reached its modern position about 5,000 years ago when the construction of the

present barrier island system was underway.

The near-surface deposits of the area include Upper Miocene limestones, clayey

sands and shell beds of the Choctawhatchee Stage, younger (Pliocene to Recent)

clayey sands, and fine sands and silts associated with ancient stream alluvium

and ancient shoreline development (Schmidt, 1978). The sediments overlying

the limestone sequence are variable depending on their location. Commonly

occurring near the coast is a shell bed composed of numerous pelecypods and

gastropods contained in a sand and clayey sand matrix. The shell bed is

approximately 20 feet thick near the Alligator Point area and is overlain by

fine-grained quartz sand and silt. Exposures of the underlying strata are

rare in this area because of these sand deposits.

Alligator Harbor is bordered by several prominant offshore shoal systems, Dog

Island Reef to the southwest, South Shoal to the southeast, and the Ochloc-

konee Shoal to the east. Dog Island Reef is considered to be an example of a

submerged barrier island; the South Shoal was probably deposited by the

Ochlockonee River during a lower stand of sea level; and the Ochlockonee Shoal

probably represents a downed barrier island or headland (U.S.C.O.E., 1981).

B. Community Associations

The plant communities of the Alligator Harbor area are a major factor in the

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

This section will also reference some of the major animal species associated

with these plant communities. The major community associations recognized in

the preserves are saltmarshes, marine grassbeds, oyster bars, unvegetated

soft-bottom communities, and algae. Each community is presented separately

although in reality these communities are sometimes mixed or overlap. Final

subsections address the animal life and endangered species within the aquatic

preserve.

1. Oyster Reef. Oyster reefs are stable islands of substrate in an otherwise

muddy environment. Their extensive surface area provides essential habitat

for many animals, especially sessile suspension--feeding epifauna like

barnacles and polychaetes. The crevices also provide a refuge for motile

invertebrates such as crabs and amphipods. One of the functions of the reef

inhabitants is to mineralize organic carbon and release nitrogen and phos-

phorous in forms usable by the primary producers (phytoplankton and benthic

algae). The community may also affect local turbidity levels through the

processes of filtration and biodeposition.

The oyster has generally adapted well to a wide range of salinities, temp-

eratures, turbidities, and oxygen tensions (Bahr et al., 1981). However, in

Alligator Harbor, high, rather stable salinities and high summer temperatures

restrict oyster reef development below the mid-intertidal zone. High

temperatures limit the upper level at which oysters can live. The high

salinities allow predation on the oysters by whelks, stone crabs and

polychaetes which predominate in the subtidal region of relatively constant

salinity. Other predators on the community include the blue crab, sheeps-

head minnow, raccoon, and numerous wading birds such as the American

oystercatcher and boat-tailed grackle. Table I lists commonly occurring

species.

In the Alligator Harbor area, oyster reefs occupy approximately 290.7 acres.

Dense intertidal and subtidal oyster reefs occur at the eastern end of the

harbor. There are also several scattered large reefs in the harbor as well

as patches of reefs associated with the salt marshes. The oysters are not

harvested commercially because of their small size.

2. 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, serve as important nursery

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

al., 1969). They are important not only for their productivity but also for

the animal life associated with the community. These beds serve as important

TABLE 1

Oyster Reef Community

Examples of Animal Life Commonly Associated with the
Oyster Reef Community

Birds Invertebrates

American oystercatcher Hydroids
Dunlin Bryozoans
Ruddy turn-stone Sponges
Black-bellied plover Sea anemones
Willet Barnacles
Fish crow Crabs
Boat-tailed grackle Parasitic gastropods
Predatory gastropods
Flatworms
Starfish
Polychaete worms
Bivalves
Snapping shrimp
Amphipods

Mammals

Raccoon

Fishes

Blennies
Gobies
Clingfish
Toadfish

Pudloe, J., 1984
Livingston, R.J., 1983
Livingston, R.J., 1984
Bahr, L.M. and W.P. Lanier, 1981

nursery areas for juvenile forms of shellfish, and a substrate for many

species of algae, such as Gracilaria spp., Caulepa sp. and Padina sp. The

algae are eaten by many of the invertebrates which are, in turn, eaten by the

fishes. Many commercially important fishes spend at least part of their lives

in these grassbeds (Zieman, 1982) (Table II).

The submerged vegetation in coastal areas of Franklin County is generally

limited by high turbidity, color, and sedimentation. Thus, grassbeds and

associated algae are usually found only in the shallowest (usually fringing)

portions of the system.

Grassbeds in Alligator Harbor cover approximately 645.7 acres and are domi-

nated by Cuban shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), manatee (Syringodium

filiforme), and turtle (Thalassia testudinum) grasses. At the eastern end of

Alligator Harbor the grassbeds are sparse and composed primarily of

shoalgrass, while at the western end the grassbeds are denser and made tp

primarily of turtle grass mixed with patches of shoal grass and manatee grass

(COE, 1979). There are also grassbeds associated with the Turkey Point shoals

south of Turkey point.

The shallow areas where seagrasses grow are prime fish habitat and are

vulnerable to damage by boating activities. Thalassia can take from two to

five years to regenerate once disturbed by boat propellers or other impacts

(Zieman, 1976). The grassbed community's sensitivity to turbidity make it

vulnerable to dredging activities.

TABLE II
Marine Grassbeds Community

Examples of Animal Life Community Associated with the Marine Grassbeds
Community.

FISHES Invertebrates

Pigfish Tunicates
Croaker Sea urchins
Killifish Sea Cucumbers
Spiny boxfish Polychaete worms
Spotted seatrout Bryozoans
Silver perch Crabs
Mullet Sea anemones
Gobies Bivalves
Pipefish Gastropods
Pinfish Hydroids

BIRDS

Common Loon
Brown pelican
Double-crested cormorant
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
American widgeon
Northern shoveler
Lesser scaup
Bufflehead
Ruddy duck
Red-breasted merganser
Hooded merganser
Osprey
American coot
Black skimmer
Belted kingfisher
Gulls
Terns

Rudloe, J., 1984
Livingston, R.3., 1983
Livingston, R.J., 1984

3. Subtidal Soft Bottom Substrate. Muddy, soft bottom, unvegetated substrate

comprises the majority of the open water zone and is the dominant habitat form

in the area. The relative composition of the sand, silt, clay and shell

fractions of the sediments depends on proximity to land, runoff conditions,

water currents, and trends of biological productivity (Livingston, 1984). In

turn, the sediment type, salinity, and water quality conditions determine the

composition of infaunal and epifaunal biological components.

This substrate is generally dominated by polychaetes and amphipods. Table III

lists other species commonly associated with this community.

4. Saltmarshes. In the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve, saltmarshes

function to stabilize and bind sediments, and to provide significant nursery,

feeding, and reproductive zones for a wide variety of organisms. Complex food

webs support associations of insects, mollusks, crustaceans, fishes, birds,

and other vertebrates. Many species of sport and commercial importance,

including blue crabs, penaeid shrimp, mullet, spotted seatrout, snapper, red

drum feed in the marshes. Some of the net productivity of the marsh system

enters associated aquatic habitats via microbial and tidal action.

