This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com
 ..u- \,.\..llt.ol~.-.-o\.Il$ ..{t..,.t ul\a, fa f
"\ ~..-\.\~ I~.\\.d-\~...ou\..

.
.
\
~
~
.
.
\
.

'
 0E8 95 41
-saN
.
::g-
o~>_
Draft
General Management Plan
Development Concept Plans
Environmental Impact Statement

TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY

MAR 3

-__
NORTHWESTERN UN IVEnSlTY

TIMUCUAN
Ecological and Historic Preserve - Florida
The following agencies have indicated a willingness to be a cooperating agency on this Draft
General Management Plan / Development Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement document
in accordance with regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91
190):

Federal
US. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
US. Department of the Navy
Naval Station Mayport
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
US. Environmental Protection Agency
US. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service

Regional
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council

State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of State, Division of Historical Resources
Department of Transportation

City of Jacksonville
Department of Recreation and Parks
Department of Regulatory and Environmental Services
Air Quality Division
Water Resources Division
Historic Preservation Commission
Office of City Council
Planning Department
 General Management Plan
Development Concept Plans
l lal l l l l l l l l l l
5556 030 16318 2

Environmental Impact Statement

December 1994

TIMUCUAN
Ecological and Historic Preserve
Duval County, Florida

This Draft General Management Plan / Development Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement for 'Iimucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve sets a course for management of the preserve for the next 10 to 15 years. Its
purpose is to comply with National Park Service (NPS) policy and Public Law 95-42, which require the preparation
of a general management plan for every unit of the national park system. The general management plan will
ensure the long-term preservation of the significant resources and will provide for public use and enjoyment of
the preserve's many features.

Descriptions of the preserve, its enabling legislation, its prehistory, history, and resources are provided. Four
alternatives for future management and use of the preserve are analyzed in this document. The alternatives range
from a continuation of existing management (no-action) alternative to one in which the National Park Service
would take a more active role in preservewide management and development. All four alternatives share the
objective of preserving the park while continuing to provide for visitor understanding and appreciation of its
resources and their stories. The alternatives reect a range of different strategies for meeting the purposes of the
preserve. These strategies differ in the level of commitment by the citizens of Jacksonville, landowners, state and
local governments, the National Park Service, and other federal agencies to protect preserve resources. The
alternatives also differ in the relative priority given to protection and interpretation of a few known cultural
resources and the broader setting of the preserve. They differ in the level and type of staffing interpreters and
educational specialists or law enforcement rangers and regulatory specialists required to implement the plan.
The degree to which preserve purposes and management objectives can be fulfilled also varies among the
alternatives. Under alternative 1, the National Park Service would continue to manage, according to NPS policies,
only those lands and associated waters it owns, and it would continue to address problems or concerns on lands
owned by others that may affect resources preservewide using existing NPS authorities and resources or through
consultation with other agencies. In alternative 2 the preserve would be managed for education and interpretation
of the salt marsh/ estuarine ecosystem, its role in shaping history, and how historic and contemporary human uses
affect that system. Alternative 3 is the National Park Service's proposed action. Under the proposed action,
Timucuan would become a model for effective cooperation among government agencies and private interests to
protect an ecosystem encompassing important historic and prehistoric resources, as well as outstanding natural
values. Through a commitment of formal cooperative efforts between federal, state, and local agencies, private
organizations, and private landowners, the shared vision, management objectives, and responsibilities for resource
management and protection would be realized preservewide through one or more management strategies:
agreement, collaboration, cooperation, and /or partnership. These efforts would identify and address problems or
concerns preservewide. Under alternative 4, the National Park Service would protect, enhance, and restore the
quality of natural and cultural resources in the preserve by NPS acquisition and management. Visitor experience
opportunities would be expanded while protecting resources preservewide. Cooperation and coordination with
other entities would continue, especially for uses of adjacent or upstream areas. Under all alternatives, the National
Park Service would make development decisions at NPSeowned sites. Development concept plans for the Fort
Caroline National Memorial area, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and the Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation are
presented and discussed under alternative 3. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the preserve and its
resources from each alternative are outlined, and mitigating measures are described.

The review period for this document ends April 10, 1995. To comment on or to receive further information about
this document, contact:

Superintendent
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
12713 Fort Caroline Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32225