In the Alligator Harbor area most of the saltmarsh habitat is found along the

tidal creek system at the eastern end of the harbor. A smaller saltmarsh area

occurs on the north shore of the spit just inside the boundary of the Phipps

Preserve. Scattered patches of saltmarsh vegetation are also found between

Wilson Beach and the well developed marshes at the eastern end of the harbor.

TABLE III
Soft-Bottom Substrate

Examples of Animals Associated With Subtidal Soft-bottom Substrate.

Invertebrates Fishes

Polychaetes Striped anchovy
Amphipods Atlantic croaker
Phoronid worms Spotted seatrout
Blue crabs Inshore lizardfish
Penaeid shrimp Southern flounder
Horseshoe crabs Spot
Bivalve molluscs Pigfish
Gastropod molluscs Bighead searobin

Birds

Great blue heron
Great egret
Herring gull
Ring-billed gull
Laughing gull
Black skimmer
Common tern
Least tern
Royal tern

There is little saltmarsh development along the shoreline between Wilson Beach

and Turkey Point.

Zonation of plant species within the saltmarsh is dependent on elevation,

depth of tidal flooding and salinity. In this area, the saltmarshes are

composed primarily of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) with secondary

concentrations of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). At slightly

higher elevations, saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia

virginica), sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens), and marsh elder (Iva

frutescens) are common.

The animal life of the salt marsh is rich and diverse (Table IV). It includes

primary consumers that feed on vascular plant detritus and fresh algae, such

as amphipods, fishes, shrimp, crabs, clams, oysters, snails and worms.

Animals like the rice rat and cotton mouse nest within the marsh, but others,

such as the raccoon, marsh rabbit and oppossum come down to the marshes to

feed during low tides. Avian species like clapper rails, willets, red-winged

blackbirds, seaside sparrows, and marsh wrens nest in the salt marshes.

Herons, egrets, ibis, and other wading birds feed on mud flats and at the

edges of the marshes.

5. Benthic Algae. Over 300 species of algae have been found in the general

area of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve (Menzel, 1957). The red algae

are the most conspicuous and include such forms as Gracilaria. The green

algae are also well represented and there are eight species of the genus

Enteromorpha. Other greens that are commonly found are species of Cladophora,

TABLE IV
Salt Marsh Community

Examples of Animal Life Commonly Associated with the Salt Marsh
Community

Fishes Invertebrates

Croakers Penaeid shrimp
Mullet Periwinkle snails
Killifish Fiddler crabs
Redfish Barnacles
Sand trout Nematodes
Skipjack Polycheate worms
Sea trout Amphipods
Tarpon Bivalves
Drum Gastropods
Sheepshead
Threadfin herring
Shad

Mammals Birds

Raccoon Willets
Marsh rabbit Great egret
Rice rat Clapper rails
Striped skunk Gulls
Cotton Mouse Great blue heron
Little blue heron
Green backed heron
Reptiles White ibis
Spotted sandpiper
Diamondback terrapin Least sandpiper
Western sandpiper
Ruddy turnstone
Dunlin
Seaside sparrow
Marsh wren
Red-winged blackbird

Rudloe, J., 1984
Livingston, R.J., 1983
Livingston, R.J., 1984

Rhizoclonium, Codium, and Acetabularia. Five species of brown algae, both

attached and drifting, have been identified. The less conspicuous blue green

algae are mainly sessile on the sand or mud or are epiphytic. Many are inter-

tidal and a few bore in shells.

Algal growth is usually rapid and continuous throughout the year. The amount

of energy transformed by algal photosynthesis is a significant contribution to

the total primary production.

6. Endangered and Threatened Species. The diverse habitats of the Alligator

Harbor Aquatic Preserve contribute to the survival of several species of

endangered or threatened animals. For example, the shoals, sand bars, sandy

beaches and other aquatic areas in the preserve provide attractive feeding

and/or nesting sites for many avian species. The southeastern snowy plover

(an endangered species) and the eastern brown pelican (a threatened species)

feed in waters surrounding the preserve, and loaf and roost on its beaches.

The least tern (another threatened species) nests on the upper beach area of

the Phipp's Preserve on Peninsula Point. Plovers, oystercatchers, herons and

egrets feed and loaf in the numerous shallow water and shoreline habitats.

The Atlantic loggerhead turtle nests along the barrier island beaches in the

area and the Atlantic/Ridley and leatherback turtles may utilize nearshore and

offshore waters for feeding.

Table V provides a tentative list of several endangered, threatened, or

special concern animals known or likely to occur within this area.

TABLE V
Endangered, Threatened and Species of Special Concern

Species of the Alligator Harbor Area which are classified as
endangered, threatened or of special concern.

Endangered Species

Reptiles

Atlantic Ridley turtle ............ Lepidochelys Kempii
Leatherback turtle ................ Dermochelys coriacea

Birds

Peregrine falcon................. Falco peregrinus
Southeastern snowy plover .......... Charadrius alexandrinus
tenuirostris
Threatened

Reptiles

Atlantic loggerhead turtle ........ Caretta caretta caretta

Birds

Eastern brown pelican ............ . Pelecanus occidentalis
carolinensis
Bald eagle . ..................... Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Southeastern kestrel .............. Falco spaverius paulus
Roseate tern . ..................... Sterna dougallii
Least tern . .................... Sterna antillarum

Species of special concern

Reptiles

American Alligator . ............... Alligator mississippiensis

Birds

Little blue heron ................. Florida caerulea
Snowy egret ....................... Egretta thurla
Tricolored heron .................. Egretta tricolor
Reddish egret ........... .......... Egretta rufescens
American oystercatcher ............ Haematopus palliatus
Wakulla seaside sparrow ........... Ammospiza maritima junicola

Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission. Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. P.C.H. Pritchard, Series Ed., Vol. 1-6. University Presses
of Florida, Gainsville, 1978.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Endangered and
Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida. October 1984.

C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES

The areas surrounding Alligator Harbor were extensively utilized by the

pre-Columbian inhabitants of this region. The abundant natural food

resources, such as fin and shellfish, have provided sustenance to permanent

and semipermanent occupants of the area for several thousand years. Although

the area was undoubtedly inhabited by Paleo-Indian and Archaic peoples

(12,000-3,000 B.C.), little has been recovered to document a substantial us e.

Toward the close of the Archaic period, however, a change began to take place

in observed subsistence activities.

Sometime between 3,000 and 2,000 B.C., a.crude fiber tempered pottery came

into use by the coastal inhabitants along this portion of the Gulf Coast.

This archaeological phase is known locally as the Norwood Phase (Phelps,

1966), and the type site is located on Alligator Harbor. During this phase,

there was a clear dependence upon fin and shellfish from the Harbor, and the

remains of these people's living areas provide an indication that they were

taking everything edible, including deer and smaller upland game.

Following the Norwood Phase, an occupation continuum known to archaeologists

as the Deptford-Swift Creek Continuum has been identified. This covers a

period of approximately 1500 years (1,000 B.C.-500 A.D.). Occupation sites

became larger and ceramics more abundant. The ceramic vessels were often

elaborately decorated by incising or stamping the wet clay with a carved

paddle. There was a definite emphasis upon ritual and ceremonialism during

this time. One of the best known examples of the late Deptford-early Swift

Creek Ceremonial Mound is the Yent Mound, located on Alligator Harbor. This

site was originally excavated by Clarence B. Moore in 1902 and has been the

subject of many scientific publications since that time.

Another important archaeological site located on the Harbor is the Tucker Site,

which contains some Swift Creek phase materials, but is primarily an example

of the Weedon Island Phase (500 A.D.-1,000 A.D.) This site also contained a

burial mound, as well as a village area. During the Weedon Island phase,

local inhabitants appeared to have modified their earlier subsistence pat-

terns. Remains of shellfish in the village area of this and other Weedon

Island Sites in the vicinity indicate a preponderant use of a small brackish

water clam (Rangia cuneata). Whether this subsistence shift was by preference

or was forced upon the occupants by changing climatic conditions is not pres-

ently known.

Following the Weedon Island phase came the late prehistoric and early historic

phase known as Fort Walton. Sites around Alligator Harbor from this time

period (1,000-1,600 A.D.) are very small, indicating brief seasonal occupa-

tion. Shellfish remains are predominately oyster. Oysters were perhaps

gathered as a protein supplement to transport inland since horticulture was

well established by this time. Local evidence of early European contact by

these people is scarce, but some European trade goods have been recovered from

Indian burials at the Mashes Sands Site, near Carrabelle.

While most of the archaeological sites in the vicinity of Alligator Harbor are

small and disturbed in varing degrees, every effort should be made to protect

these non-renewable resources until the data contained within them can be

professionally extracted. Each site potentially represents a time capsule of

not only cultural remains, but also of what natural conditions existed in

Alligator Harbor at a given point in time. Loss of this paleo-ecological data

would be as tragic as loss of the unique cultural remains within these sites.

D. WATER RESOURCES

Alligator Harbor is a shallow, neutral bay with no significant freshwater

inflow and relatively stable salinities. These characteristics are due, in

part, to the extremely small drainage basin and to regular tidal exchange with

the water of Apalachicola Bay. Only during extremely heavy rains can any

appreciable amount of freshwater enter the harbor. Salinities in the area

range from 30 to 35 parts per thousand and have occasionally dropped signifi-

cantly when heavy rainfalls have lowered the salinity in the nearshore waters

of Apalachicola Bay.

Average water depth in the harbor is about 3.5 feet below mean low water. The

extreme shallow areas are the headwaters, shoreline waters near the north

shore and scattered sand bars. Depths at the harbor mouth are about 8-10 feet

(Yentsch, 1953). Depths in the aquatic preserve area between the harbor mouth

and the western boundaries of the preserve vary from 4 to 17 feet, with a 10

foot deep channel running south from the Florida State University M~arine

Laboratory at Turkey Point.

Access channels between Alligator Harbor and the Gulf have been chronically

plagued by severe shoaling and the westward migration of Peninsula Point.

This shoaling blocked off a natural channel immediately adjacent to Peninsula

Point that was improved by the State of Florida in 1974. The stability of the

channel is indicated to be directly related to a natural dynamic equilibrium

existing between hydraulic (tidal flows between Harbor and Gulf) and sedi-

mentary (along shore and onshore transport) forces (COE, 1979). The north

channel across the bay mouth bar south of Wilson Beach and St. Teresa is still

open and has a controlling depth of about 4 feet.

Although there is little published information available on water quality in

the aquatic preserve, the fact that the surrounding area has a low population

density, little agricultural development, no significant industrialization,

*and negligible freshwater inflow (potentially carrying pollutants), water

quality is probably very good. Currently, there are no sewage treatment

facilities to serve the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve area and all

residences are served by individual septic tanks. It is estimated that there

are 375 septic tanks along Alligator Point and an additional 28 located

between St. Teresa and Turkey Point (Franklin County, 1983). Of the existing

septic systems in the County, some are unapproved and are of primitive design.

Improper design and/or poor soil absorption can result in hydraulic overload

and the potential contamination of local ground and surface water sources.

Prior to the installation of the newly completed sewage treatment facilities

at Apalachicola, there was not a septage disposal site in the County.

Attempts to establish one at an existing landfill were rejected by the DER

because of the high water table. Residents in the eastern part of the County

probably utilize facilities in Wakulla County or resort to illegal dumping

(Franklin County Health Department, 1985).

The waters of the aquatic preserve are classified as Class 1I (shellfish

propagation or harvesting) by the DER. DNR classifies the harbor as an

Approved Shellfish Harvesting Area, while the rest of the aquatic preserve is

Unclassified.

E. CULTURAL

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

affects the aquatic preserve. Overall, the U.S. Census population for Frank-

lin County decreased-1.68 percent from 7,065 in 1970 to 6,946 in 1980. The

1980 figures indicate a reduction in population county-wide, caused by a

precipitous drop in Apalachicola's population, and a slowing in the rate of

growth in the unincorporated areas of the county. When the county is further

divided into Census County Divisions (CCD's), the unincorporated portion of

the Carrabelle division, including the area in the aquatic preserve and Dog

Island, shows a population increase of 6.83% from 688 in 19-70 to 735 in 19.80

(Franklin County, 1981).

The shoreline bordering the aquatic preserve is becoming heavily developed,

primarily with residential week-end cottages along the Alligator Point side of

the harbor. Commercial zoning is currently limited. The northern and eastern

portions of the harbor, except at Wilson Beach and St. Teresa, are basically

undeveloped. There are no Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) in the

aquatic preserve area at this time.

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 preserve for the benefit of future

generations (Section 258.35, F.S.). The management of the Alligator Harbor

Aquatic Preserve will be directed toward the maintenance of the existing or

essentially natural conditions. This part of the management plan addresses

the policies and procedures which both onsite and administrative personnel

will pursue. The on-site management will involve DNR's field personnel

assigned to the aquatic preserve. The administrative management will involve

the Division of Recreation and Parks' personnel (both in the field and in the

central office) and the Division of State Lads personnel, cooperating in the

review of applications for use of state-owned lands and related activities

surrounding the preserve. These 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 in the activities that the

field personnel 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

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

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

generally be involved in all management activities concerning the Alligator

Harbor Aquatic Preserve.

11. Plant Communities

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

major functions vital to the health and productivity of the aquatic 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

materials that fuel the marine food web which supports the area's

fisheries, endangered species, migratory waterfowl, colonial water-

bird nesting colonies, raptors, marine mammals, and invertebrate

l ife.