United States Department of the Interior ' National Park Service ' Denver Service Center
 SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
'Iimucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
was established by Public Law 100-249 on
February 16, 1988, "to administer those lands
. . . within the preserve in such a manner as
to protect the natural ecology of such land
and water areas in accordance with this Act
and the provisions of the law generally
applicable to units of the National Park
System." With designation of this preserve,
Congress sought to protect the complex salt
marsh/estuarine ecosystem and historic and
prehistoric sites in the valley between the
lower St. johns and Nassau Rivers, Florida,
and to provide opportunities for the public
to understand, enjoy, and appreciate these
resources.
This Draft General Management Plan /
Development Concept Plans / Environmental
Impact Statement for Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve provides management
guidance for concerns of the preserve related
to protection of the important ecosystem;
impacts on plant and animal species,
especially those listed as threatened,
endangered, or of special concern; threats to
important cultural resources; landownership
or land control and land uses; interpretation
of the preserve's diverse resources and
unique ecology for residents and visitors;
and appropriate types and levels of use by
humans for residing, working, commuting,
recreating, learning, hunting, and fishing.
At the time of the adoption of this plan, only
20%30% of the land within the designated
boundary of Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve will be in the ownership of
the National Park Service. Planning for the
protection and management of the preserve
therefore must address strategies to deal
with diverse landownership.
This draft general management plan presents
four alternative concepts for future
management and use of the Timucuan
iii
Preserve. All four concepts share the
objective of promoting environmental
awareness and sound land stewardship
practices, while providing for visitor
understanding and appreciation of preserve
resources and stories. The alternatives reect
a range of different strategies for meeting the
purposes of the preserve. These strategies
differ in the level of commitment required of
the citizens of Jacksonville, landowners, state
and local governments, the National Park
Service, and other federal agencies to protect
preserve resources. The alternatives also
differ in the relative priority given to
protection and interpretation of a few known
cultural resources and the broader setting of
the preserve. Additionally, the level and type
of staffing interpreters and educational
specialists or law enforcement rangers and
regulatory specialists required to imple
ment the plan vary among the alternatives.
The degree to which preserve purposes and
management objectives can be fulfilled in
each alternative is described.
In all alternatives, the National Park Service
would make development decisions at NPS
owned sites. At a minimum, modifications
would be made at Fort Caroline National
Memorial, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation. Development
concept plans for these areas are presented
and discussed under alternative 3 (the
proposed action). These concept plans focus
on visitor experience/ public use and
physical development needs.
As part of the general management plan, an
environmental impact statement has been
prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. The broad nature
of the alternatives dictated a programmatic
approach to the environmental impact
statement. This document presents an
overview of potential impacts. Subsequent
development actions undertaken to
implement the selected alternative concept
would be preceded by site-specific
SUMMARY
environmental assessments that would tier to
this document.
THE ALTERNATIVES
The four alternatives analyzed in this
document and summarized below provide a
reasonable range of different management
emphases and priorities for the preserve.
Environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the alternatives are also
summarized.
Alternative 1
Description. This is the continuation of
existing management or no-action
alternative. The National Park Service would
manage only the lands it owns according to
current laws and NPS policies, philosophies,
and trends.
Resource management emphasis would be at
Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation. Protection of other
NPS-owned properties would be at the
optimum level funding would allow. Should
present fiscal conditions improve, higher
resource protection levels may be possible.
Problems or concerns that might affect the
integrity of resources preservewide would be
addressed on a case-by-case basis through
exercising existing NPS authorities,
advocating stewardship by landowners or
entities with control over resources, and
consulting with other agencies who would
preserve and protect non-NPS resources as
their budgets and priorities permitted.
Interpretation would be provided at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation only. Access to and
interpretation of other NPS-managed
properties would be provided as funding
allowed. Under the current trend of fiscal
constraints, NPS visitor services may not
meet minimum NPS standards.
iv
Adoption of this alternative would result in
the continuation of current development
trends within and adjacent to the preserve,
with some marginal improvements in the
controls on density and development
standards. If current trends continue, even
with the planned modifications to the local
regulations, such development could result
in major intrusions on the scenic quality of
important vistas in the preserve, and create
detrimental impacts on natural resources
such as water quality.
The National Park Service would continue to
comment to the city and other agencies on
land use plans, regulations, and proposals,
realizing NPS recommendations may not be
adopted.
This alternative would include limited
acquisition of significant uplands (from
willing sellers only) and wetlands on a
limited basis as allowed by the enabling
legislation.
Minor boundary adjustments would be
sought to follow natural features more
closely and facilitate management.
Concessioners would be used to operate tour
boats between NPS sites.
Staffing under this alternative emphasizes
achieving an acceptable level of operations
centering around Fort Caroline, the Theodore
Roosevelt area, and Kingsley Plantation.
Impacts. Impacts from NPS development
actions would not impair resource values.
Natural resource management would
continue to be on a piecemeal basis, lacking
coordination and leadership; as a result,
resources may be protected over the short
term, but long-term protection might not be
adequate. The absence of a preservewide
natural resource management plan, small
staff size, lack of funding, and limited
authority would result in continued declines
in habitat condition, population stability, and
range size, leading to losses of critical