C. they provide protected fisheries habitat for spawning and juvenile

development, many of which are of economic importance to the com-

miercial fisheries of the state and the nation;

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

e. they filter pollutants from contaminated and channelized runoff from

uplands within the adjacent watershed and, 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, a program to work toward the

protection and restoration of those communities affected by human activities

should be developed.

Management Policy

a. Field Familiarization arnd Documentation. Field personnel will become

familiar with t~he 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 preserves.

C. Preparation of Guidelines of 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 threat-

ened 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 guidelines for maintaining (or restoring if necessary) the

"critical habitat" required by each species.

d. Moni-toring 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 (historically and at the

present time) 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, salt marsh communities;

2. wind and wave damage to salt marsh and beach communities from storms

and hurricanes;

3. accretion-related seaward extension of salt marsh and beach

communities;

4. erosion-related landward retraction of salt marsh and beach

communi ti es;

5. depositional burying of marine grassbed communities;

6. invasions of exotic plant species and revegetation by native

species after exotic plant removal projects;

7. pathogen damage to and recovery of plant communities.

Q. 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 site according to

whether the site is publicly or privately owned, and the cost and effort

requi red.

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 of sovereignty submerged lands when the

plant communities in the proposed use area appear to be jeopardized.

i. Removal of salt marsh vegetation shall only be permitted for

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

The destructive clearing of salt marshes in sovereignty lands

shall be strictly prohibited.

ii. Marine grassbed communities shall not be removed or shaded to

such an extent as to cause the death of a significant area of the

community. They shall not be subjected to unacceptable turbid-

ity, decreased light penetration, propeller or net damage.

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

merged lands within the aquatic preserve by the Bureau of Land and

Aquatic Resource Management central office. No applications will

be approved within Class I 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 that recreational, private and commercial

uses (i.e., propeller damage) can inflict on marine grassbed

communities. Education programs can also be undertaken with other

federal, state or local groups (i.e., Florida Sea Grant, school

boards, etc.).

4. Field personnel will develop an exotic plant control and removal plan

after monitoring the rate and extent of invasion by exotic species.

5. In cooperation with the Department of Community Affairs 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 the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve.

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 salt marsh communities

within the aquatic preserve where a high density of salt marsh 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 salt marsh species and will develop guidelines for restoring

these 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 fam-

iliar with research projects being conducted within the aquatic preserve by

state and federal agency biologists and non-government researchers. Water

quality research issues, as they affect plant communities, should also be

closely followed. This familiarization should lead to a better understanding

of both 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 Alligator Harbor area is important to

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

the aquatic preserve, both in the estuary and offshore, are valuable resources

on which recreational and commercial fisheries depend. Large areas of

undisturbed wetlands are excellent habitat for many types of wildlife. These

wildlife include an extensive list of endangered species, migratory waterfowl,

colonial waterbirds, invertebrates and vertebrates.

The management objective for animal life within the aquatic preserve will be

the protection through preservation of 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 for sound 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, Marine Fisheries Commission, and

any other applicable agencies and non-government organizations involved in the

management of endangered species. These guidelines will be used in conjunc-

tion 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 Changes in Animal Populations. 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;

!v. changes in habitat due to water quality changes; and

V. 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 within the aquatic preserve that might

affect the well-being of animal life and should 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 Needs).

g. Coordination With Other Researchers. Field personnel will become

familiar with research projects conducted within the aquatic preserve by state

and federal agency biologists and non-government researchers. This familiari-

zation should lead to a better understanding of both agencies' personnel and a

better awareness of the data findings and uses. The research liaison will

also be addressed in Chapter X (Scientific Research).

3. GEOLOGIC FEATURES

The management of geologic features will require that the field personnel

become 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 inlets, 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 bulk-

heads, bridges and channels as they might affect state owned lands.K 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 salt marsh or other suit-

able 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.

Existing bridges and causeways within other sections of Franklin County have

resulted in losses of grassbeds and salt marsh vegetation. Proposals for

bridge and causeway construction within the preserve will be reviewed in light

of these potential impacts. Causeways restrict natural flushing and create

unnatural circulation patterns.

M~aintenance dredging of existing channels should also be carefully studied to

remove conditions that require perennial maintenance and chronic environmental

disturbances. New channels also have the potential to adversely impact the

aquatic preserves, with varying influences in each preserve, depending on

channel location.

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,

Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Transportation or

the Water Management Districts, 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. 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.

Administering Agency

The management of the archaeological and historical sites is authorized and

administered by the Division of Archives, History and Records Management

(DAHRM) in the Florida Department of State. The management authority for this

area of management is presented in Chapter 11 (Management Authority).

Management Policy

The management policy presented here is one of conservation, as recommended by

the DAHRM 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 archaeological 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, F.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 destructive forces required that the location of these

sites not be widely known, if the location is known at all. In many

instances DOHRM 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 contem-

plating 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 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, DAH-RM 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

destructi on.

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 ONR 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.

S. 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 preserve's plant and animal communities is

one of the most critical aspects of aquatic preserve management. Research to

understand how human activity can alter or detrimentally affect the dynamic

characteristics of the preserve's various habitats 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 ecological damage and

change in the water resources of the aquatic preserve estuarine ecosystem.

Management Policy

The successful management of the water resources of the aquatic preserve

depends heavily on other government agencies (i.e., DER 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 water resources data from non-government

agencies, are dependent on or may be found among colleges, universities,

scientific foundations and private consultants working in the Alligator Harbor

area. These various entities have interests at many different levels and

areas within the estuarine system. The aquatic preserve management program

will manage the water resources through coordination with these various

entities. The field personnel will not conduct water sampling, but through

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

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

aquatic preserve. Efforts will be made to ensure consistency in project

design and sampling techniques so that data from various studies can be used

for integrated analysis.

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

of Government Agencies and Other Entities. Field personnel will become

thoroughly familiar with the jurisdiction, personnel and monitoring 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.

Those agencies known to be working or having potential activities affecting

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

1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

2. Franklin County Health Department

3. Northwest Florida Water Management District

4. U. S. Geological Survey

5. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

7. Tall Timbers Research Station

8. Florida.-Department of Transportation

9. Apalachee Regional Planning Council

10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

11. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory

12. Florida State University

13. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

14. Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc.

15. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

16. Department of Natural Resources--Shellfish Sanitation Section

17. Florida Division of Forestry

18. Alligator Point Water Resources Board

19. Florida Marine Patrol

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

Field personnel will: (1) promote coordination among involved agencies in

planning monitoring programs and in evaluating monitoring data, (2) 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 Permits and Lease Applications 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 monitoring

activities will also include the monitoring of freshwater releases into the

preserves and their effect on the environment.

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 occur and when 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 substantive

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 initiate development of a cumulative impact

analysis program. The evaluation of cumulative impacts shall include the

following criteria from Chapter 18-20, F.A.C.:

(1) The number and extent of similar actions within the

preserve which have previously affected or are likely

to affect the preserve, whether considered by the

Department under its current authority or which existed

prior to or since the enactment of the Act; and,

(2) The similar activities within the preserve which are

currently under consideration by the department; and

(3) Direct and indirect effects upon the preserve which may

reasonably be expected to result from the activity; and

(4) The extent to which the activity is consistent with manage-

ment plans for the preserve, when developed; and

(5) The extent to which the activity is in accordance

with comprehensive plans adopted by affected local

governments, pursuant to Section 1631.3161,

F.S., and other applicable plans adopted by local, state

and federal governmental agencies.

(6) The extent to which the loss of beneficial hydrologic and

biologic functions would adversely impact the quality or

utility of the preserve; and

(7) The extent to which mitigation measures may partially off-set

adverse impacts. Proposed mitigation to compensate for damages to

resources in the preserve will only be considered when no other

reasonable alternatives exist.

The availability of onsite preserve staff who are familiar with the distinc-

tive 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, unauthorized dredging or filling, 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, extension of 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 research 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, DNR, DER). The field personnel will

assist, as necessary, with field evaluations 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 techniques. This work will be done in

conjunction with DNR's Marine Research Laboratory's Assessment of Fishery

Habitat Loss Study in the Alligator Harbor area. Marine Research Laboratory

personnel have developed resource and habitat identification mapping through

the use of LANDSAT (satellite) imagery and aerial photography.

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

for the development of a Resource Protection Area management system in the

aquatic preserves. This mapping system will identify and classify various

resources within the aquatic preserves that require protection by the manage-

ment program. This mapping system will also give acreage totals for each land

use and vegetation classification in the preserves. 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 preserves.

The onsite managers will supplement this mapping with the above information to

develop and update a Resource Protection Area WRA) mapping program. The RPA

mapping system is based on three levels of resource classification. The Class

I level will contain resources of the highest quality. Uses proposed for

these areas will receive the most rigorous review. The Class I level will

include one or more of the following: marine grassbeds; beaches; saltwater

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

merged); endangered species habitat; colonial water bird nesting sites; and

other appropriate factors.

The Class 2 areas will be 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 I 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 sensitive to disturbances as Class I areas. The resources

of Class 2 will include: marine grassbeds; salt marsh species colonizing new

lands; and other resources of Class I 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 1 or 92

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

with no significant vegetation or wildlife attributes. Nearshore and bottom

areas significantly modified by man will be designated Class 3.

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

more about the resource's reaction 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 LANOSAT 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 onsite 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 support and

assistance of the many other resource regulating and managing agencies, as well

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

from the colleges, universities, foundations and other interest groups and

individuals.

D. ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

This sec tion of the chapter addresses the role of the 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 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; 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 envi-

ronmental, 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 effect 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?'s 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 basically water dependent

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

preserve, and not infringing 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 2_53, F.S., and modified by Chapter 258, F.S. The central office was

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

for the purposes of evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed uses

of state-owned lands within aquatic preserves.

In conducting the environmental evaluations, the central office staff will

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

of Transportation (DOT) aerial photography, LANDSAT imagery, DER biological

reports, and other data resources. If a proposed activity is legally consis-

tent with the maintenance criteria outlined in Section'258.42, F.S. and

Chapter 18-20, 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 integ-

rity of the preserve. Copies of all applications received will be provided to4

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 Program authorized by Chapters 253 and 258,

F.S. and Chapter 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C. is expected to be the primary manage-

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

only vehicle. Section 253.77, F.S., as amended, and the December 1982

Memorandum of Understanding between the COE, DER and DNR provide direct access

to DER's permitting process for DNR. The Development of Regional Impact (DRI)

and other regional or state level review processes represent other implemen-

tation 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

p ~~central office staff will notify the Division of State Lands (or other program

managers) that the proposed activity is legally 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, Section

258.42, 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, or 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

a public navigation project.

2. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized 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 Section

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 prescribed 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.

will not prohibit the state from leasing the oil and 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 sh all 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 where applications requesting the use of state-owned

lands are denied, 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 [fearing 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 Appeal.

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 in initially identifying and contacting

governmental bodies, special interest groups and interested individuals

requiring aquatic preserve program coordination.

When requested by the onsite managers, t-he 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 DAHRM to

conduct a detailed cultural resource assessment for certain areas of the

preserve.

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,

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 will be presented.

r ~~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 preserve, 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. The

review shall be coordinated through the DER's Office of Coastal Management for

the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act of 1972, as amended.

1. United State 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 Service in Panama City. The USFWS 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 recovery techniques for this

purpose, as necessary.

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army 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 Alligator Harbor area include their involvement

with the DER in the dredge and fill permitting process, technical oversight of

channel, inlet 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

71)

proposed by the COE for conformance to the objectives of the aquatic preserve

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 DER is the state

agency responsible for handling most of t~hese 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 and where there are common

goals.

S. U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard is the federal agency involved in

boating safety, including search and rescue, and investigation of oil spills.

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 naviga-

tional 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 Alligator Harbor

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 resources or regulate

activities within the aquatic preserve. There are other DNR programs that

are within or affect the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve management.

1. Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department of Environmental

Regulation (DER) is the state agency in charge of state-wide regulation of

water quality. The DER is also the local contact in the aquatic preserves

area for the initiation of dredge and fill applications in conjunction with

the COE and DNR. With respect to water quality and dredge and fill regula-

tion, the DER is one of the most important agencies to the management of the

aquatic preserve. Maintaining water quality in the preserve is critical to

the health of the estuarine complex, and dredge and fill activities are one of

the most potentially destructive activities affecting water qualtiy within the

preserve. The DER also monitors and regulates other potential forms of pollu-

tion, such as air pollution, wastewater discharges, and hazardous waste, all

of which can affect the ability to maintain essential natural conditions.

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 advanced copies of the permit applications from

DER 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 reviewing 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

(OCA) is responsible for determining Developments of Regional Impact (DPI) and

for recommending to the Administration Commission Areas of Critical State

Concern (ACSC). 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.

The ACSC program is intended to protect the areas of the state where unsuit-

able land development would endanger resources of regional or statewide

significance. When an area is identified as a possible ACSC, a Resource

Planning and Management Program (RPMP) is established. The RPMP evaluates the

resources, and the local government's land development practices. After this

evaluation-*is complete, the RPMP committee makes recommendations to the local

governments on how their land development practices could be improved to

ensure an orderly land well-planned growth that would protect the critical

resources. When these modifications are not made to the RPMP committee's

approval, areas of local government that are not in conformance could be

designated an ACSC or the entire area may be designated an ACSC by the

Legislature. Franklin County has been designated as an ACSC with the

exception of areas east of the intersection of U.S. 319 and 98. This

exclusion encompasses the entire Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve.

Under an ACSC designation, the local governments are required to notify DCA of

any application for a development permit. The entire land development process

will require the state's oversight until that local government modifies its

land development practices to conform to the ACSC requirements.

3. Department of Natural Resources. The aquatic preserve management program

is associated with several other Department of Natural Resource (DNR) programs

in the Alligator Harbor area.