habitat, population fragmentation, and local
extirpations.
Cultural resources under NPS management
would continue to receive the same level of
protection, depending on funding. Cultural
resources not under NPS management might
suffer from lack of identification and
preservation because of the ad hoc approach
to resource protection.
Visitor experience and services likely would
not meet minimum NPS standards, short
term, negative impacts on the experience
would occur.
Direct, moderate negative impacts on access
and transportation would exist due to lack of
coordination and planning among agencies.
There would be negligible impacts on the tax
base from future land acquisition. Law
enforcement and regulation would continue
to be complicated and inefficient.
Minor boundary adjustments on Sherman
Creek and Little Marsh Island would exclude
about 260 acres of uplands possessing
insignificant natural or cultural values.
The Wonderwood Expressway adjustment
would increase acreage in the preserve by
about 300 acres. These lands have the
potential for significant natural or cultural
values.
Drainage headwater adjustments would
incorporate significant wetland resources
into the preserve that could provide
protection for significant plant communities
and rare, endangered, and threatened
species.
Alternative 2
Description. Preservewide, Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve would be
managed for education and interpretation of
the salt marsh/estuarine ecosystem, its role
in shaping history, and how historic and
Summary
contemporary human uses affect that system.
The strategy would be to place acquisition
and staffing priority on lands and programs
that promote environmental awareness,
which would spur action in the community
and affect public and private land
stewardship.
To fulfill the educational/environmental
awareness emphasis of this alternative, the
National Park Service would initiate a
multilevel public education program
targeting individual and corporate
landowners, government landowners and
land managers, and the public. Interpretation
at NPS sites would continue.
The National Park Service would acquire
only those lands that would support and/or
enhance the educational and research
opportunities in the preserve, only from
willing sellers or donors. No additional
legislative authority would be required.
In all other areas, this alternative would be
the same as alternative 1.
Impacts. Impacts on natural resources would
be the same as alternative 1; however,
adverse impacts would be slightly less
because of the emphasis on public education
as a resource protection strategy.
Cultural resources that best illustrate the
environmental theme of the preserve would
receive high protection priorities; others
would receive protection as funding allowed.
Public education programs may result in
landowners, preserve neighbors, and visitors
adopting proactive protection measures.
Although more educational opportunities
would exist under this alternative, the
impacts on visitor experience and public use
would be the same as alternative 1.
Impacts on access, transportation, and the
socioeconomic environment, and impacts of
minor boundary adjustments would be the
same as alternative 1.
SUMMARY
Alternative 3
Description. This is the National Park
Service's proposed action. The Tunucuan
Preserve would become a model for effective
cooperation among government agencies and
private interests to protect an ecosystem
encompassing important historic and
prehistoric resources as well as outstanding
natural values. The shared vision, manage
ment objectives, and responsibilities for
resource management and protection
preservewide would be pursued through
formal agreements, collaboration, coop
eration, and partnerships among federal,
state, and local government agencies, and
private landowners.
The National Park Service would take the
lead in promoting comprehensive
arrangements involving all of the agencies
with a responsibility for managing land uses
and private development in and around the
preserve. This might result in the creation of
a "Timucuan alliance" or similar agreement
and a comprehensive plan for resource
protection outlining the shared objectives
and defining responsibilities for
implementation.
Cooperation and regulation would be used
to complement and supplement NPS land
acquisition. Cooperating agencies including
the National Park Service would acquire
exceptional areas possessing outstanding
resource or public use values that are
threatened. No change in the acquisition
authority outlined in the preserve's
legislation would be sought.
The Management Matrix included in the
"Purpose of and Need for the Plan" chapter,
"Preserve Management Issues and .
Questions" section, illustrates the entities
with a responsibility or interest in the
preserve. This matrix would be used in
formulating strategies and identifying
partners for cooperation.
vi
Legislation would be pursued to include
important adjacent estuarine wetland areas
in the preserve.
Concession-operated tour boat locations
would be determined through cooperative
efforts.
This alternative would maximize the
effectiveness of current regulatory
authorities, and of using cooperative
acquisition of exceptional natural and
cultural resources for protection.
Development on preserve uplands would
occur, but it would be subject to some
controls to minimize degradation of natural
values. Some marginal loss of habitat and
degradation of water quality could be
expected.
Coordinated management would have a
moderate to significant beneficial impact on
preserve resources, depending on the
cooperators' degree of commitment and
concurrence on objectives.
Impacts. Impacts due to NPS development
at development concept plan sites could be
mitigated to be minor.
Cooperative management would result in
positive benefits through preserve
management as an ecological unit, with the
goal of eliminating the problem of habitat
fragmentation.
Natural resource management would not be
piecemeal but coordinated, and effects
would be preservewide. Cooperative
management would develop a preservewide
natural resource management plan as well as
other important plans for water resources
and threatened and endangered species on a
preservewide basis. This would result in
long-term protection of resources, not short
term benefits.
Cultural resources would receive increased
protection over that proposed in alternatives
1 and 2. Cooperative efforts would enhance

identification and protection of cultural
resources throughout the preserve,
regardless of ownership.
Resource protection would be affected by the
amount of available funding and by the level
and type of agreements between cooperating
agencies or individuals and the National
Park Service. Increased awareness among
local citizens might result in positive impacts
on resources, but might also lead to willful
or inadvertent damage, especially to
archeological resources.
Cooperative efforts would have significant
short- and long-term beneficial impacts due
to expansion and better coordination of
visitor and public use opportunities.
Coordinated planning and design would
result in long-term beneficial impacts on the
water and land transportation systems.
Negative impacts on the tax base from
public acquisition would be mitigated by a
reduction in service provision requirements
and possible payments-in-lieu-of-taxes.
Changes in current jurisdiction would have
moderate short- and long-term benefits due
to increased efficiency and lower costs.
Impacts of minor boundary adjustments
would be the same as alternative 1.
The major boundary adjustment in Nassau
County would significantly increase the
wetland acreage in the preserve; the acreage
increase cannot be estimated without
detailed surveys of the mean high water line.
This adjustment would provide better
ecosystem protection by moving the preserve
boundary out of the middle of the Nassau
River.
The major boundary adjustment at Pumpkin
Hill would add about 4,000 acres of
significant uplands to the preserve.
Additionally, this adjustment would protect
resources within the current boundary that
have the greatest potential to be affected by
private development.
vii
Summary
These boundary adjustments could result in
acquisition of up to three private residences.
Alternative 4
Description. The National Park Service
would protect, enhance, and restore the
quality of natural and cultural resources in
the preserve by acquiring and managing all
lands within the revised boundary important
to resource integrity, using any available
acquisition methods. Expansion of NPS land
acquisition authority would be sought.
Cooperation and coordination with other
entities would continue as necessary,
especially to control impacts from adjacent
and upstream areas, and as interim
protection for lands within the boundary.
Visitor opportunities would emphasize
unusual or outstanding visitor experiences.
Legislation would be pursued to expand the
boundary to include all adjacent wetland
areas in the estuarine system and to exclude
from the boundary lands not significantly
related to preserve purposes.
Concessioners would be used for a variety of
visitor services, especially to operate boat
tours.
Under this alternative, development threats
to resources would vary with the constraints
on the acquisition schedule, e.g., funding or
legal. If the National Park Service were not
able to acquire all lands within the preserve
promptly, private development likely would
occur quickly with landowners rushing to
preempt federal acquisition. State and local
regulatory agencies would have less
incentive to apply their authorities, waiting
for NPS acquisition. The resulting land use
changes could result in further degradation
of water quality and scenic vistas and loss of
habitat.
Once land was under NPS ownership, the
public would expect access to be provided
SUMMARY
and resources to be protected. However, if
adequate funding were not available,
unmanaged public access could be expected
to result in damage to or loss of fragile
resources.
NPS management of resources would result
in significant beneficial impacts, provided
funding were available to support required
research, maintenance, and enforcement.
Impacts. Impacts due to NPS development
would be mitigated to be minor.
Environmental analysis of specific
development proposals would occur prior to
location and construction of new visitor or
administrative facilities.
Private development on preserve lands
would not occur. Rehabilitation of disturbed
areas in the preserve would achieve an
increase in quality and quantity of preserve
natural resources.
Impacts from natural resource management
could be similar to alternative 3, except that
the end result would be a level of protection
greater than in alternative 3. This is because
one agency management should overcome
the problems with conicting mandates that
could overburden the cooperative
management approach in alternative 3.
Cultural resources would receive increased
protection over that in alternative 3 if staff
viii
and funding increases to administer
additional lands. This would result in
significant long-term, beneficial impacts on
cultural resources.
Scattered archeological resources throughout
the preserve would receive increased
protection.
NPS management would provide significant
long-term beneficial impacts on the visitor
experience and visitor services.
The impacts on access and transportation
would be comprehensive in scale and the
direct responsibility of the National Park
Service to mitigate. The end result should be
an increased beneficial impact.
Approximately 1,000 private homes would
be acquired. Affected residents would be
compensated for fair market value of their
homes and for relocation costs, resulting in
moderate, short-term negative impacts on
these residents.
The impacts resulting from the minor
boundary adjustments would be the same as
alternative 1, and the impacts from the major
boundary adjustments would be the same as
alternative 3.
 CONTENTS

Purpose of and Need for the Plan
Introduction 3
The Preserve Today 4
Legislative Direction 9
Purpose of the Preserve 11
Significance of the Preserve 11
Vision for the Preserve 12
Preserve Management Issues and
Questions 13
Management Objectives 21
Relationship of this Planning Effort to Other
Regional National Park Service Areas and to
Other Projects 23
Management Alternatives, Including
the Proposed Action
Land Use and Protection 61
Jurisdiction 61
Boundary Adjustments and /or Legislative
Amendments 61
Concessions 61
Staffing and Operations 61
Alternative 2: The Preserve as a Laboratory
and Classroom 62
Concept 62
Natural Resource Management 62
Cultural Resource Management 62
Visitor Experience and Public Use 63
Physical Development 63
Access and Transportation 64
Land Use and Protection 64
Jurisdiction 64
Boundary Adjustments and/or Legislative
Amendments 64
Concessions 64
Staffing and Operations 64

Introduction 33 Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation for

The Alternatives 33
Alternatives Considered But Rejected 33
Elements Common to All Alternatives 34
Management Zoning 34
Natural Resource Management 34
Cultural Resource Management 38
Interpretive Context and Themes 41
Visitor Experience and Public Use 45
Physical Development 47
Access and Transportation 48
Land Use and Protection 49
Carrying Capacity 51
Boundary Adjustments and/or
Legislative Amendments 51
Concessions 55
Proposed Park Name Change 56
Mitigating Measures 56
Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing
Management (No Action) 58
Concept 58
Natural Resource Management 58
Cultural Resource Management 59
Visitor Experience and Public Use 59
Physical Development 60
Access and Transportation 61
Resource Protection (Proposed Action) (Includes
Development Concept Plans) 65
Concept 65
Cooperation 65
Management Zoning 65
Natural Resource Management 67
Cultural Resource Management 73
Visitor Experience and Public Use 74
General 74
Fort Caroline National Memorial 75
Theodore Roosevelt Area 76
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation 77
Physical Development 78
Development Concept Plans 78
Fort Caroline National Memorial 78
Theodore Roosevelt Area 79
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation 80
Access and Transportation 80
Land Use and Protection 85
Jurisdiction 85
Boundary Adjustments and/or Legislative
Amendments 85
Concessions 86
Staffing and Operations 86