DNR's Marine Research Laboratory in St. Petersburg, under the Division of

Marine Resources, has several programs and projects within this area which

will benefit the aquatic preserve program. The Marine Lab is presently

studying fishery habitat losses in the Alligator Harbor area. The Resource

Protection Area mapping, which will be used in the management of these aquatic

preserves, 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 field will become familiar with this study and will

consult the Marine Lab for their data needs whenever possible.

The Division of Marine Resources also handles the permitting for the collec-

tion 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 DNR's Division of Law Enforcement, also operates in

Alligator Harbor. 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 Division of State Lands within the DNR is charged with overseeing uses,

sales, leases or transfers of state-owned lands. The aquatic preserve staff

will interact with State Lands in all transactions concerning submerged lands

within the aquatic preserve.? These would include the potential acquisition of

privately titled submerged lands or contiguous uplands important to the integ-

rity of the preserve. 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 links4

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.

The Division of Recreation and Parks, in addition to the work related to

aquatic preserves by BLARM and the Florida Park Service, is also involved in

the management of State parks and recreation areas nearby. The aquatic

preserve program will work closely with these programs as they relate to

aquatic preserve management objectives.

4. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC). The MFC was established as a rule-
making authority pursuant to Section 370.027, F.S. The seven members are

appointed by the governor and are delegated full rule making authority over

marine life (subject to approval by the Governor and Cabinet), with the

exception of endangered species. This authority covers the following areas:

a) gear specifications, b) prohibited gear, c) protected species, g) closed

areas, h) quality control- codes, i) seasons, and j) special considerations

related to egg bearing females and oyster and clam relaying. The field

personnel and central office staff will become familiar with and enforce the

rules of the MFC.

The MFC is also instructed to make annual recommendations to the Governor and

Cabinet regarding marine fisheries research priorities. The field and central

office staff will use these recommendations to direct research efforts within

the aquatic preserve.

5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. (GFWFC) The GFWFC's

Environmental Services office in Tallahassee sends biologists into the

preserve to review projects which may have potential impacts on local fish and

wildlife habitat as necessary. The central office will use the GFWFC's assis-

tance in their review process, when possible, and in developing fish and

wildlife management for the aquatic preserve.

The GFWFC also has law enforcement officers working in this area. The field

personnel will interact with these officers where there are common goals.

The GFWFC is also the state coordinator of the Non-Game Wildlife and the

Endangered Species Programs in Florida. The Field personnel and central

office staff will work with GF14FC personnel in developing program needs in

this area.

6. Department of Transportation. (DOT) The DOT has its State headquarters4

office in Tallahassee and District office in Chipley, and the aquatic preserve

field personnel and the central office will work with the resident engineer on

anticipated projects having possible impacts on the aquatic preserve. The

field personnel and administrative staff will review any major highway or
bridge projects that may be proposed in the future.

7. 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 protec-

tion of archaeological and historical sites. The field personnel will beI

directed by DAHRM, through the central office, in any activities or management

policy needs for these sites.

B. 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. Although mosquito control serves a useful public function,

the effects of pesticides (adulticides and larvacides) in the waters of the

preserve are a primary concern. Additionally, the central office staff will

become involved in future meetings and management programs developed by the

Governor's Working Group on mosquito control. Subsequent policy recommenda-

tions 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 Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve will include the Northwest Florida Water

Management District, The Apalachee Regional Planning Council, and the Florida

Inland Navigation District. These organizations have activities that are

broader than the local government, but are on a smaller scale than the state

level.

1. Water Management District. The Northwest Florida Water Management

District includes Franklin County. The water management district administers

permitting programs for consumptive water use, management and storage of sur-

face waters well drilling and operation, regulation of artificial recharge

facilities, and works of the district. This includes the withdrawal and use

of water from rivers, streams, and wells. The types of water uses they permit

in the preserve area 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. Regional Planning Councils. The Apalachee Regional Planing Council (ARPC)

serves as a regional planning body for the local government of Franklin

County. Other northwest Florida counties are served by these regional

planning councils, as well. Among its duties, the ARPC:

a. aids local governments with planning expertise;

b. is the regional representative for the Development of Regional

Impact (DRI) review process;

c. serves as regional clearinghouse for state and federal projects andJ

programs;

e. conveys information from the local governments to the state and

federal levels; and

f. prepares and administers the regional policy plan.

The field personnel will become familiar with the various projects, programs,

and data sources that the ARPC has within their administration that may affect

or prove useful to the aquatic preserve program.

The DRI review of projects which affect the aquatic preserves will be reviewed

by the central office staff, with the field personnel's field review, when

necessary. DRI's 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 aquatic preserve.

0. 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 government for Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve is

Franklin County since there are no incorporated cities bordering the Preserve.

The various special districts (drainage, inlet and mosquito control) and their

relationship to aquatic preserve management, are also presented.

The field personnel will be the local liaison for the aquatic preserve to

these local government 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: Local (municipal and county),

governments are required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of

1975 (Section 163.3161, F.S.) ras ammended by Chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida,

to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation

Act] to update their local plans and among other requirements adopt land

development regulations and improve coastal management protection. The

coastal management element of the LGCP along with the land use and conser-

vation elements establishes long range plans for orderly, and balanced

development, with particular attention to the identification and protection of

environmental resources in the planning area. Conformance with the criteria,

policies and practices of a local government comprehensive plan is required

for all development within the local governmental jurisdiction.

The intent of the aquatic preserve management program and this plan is to

guide Franklin County government during its comprehensive planning toward

developing l~ocal plan criteria and standards to be consistent with the

objectives of the aquatic preserve program. Field personnel will become

acquainted with local planning efforts and local officials and lend assistance4

for this purpose. In addition, the central office and field personnel will

encourage and advise local officials in preparation of marina elements in

their local plans to comply with aquatic preserve rules -For commercial docking4

facilities as specified in Chapter 18-20.04(5)(d)(4), F.A.C.

2. Relation to local development codes. The local zoning and development

codes (e.g. building codes) provide the major local regulation that defines

what an owner can do on a particular parcel of property. The zoning

prescribes the allowable uses and the intensity of those uses. Certain 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, development codes and their 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 environmental protection for the aquatic preserve management.

The field personnel will also offer to assist local planning and zoning

officials in the review of proposed subdivisions upland of the preserve.

3. Special Districts (Drainage, Inlet and Mosquito Control). The special

districts are taxing districts established to correct drainage and mosquito

control problems. Franklin County has a mosquito control district, but no

special drainage or inlet districts.

These districts may not have an official comprehensive management plan, but

they do have management policies and program statements that are similar to

such a plan. The field personnel will become familiar with these policies and

the activities of these districts and will 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 because of possible damage to the

resources of the aquatic preserve; or drain~age districts might be asked not to

use certain types of herbicides or to use them only at certain times of the

year.

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 includes the 50 acre

Phipp's Preserve on the western tip of Alligator spit, owned by the Nature

Conservancy and managed by the Tall Timbers Research Station.