ix
CONTENTS

Alternative 4: Environmental Protection, The 'limucua 156

Enhancement, and Restoration through National Historic Cultural Sites and Resources 157
Park Service Management 89
Concept 89 Visitor Use and Recreational Opportunities 161
Natural Resource Management 89 Visitor Use Data 161
Cultural Resource Management 90 Special Populations 162
Visitor Experience and Public Use 90 Existing Visitor Use 162
Physical Development 91 Orientation and Interpretation 162
Access and Transportation 92 Recreation Vtfithin Preserve 164
Land Use and Protection 92 Regional Recreation Opportunities 165
Jurisdiction 93 Recreation Areas, Parks, and Facilities
Boundary Adjustments and/or Legislative in and Adjacent to the Preserve 165
Amendments 93 Other State/ Federal Park Areas within
Concessions 93 Two Hours of Jacksonville 166
Staffing and Operations 93
Socioeconomic Environment 167
Access and Transportation 167
Affected Environment Jurisdiction 168
Existing Landownership 168
Introduction 107 Existing Land Use 168
Future Land Use 172
Natural Environment 108 Population Trends and Projections 173
Climate 108 Economy and Employment 173
Air Quality 108
Physiography 109 Physical Development on NPS-Owned
Geology 110 Lands 175
Mineral Resources 110 Fort Caroline National Memorial 175
Soils 111 Theodore Roosevelt Area 175
Estuaries 112 Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation 176
Salt Marsh Habitat 116
Other Estuarine Habitats 118
Water Resources 119 Environmental Consequences
Groundwater Hydrology 119
Surface Water Hydrology 120 Introduction 183
Wetlands 123
Floodplains 123 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 184
Coastal High Hazard Areas 124 Impacts on Natural Resources 184
Water Quality 124 Impacts on Cultural Resources 186
Monitoring Activities in the Impacts on Visitor Experience and Public
Preserve 135 Use 187
Hazardous Materials 136 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment
Vegetation 136 187
Natural Areas 142 Impacts of Minor Boundary Adjustments
Fish and Wildlife 143 188
Shellfish and Shellfish Harvesting Cumulative Impacts 189
Areas 145
Exotic Species 145 Alternative 1: Continuation of Existing
Threatened and Endangered Species 146 Management (No Action) 190
Impacts on Natural Resources 190
Cultural Environment 153 Impacts on Cultural Resources 193
Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites Impacts on Visitor Experience and Public
and Resources 153 Use 194

Impacts on Access and Transportation 194
Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment
194
Cumulative Impacts 194
Alternative 2: The Preserve as a Laboratory
and Classroom 196
Impacts on Natural Resources 196
Impacts on Cultural Resources 196
Impacts on Visitor Experience and Public
Use 197
Impacts on Access and Transportation 197
Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment
197
Cumulative Impacts 197
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation for
Resource Protection (Proposed Action) 198
Impacts on Natural Resources 198
Impacts on Cultural Resources 203
Impacts on Visitor Experience and Public
Use 203
Impacts on Access and Transportation 205
Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment
205
Impacts of Major Boundary Adjustments
205
Cumulative Impacts 206
Unavoidable Adverse Effects 206
Relationship between Short-Term Uses of
Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity 206
Irreversible and lrretrievable Commitments
of Resources 207
Alternative 4: Environmental Protection,
Enhancement, and Restoration Through National
Park Service Management 208
Impacts on Natural Resources 208
Impacts on Cultural Resources 210
Impacts on Visitor Experience and Public
Use 210
Impacts on Access and Transportation 210
Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment
211
Impacts of Major Boundary Adjustments
211
Cumulative Impacts 211
Compliance with Federal and State Laws,
Executive Orders, and Regulations 212
xi
Contents
Consultation and Coordination / Preparers
Public Involvement 221
Scoping Process 221
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals
Contacted During Scoping 221
List of Agencies and Organizations to
Whom Copies of this Document Are
Being Sent 22
Preparers, Contributors, and
Consultants 224
Appendixes / Bibliography I Index
Appendixes
A: Public Law 100-249 227
B: Related Goals and Policies for Natural
Systems and Recreational Land and Land
Use 230
Estimated Development Costs 232
Description of Plant Communities 238
PP?!) Plant Species of Salt Marsh Vegetation
within Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve 242
F: Plant Species Found on Fort George
Island 244
G: Fish Species Collected by University of
North Florida in 1984 248
H: Species of Amphibians, and Reptiles Found
on Fort George and Pelotes Islands and
Mammals Observed within the Preserve in
1984 249
I: Bird Species Found within or Adjacent
to Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve 251
I: Consultation Regarding Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Species 256
K: Recreation Goals, Objectives, and Policies
for Recreation and Open Space Element of
the Comprehensive Plan - 2010 261
L: Letter from State Historic Preservation
Officer 263
Bibliography 265
Index 271
CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

Regional Context 5 Surface Water 121

Preserve 7 100-Year Flood Hazard Areas 125
Management Matrix 19 Coastal High Hazard Areas 127
Regional National Park Service Areas 25 State Aquatic Preserve 131
Minor Boundary Adjustments 53 Class II Waters 133
Management Zoning 69 Water Quality Monitoring Stations 137
Alternative 3 Development Concept Plan Salt Marsh Profiles and Plant Zones 141
Fort Caroline and Theodore Roosevelt General Zones of Salt Marsh Plants 141
Area 81 Preserve Shellfish Harvesting Areas 147
Alternative 3 Development Concept Plan Landownership 169
Kingsley Plantation 83 Existing Development Fort Caroline and
Major Boundary Adjustments 87 Theodore Roosevelt Area 177
Preserve Soil Associations 113 Existing Development Kingsley Plantation
Subhabitats of the North Florida Salt Marsh 179
Ecosystem 117

TABLES

Ulvb JNu-l
: Physical Development/ Location Criteria 48
: Management Zones 67
: Summary Comparison of Alternatives 94
: Summary of Environmental Impacts 99
: Percent Occurrence and Acreage of Plant
Community Habitats and Other Identifiable
Habitats within the Preserve 140
6: Typical Salt Marsh Plant Species Found in
the Preserve 140
7: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Natural
Communities and Ranks 142
8: List of Protected Species that Occur or May
Occur within the Preserve Boundaries 150
9: Number of Archeological Components by
Time Periods 154
10: Archeological Resources on National
Register of Historic Places 154
11: Visitor Use Data 161
12: Existing Land Uses within the Preserve 171
13: Resident Population Trends and Projections
Duval County, Florida, 19802010 174
14: Employment Projections - Duval County,
Florida 174
15: Estimates of Economic Benefits from
Preserve Visitors All Alternatives 188

xii
 TIMUCUAN
E( .( )U )( il( ./\L AND HIST( IRl(. PRESERVE

PURPOSE 01-" AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

 INTRODUCTION
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
was established by Public Law 100-249 on
February 16, 1988, "to administer those lands
. . . within the preserve in such a manner as
to protect the natural ecology of such land
and water areas in accordance with this Act
and the provisions of the law generally
applicable to units of the National Park
System" (see "Legislative Direction" section).
With designation of this preserve, Congress
sought to protect the complex salt marsh/
estuarine ecosystem and historic and
prehistoric sites in the valley between the
lower St. Johns and Nassau Rivers, Florida
(see appendix A), and to provide opportuni
ties for the public to understand, enjoy, and
appreciate these resources. Timucuan was
designated a national preserve rather than a
national park because Congress envisioned it
to be a place that could accommodate public
and private uses not traditionally found in
national parks.
The purpose of this document is to comply
with NPS policy and PL 95-42, which require
the preparation of a general management
plan for every unit of the national park
system. These plans usually are revised
every 10 to 15 years.
This Draft General Management Plan /
Development Concept Plans / Environmental
Impact Statement for Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve provides management
guidance for concerns of the preserve related
to protection of the important ecosystem;
impacts on plant and animal species,
especially those listed as threatened,
endangered, or of special concern; threats to
important cultural resources; landownership
or land control and land uses; interpretation
of the preserve's diverse resources and
unique ecology for residents and visitors;
and appropriate types and levels of use by
humans for residing, working, commuting,
recreating, learning, hunting, and fishing (see
"Preserve Management Issues and
Questions" section).
Development concept plans for three areas
within the preserve Fort Caroline
National Memorial, the Theodore Roosevelt
area, and Kingsley Plantation are
integrated within alternative 3 (the National
Park Service's proposed action) in the
"Management Alternatives, Including the
Proposed Action" chapter. The National Park
Service owns and manages these three areas.
The development concept plans focus on
visitor experience/ public use and physical
development needs.
As part of this general management plan, an
environmental impact statement has been
prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It will help NPS
officials make decisions for the preserve that
are based on an understanding of environ
mental consequences and the actions that
protect, restore, and enhance the
environment.
At the time of the adoption of this plan, only
20%30% of the land within the designated
boundary of Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve will be in NPS ownership.
Planning for the protection and management
of the preserve therefore must address
strategies to deal with diverse
landownership.
This draft general management plan presents
four alternative concepts for future manage
ment and use of the Timucuan Preserve.
These range from the current management
and land acquisition policy to one in which
the National Park Service would acquire and
manage all lands needed to protect and
interpret the preserve.
All four concepts share the objective of
promoting environmental awareness and
sound land stewardship practices, while
continuing to provide for visitor under
standing and appreciation of the preserve's
resources and stories. The alternatives reect
a range of different strategies for meeting
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
preserve purposes. These strategies differ in
how responsibilities for protecting preserve
resources are shared by the citizens of
Jacksonville, landowners, state and local
government, the National Park Service, and
other federal agencies. The alternatives also
differ in the relative priority given to
protection and interpretation of a few known
cultural resources in relation to the broader
setting of the preserve. Also, they vary in the
level and type of staffing interpreters and
educational specialists or law enforcement
rangers and regulatory specialists
required to implement the plan.
The concepts can be summarized as follows:
continuation of the existing management
policy or no action (alternative 1); education
and interpretation of the salt marsh/
estuarine ecosystem and how historic and
contemporary human uses affect this system
through use of the preserve as a laboratory
and classroom (alternative 2); enhanced
protection and appropriate public use of
lands and associated waters through
cooperative efforts among the various
entities (alternative 3, the proposed action);
and environmental protection, enhancement,
and restoration through acquiring all lands
deemed necessary (alternative 4).
The degree to which preserve purposes and
management objectives can be fulfilled varies
among the alternatives.
While this draft general management plan
sets forth management alternatives and
identifies strategies for resolving issues, it is
not intended to prescribe specific solutions.
Rather, subsequent plans e.g., additional
development concept plans, resource
management plans, land protectionplans,
interpretive prospectuses, historic structure
reports, and exhibit plans would be
developed to implement the general
management plan. Detailed design plans also
may be done for the development concept
plan sites. These studies and plans together
with NPS managers' judgment would
determine nal facility development, visitor
amenities, and resource protection methods.
The broad nature of the alternatives dictated
a programmatic approach to the environ
mental impact statement. This document
presents an overview of potential impacts.
Specific impacts of subsequent development
actions undertaken to implement the selected
alternative would be preceded by site
specific environmental assessments that
would tier to this document.
THE PRESERVE TODAY
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve is
a vast expanse of salt marsh grasses and
waterways, of quiet wooded islands and
long views of a at horizon. To be in the
Timucuan Preserve today is to be with ocks
of visiting birds or a lone blue heron, to
share the water with a manatee or a school
of dolphins. Some views are pristine, while
others display striking evidence of
humans shell middens, ancient forts, a
historic plantation, modern homes, power
plant towers, Naval Station Mayport, auto
mobile bridges, and the primary pleasure
boat corridor on the east coast, the
Intracoastal Waterway.
Located entirely within the city of
Iacksonville and Duval County, Florida, the
preserve encompasses approximately 46,000
acres, 75% of which are waterways and
wetlands that form an extensive estuarine
system between the Nassau and St. Johns
Rivers where they meet the Atlantic Ocean
(see Regional Context and Preserve maps).
This estuarine system is predominately salt
marsh, coastal hammock, and marine and
brackish waters. Much of the salt marsh is
among the least disturbed on the southern
Atlantic Coast. Many resident, migratory,
and rare species rely on the important
habitats in the preserve.
The estuarine habitats of the preserve also
provide important spawning grounds for
many economically important fish and
invertebrates. Duval County ranks high in
commercial landings for Florida, in large
part due to the productive estuarine waters.
Regional Context
TEH
mwm
Cg
was.
umm
umc