In addition, it includes the environmental interest groups (i.e. Audubon

Society, Sierra Club and Native Plant Society), the scientific organizations

(Tall Timbers Research Station), the fishing and 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., Florida State

University), the newly formed Marine Fisheries Commission that will delegate

rules and regulations concerning fishing and shellfish harvesting in the

aquatic preserve, and other interest groups or individuals. The relationship

of these entities to aquatic preserve management might include the coordina-

tion of activities, such as scientific research, environmental education,4

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 con-

sidered public uses. This section will be further divided into consumptive

and non-consumptive uses as applicable to each resource.

A. Consumptive Uses.

Consumptive uses involve the removal of resources from the preserve. These

uses include fishing, hunting, shellfishing, and other related activities.

They also include the unintentional removal of resources by propeller damage

to grassbeds. The management of these uses (see Chapter V, Resource Manage-

ment, 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 disturbances

in the Alligator Harbor 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. Field personnel, for example, will become familiar with and

monitor the success of rules adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission.

These will include regulations on fishing gear, bag and size limits, closed

areas, seasons, etc.

Consumptive 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 disrup-
tion of the preserve's resources (e.g., destroys marine grassbeds, or 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

education programs (Chapter XI).

Chapter VIII

PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL USES

This section will apply to those private, non-commercial uses which are

associated with riparian land ownership. The management of the aquatic

preserve recognizes the traditional riparian rights of upland property owners.

The right of ingress, egress, boating, swimming, fishing and other incidental

uses of sovereignty lands, historically has allowed for the placement of

certain structures, such as docks, within the preserve. The right to make any

preemptive use of sovereign lands is a qualified one and can only be exercised

with the prior consent of the Board after a finding that such uses will not

impair public uses, or destroy or damage areas of environmental significance.

The review of proposed activities will require the interaction of the Resource

Protection Area mapping with administrative and possible field review and

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 Iland?2) and shall be designed to reduce the uses'

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 criteria described in Section 18-20.04(5) F.A.C. of the revised Aquatic

Preserve Rule.

913

Bulkheads should be placed, when allowed, in such a way as to be the least

destructive and disruptive to the vegetation and other resource factors in

each area. Approved 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 VrBIF6i) 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

Class I or 2 areas or in nearby areas if it will adversely impact these areas.

The location of proposed multiple docking facilities, such as for condominium

developments, shall be based on the marina siting criteria described in

Section 16Q-20.04(5) F.A.C. of the' revised General Aquatic Preserve Rule.

Authorization of such facilities will be conditioned upon receipt of docu-

mentation evidencing the subordination of the riparian rights of ingress and

egress for the remainder of the applicant's shoreline for the life of the

proposed docking facility.

Mon-residential docking facilities (commercial) are addressed in Chapter IX.

Bulkheads should be placed, when allowed, in such a way as to be the least

destructive and disruptive to the vegetation and other resource factors in

each area. Approved 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 1

areas (Chapter VrBir61) 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

Class I or 2 areas or in nearby areas if it will adversely impact these areas.

The location of proposed multiple docking facilities, such as for condominium

developments, shall be based on the marina siting criteria described in

Section 16Q-20.04(5) F.A.C. of the revised General Aquatic Preserve Rule.

Authorization of such facilities will be conditioned upon receipt of docu-

mentation evidencing the subordination of the riparian rights of ingress and

egress for the remainder of the applicant's shoreline for the life of the

proposed docking facility.

Mon-residential docking facilities (commercial) are addressed in Chapter IX.

The use of seaplanes and airboats within this preserve is seen as a non-

traditional use and this activity is discouraged due to the background noise

they create. Applications for seaplanes and airboats use within the preserve

will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Their use will only be recommended

where the activity will not affect resource protection areas, or the other

natural and aesthetic values of the preserve, or when required in law

enforcement efforts.

Chapter IX

COMMERCIAL USES

This section addresses the variety of traditional and non-traditional (i.e.,

new uses in this area) commercial uses which might occur within the aquatic

preserve. Among the traditional uses in the Alligator Harbor area are utility

crossings, marinas and yacht clubs, 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 (Chapter VEC!). 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 antici-

pated utility crossing needs to allow for advance planning, for placement 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, salt marshes or other critical habitat areas and should not

interfere with traditional public uses.

r ~~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, the

Florida Marine Patrol and the Marine Fisheries Commission, 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

divisions' programs and studies, will monitor fishing activities within the

aquatic preserve. Monitoring will concentrate on boat access into certain

areas, prevention of marine grassbed destruction and other needs of the

aquatic preserve as they are associated with commercial fishing activities.

After problems associated with commercial fishing activities are identified

and documented, the findings will be presented to the Marine Fisheries

Commission. It is the authority of the Commission and the Florida Legis-

lature to regulate commercial fishing within the aquatic preserve.

3. Marinas. The locating of marinas and their related uses will be a major

concern of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve management. Marinas

represent a use with many potential impacts on the preserve's resources. The

siting policy of Section 18-20.04(5) F.A.C. of the revised General Aquatic

Preserve Rule shall be used for siting marinas in the aquatic preserves.

4. Other Docking. Any other type of commercial docking, not mentioned in the

preceding sections, will follow the marina siting policy as stated in Section

18-20.04(5) F.A.C. of the revised General Aquatic Preserve Rule.

B. Mon-traditional Commercial Uses

1. Deep Water Port Facilities. There are no facilities of this type within

the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve at the present time. New deep water

port facilities within the preserve boundary shall be prohibited.

2. Power Plants. Power plants have the potential for causing major changes

in the air quality, water quality, and plant and animal life of the aquatic

preserve. For these reasons, they are incompatible with the purposes 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.

3. Aquaculture. The Alligator Harbor area could potentially have proposals

for aquacultural development in the future. These uses may include floating

structures or other new techniques now being used in aquaculture. The

location type of impacts to the resources will require careful examination.

if there is not sufficient data available for valid evaluation, a small scale

test of the use might be possible in a selected area.

A. 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.

9~9

I
4
I

'1
100

Chapter X

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The field personnel attached to the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve should
serve as the area coordinators 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,
specific procedures, and time of year, should be carefully reviewed for the
possible disturbance or effect 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

I ~ ~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.

101

102

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 preserves for environmental education. Through education, the

youth of Franklin County can acquire a knowledge of the natural systems and an

appreciation for the aquatic preserve program.

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

preserves. Other educational activities might also include prepared presen-

tations for specific interest or user groups such as sport (boating, diving,

fishing, etc.), civic and conservation groups and the 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 will also prepare programs on the value of management activities

of the aquatic preserve for presentation to interested groups of all ages.

Educating the public about aquatic preserve management is the key to the

success and future of the preserve.

10 3

The environmental education activities of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic

Preserve may be coordinated with the public information and education program

of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve. The educational

goals of the preserve and reserve are similiar. A cooperative effort between

both programs and a sharing of resources would strengthen the educational

impact of each. Educating the public about estuarine and related resources is

the key to the success and future of the preserve.