d w
am
nm

North 006'20004'Ju1y 94-osc

 Halt, Moon Island l

- Uplands
Wetlands
If} Open Water
iPreserve Boundary
:lNon-preserve Land

m
0 2.5 Miles
6}
North

Downtown
Preserve
Jacksonville

Timucuan
Yellow Bluff F! Ecological and
l Historic Preserve
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
006'20005'July 94'DSC

While the preserve is a relatively new
national park system unit, most of the area
had already been designated by the state of
Florida as the Nassau River-St. Johns River
Marshes Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding
Florida Waters with strict water quality
criteria for protection. Because of these
designations the preserve contains class H
waters (suitable for shellfish harvesting), the
last in Duval County.
Known prehistoric and historic archeological
sites within the preserve number about 200.
These sites provide evidence of human
occupation in the region spanning 6,000
years. Ten sites specifically related to the
preserve's history were identified in the
enabling legislation. Only four of these 10
sites have extant remains that have been
located the antebellum Zephaniah
Kingsley Plantation, Yellow Bluff Fort,
Spanish-American War fortification, and San
Juan del Puerto mission site. The other six
sites San Estaban, San Gabriel, Dos
Hermanas, Thomas Creek Battlefield, Fort St.
George, and St. Johns Town have not
been found.
There are, however, many other historic and
prehistoric cultural resources within the
preserve not cited in the legislation, which
contribute to the understanding of human
use and life in the region. These include
tabby house ruins and historic churches and
houses.
Fort Caroline National Memorial with its
associated fort model, an NPS area since
1950, and Ribault Column commemorate the
historic 16th century colony, la Caroline.
They are encompassed by the preserve.
Most of the prehistoric sites are shell
middens, humanmade piles composed of
oyster and clam shells, which reect ancient
people's dependence on the estuarine system
for food.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
provides a large open area for recreation
within the boundaries of a major
Introduction
metropolitan area. Existing water-based
recreation resources include the Intracoastal
Waterway, fish camps, fisheries, shellfish
waters, and the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers.
The Theodore Roosevelt area provides trails
and picnic areas. State parks in and adjacent
to the preserve have beaches, trails, and
other recreational resources. Huguenot
Memorial Park and Sisters Creek park and
boat ramp, operated by the city of
Jacksonville, offer water access and day use
activities. The E. Dale Joyner Nature
Preserve at Pelotes Island, operated by the
Jacksonville Electric Authority and also
within the preserve boundary, provides
environmental education opportunities to
school groups on a reservation basis.
Cultural resource areas provide opportuni
ties for recreational as well as educational
experiences. Fort Caroline National
Memorial and Kingsley Plantation offer trails
and/ or picnic areas. The Mayport Ferry also
provides a recreational opportunity for
preserve visitors.
Currently the National Park Service manages
approximately 5,000 acres of the 46,000-acre
'Iimucuan Preserve. The management alter
native selected would provide guidance for
future NPS acquisition of lands within the
preserve.
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION
The enabling legislation for Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve (PL 100-249,
February 16, 1988) provides the following
specific direction for the management of the
preserve (also see appendix A):
Such historical park shall serve as the
principal interpretive center and
administrative facility for the ecological,
historic, and prehistoric resources made
available under this legislation.
The Secretary of the Interior may make
minor revisions in the boundary of the
Preserve in accordance with section 7(c)
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965.
The Secretary of the Interior . . . is
authorized to acquire lands and interests
therein within the Preserve by donation,
purchase with donated or appropriated
funds, or exchange, but no lands other
than wetlands or interests therein may be
acquired without the consent of the
owner.
Lands, interests in lands, and
improvements thereon within the
boundaries of the Preserve which are
owned by the State of Florida or any
political subdivision thereof may be
acquired only by donation or exchange.
On lands acquired for inclusion within
the Preserve, the Secretary shall not
impair any legal riparian right of access
nor shall he preclude the continued use
of any legal right of way.
The Secretary shall administer those lands
acquired for inclusion within the Preserve
in such a manner as to protect the natural
ecology of such land and water areas in
accordance with this Act and the
provisions of law generally applicable to
units of the National Park System,
including the Act of August 25, 1916 [the
NPS Organic Act].
The Secretary shall permit boating,
boating-related activities, hunting, and
fishing within the Preserve in accordance
with applicable Federal and State laws.
The Secretary may designate zones
where, and establish periods when, no
hunting or fishing shall be permitted for
reasons of public safety.
The Secretary, with the consent of the
owners thereof, may acquire by donation
or purchase with donated funds the
following properties or sites of significant
historic interest in Duval County, Florida:
(1) Spanish sixteenth century forts
San Gabriel and San Estaban.
(2) Spanish eighteenth century fort
Dos Hermanas.
10
(3) English eighteenth century forts
at Saint Johns Bluff and Fort
George Island.
(4) Spanish sixteenth and
seventeenth century mission San
Juan del Puerto.
(5) Site of the American
Revolutionary War battle of
Thomas Creek.
(6) The Zephaniah Kingsley
plantation, with its eighteenth and
nineteenth century buildings.
(7) The Spanish American War
fortification on Saint Johns Bluff.
(8) The confederate fort known as
the Yellow Bluff Fort State Historic
Site.
The Secretary shall administer such
properties in accordance with a plan that
integrates the administration and
interpretation of the ecological values of
the Preserve and the historical values of
the sites so acquired and the historical
features of Fort Caroline.
In addition to the direction for visitor
experiences and public use of the preserve
provided by the enabling legislation, NPS
Management Policies (chap. 8:1) direct that "To
the extent practicable, the National Park
Service will encourage people to come to the
parks, and to pursue inspirational, educa
tional, and recreational activities related to
the resources found in these special
environments" and that "the use of parks
will be essentially resource based but
nonconsumptive of resources. Consumptive
uses of park resources, whether renewable or
nonrenewable, will be allowed only where
specifically authorized. . . Consumptive
uses include uses that are destructive or
wasteful of preserve resources. These policies
guide recommendations for visitor exper
ience and public use in all alternatives.
The general management plan and
subsequent management will follow the
direction of other applicable federal, state,