104

Chapter XI1

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. Meet-

ting 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 specific-

ally 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
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 as well as other 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 will 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 usesI
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 co mpromise 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

106

The boundaries of the aquatic preserve are often political lines or artificial

delineations of the natural systems within and surrounding the preserves. The

field personnel, in their normal management activities, will be sensitive to

the possible need for boundary modifications in areas where resources would be

better protected. Potential boundary changes might include areas adjacent to

the present boundary or previously conveyed sovereign lands . Any boundary

change will require legislative approval.

C. Legislative Needs

Management needs could involve changes in the legislation pertaining to

aquatic preserves or changes in 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 rule 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.

E. Data (Information) Needs

The field personnel and central office staff will note data needs and promote

107

research or other means to fulfill them. Data needs in the near future could

possibly be supplied by such ongoing projects as the U.S. Geological Survey's,

and Northwest Florida Water Management District studies, Department of

.Environmental Regulation water quality monitoring or by the research of other

agencies. The field personnel will be aware of data needs as they interact

with the various levels of government and with 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 that are 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 depends on the Florida Marine

Patrol, 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 staff capabilities of both

the Department of Natural Resources and the other agencies with enforcement

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 and programs. The writing of this man-

agement plan was funded through a grant from the U. S. Office of Coastal Zone

Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and through the

"Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972", as amended.

In order for the management program proposed in this plan to function and

succeed, the program must have sufficient funding and staffing. The workload

required by this program is too much for an interim staff from other programs to

handle in addition to their primary obligations. Funding and staffing needs are

critically important to the success of the aquatic preserve program. The

following outline represents a proposed budget for the on-site staffing of the

preserve, as well as the identification of the equipment and expenses for the

first year of operation.

Proposed First Year Budget for the
Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve Management

Salary (Environmental Specialist II) and = $ 30,000
Associated Overhead

Operating Capital Outlay = 1,100

Utility Vehicle = 15,000

Boat/Motor/Trailer = 5,000

Operation Expenses = 8,900

TOTAL $ 60,000

109

Upon adoption of this management plan, an interim management presence is

contemplated through the use of existing O.P.S. funding. This funding will

remain in effect for the remainder of the current fiscal year.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clewell, A.F. "Geobotany of the Apalachicola River Region". Pages 6-15 in R.J.
Livingston and E.A. Joyce., eds. Proceedings of the Conference on the
Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Department of Natural Resources. Marine
Resources, Marine Research Publication No. 26, 1977.

De la Cruz, A.A. "The Role of Tidal Marshes in the Productivity of Coastal
Waters." Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin. 20(4): 147-156. 1973.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. P.C.H. Pritchard, Series Ed., Vol. 1-6. University Presses of Florida,
Gainsville, 1978.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Endangered and Potentially
Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida. October, 1984.

Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. Volumes 1 and 2. 1981.

Kurz, H. and K. Wagner. Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts of
Northern Florida and Charleston, South Carolina. Florida State University
Studies No. 24. 168 pp. 1951.

Livingston, R.J. The Ecology of the Apalachicola Bay System: An Estuarine
Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS 82/05. 148 pp. 1984.

Livingston, R.J. Resource Atlas of the Apalachicola Estuary. Florida Sea Grant
Publication. 64 pp. 1983.

Menzel, R.W. "Marine Biology of Alligator Harbor, FL. "ASB Bulletin 4(4): 51-5A.
1957.

Menzel, R.W. and F.E. Nichy. "Studies of the Distribution and Feeding Habits of
Some Oyster Predators in Alligator Harbor, FL." Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf & Caribb.
8(2): 125-145. 1958.

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

Moore,C.B. "Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast". Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol. 12, pl. 2. 1902.

Naqui, S.M.Z. Effect of Predation on Infaunal Invertebrates of Alligator Harbor
Region. M.S. Theses. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 1966.

Odum, E.P. "The Role of Tidal Marshes in Estuarine Production." The
Conservationist, Vol. XIX, No. 1. 1966.

Odum, W.E., J.S. Fisher, and J.C. Pickral. "Factors Controlling the Flux of
Particulate Carbon from Estuarine Wetlands." In: Ecological Processes in
Coastal and Marine Systems. Ed. R.J. Livingston. Plenum Press, New York. 69-82
pp. 1974.

Penton, D.T., On Site Inventory of Yent Mound. October, 1971.

Phelps, D.S. "Early and Late Components of the Tucker Site". Florida
Anthropologist, Vol. XIX, No. 1. 1966.

Rudloe, J. The Erotic Ocean. E.P. Dutton, Inc. New York. 1984.

Schmidt, W. Environmental Geology Series - Apalachicola Sheet. Florida Dept.
Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology. Map Series No. 84. 1978.

Sears, W.H. "Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf Coast of
Florida." American Antiquity. Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 5-18. 1962.

Teal, J.M. "Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem". Proceedings of the
Salt Marsh Conference, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Pages 101-107, University of
Georgia, Athens. 1959.

Teal, J.M. "Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology
43;614-624. 1962.

Terhune, F. (ed.) 1980 Census Handbook, Florida Counties University Presses of
Florida, Gainsville - 404 pp. 1984.

Terhune, F. (ed) Florida Statistical Abstract. University Presses of Florida,
Gainsville. 700 pp. 1983.

Trott, L.B. A Quantitative Study of Certain Benthic Communities in Alligator
Harbor. M.S. Theses. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 1960.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Coordination Report: Detailed
Project Study on Alligator Harbor, Florida. May, 1979.

Wiley, G.R. "Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast". Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections. Vol. 113. 1949.

Yentsch, S.C. Some of the Factors Influencing Distribution of Sessile
Invertebrates in Alligator Harbor, a Neutral Estuary. M.S. Theses. Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL. 1953.

Zieman, J.C. "The Ecological Effects of Physical Damage from Motorboats on
Turtle Grass Beds in Southern Florida." Aquat. Bot. 2:127-139. 1976.

Zieman, J.C. The Ecology of the Seagrasses of South Florida: A Community
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Geological Services,
Washington D. C., FWS/OBS-82/25, 158 pp. 1982.

112

APPENDICES

Selected Management Authorities

Chapter 258.35-258.46, Fla. State General Aquatic Preserves Act. Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BTIITF)

Chapter 253., F.S. Public Lands and Property (State Lands) BTIITF

Chapter 16Q-20, Fla. Administrative Code, General Aquatic Preserve Rules. BTIITF

Chapter 16Q-21, F.A.C., Sovereignty Submergered Lands Management Rules. BTIITF

Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., Water Quality Standards (Rules) Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER)

Chapter 17-4, F.A.C. Water Quality Permitting (Rules) FDER

Chapter 17-12, F.A.C. Dredge and Fill Permitting (Rules) FDER

Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. Regulation of Stormwater Discharge (Rules) FDER

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida
Department of Natural Resources and Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation On Permit Processing In the Waters of the State.

(Copies of the above referenced statutes and rules can be obtained from the
Aquatic Preserves central office in Tallahassee or from the specific regulatory
agency referenced.)

113