and city statutes and regulations. Federal
laws guiding administration of all units
within the national park system include the
following:
National Park Service Organic Act of
1916, which established the National Park
Service and mandates that it "shall
promote and regulate the use of federal
areas known as national parks,
monuments, and reservations . . . by such
means and measures as conform to the
fundamental purpose of said parks,
monuments, and reservations, which
purpose is to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner
and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations."
An amendment to general NPS
authorities, the Redwood National Park
Act, which adds to NPS authorities
legislation directing that within the
national park system, "authorization of
activities shall be construed and the
protection, management, administration
. . . shall be conducted in light of the
high public value and integrity of the
national park system and shall not be
exercised in derogation of the values and
purposes for which these areas have been
established."
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which declares that it is the
policy of the federal government to
"preserve important historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage."
Title I of NEPA requires that federal
agencies plan and carry out their
activities . "so as to protect and
enhance the quality of the environment."
Major federal actions, such as this draft
general management plan for Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve, require
environmental impact statements.
11
Introduction
National Historic Preservation Act,
which requires federal agencies having
direct or indirect jurisdiction over
undertakings to consider the effect of
those undertakings on national register
properties and allow the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation an
opportunity to comment.
Additionally, consideration must be given to
many other federal laws. The state of Florida
also has many statutes and administrative
codes that dictate management of cultural
and natural resources such as those found in
the preserve. (See "Environmental
Consequences" chapter, "Compliance with
Federal and State Laws, Executive Orders,
and Regulations" section.)
PURPOSE OF THE PRESERVE
Based on applicable public laws, the purpose
of Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve is to
' protect and interpret the wetlands of
Timucuan as a healthy functioning
estuarine system
' contribute to the protection, preservation,
and management of the Nassau
River/lower St. Johns River drainage
' protect and interpret the significant
historic and prehistoric sites in the
preserve
' commemorate the historic la Caroline
settlement at Fort Caroline
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESERVE
The preserve encompasses a magnificent and
dynamic salt marsh/ estuarine system
covering 46,000 relatively unimpaired acres
within the Jacksonville city limits. The
preserve is a rich and diverse biological
system that contains
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
' important and sometimes critical habitats
used by rare and sensitive species such
as the bald eagle, Atlantic loggerhead
turtle, West Indian manatee, and wood
stork, as well as multitudes of more
common species
' a remnant of productive salt marsh once
prevalent along the Atlantic Coast
' scarce, undeveloped coastal upland
communities, such as maritime
hammocks
' natural vistas and expansive views of
and across waterways, salt marshes, and
upland communities in an urban setting
The preserve is rich in prehistoric and
historic sites and resources representing a
continuum of human habitation, occupation,
European exploration, cultural contact,
conict, fortification, and settlement. The
most significant representations include
' prehistoric sites illustrating some of the
oldest and longest periods of human
habitation in the southeastern region of
the United States
' Fort Caroline National Memorial,
commemorating the first French
Protestant settlement in the New World
' San Juan del Puerto, a mission
representing European attempts to
inuence Native American populations
' the Kingsley Plantation, the southernmost
example of a sea island plantation
' vernacular landscapes and structures that
exemplify traditional lifeways, such as
fish camps
The preserve provides the setting for stories
of significant historical interest related to
military control of the St. Johns River valley,
such as Forts San Gabriel and San Estaban,.
Fort Dos Hermanas, forts at St. Johns Bluff
and Fort George Island, Thomas Creek, the
Spanish-American War Battery on St. Johns
Bluff, and Yellow Bluff Fort State Historic
Site.
The preserve provides a large open area of
waterways and uplands for recreational
opportunities, e.g, boating, fishing, hiking,
bird-watching, and bicycling.
VISION FOR THE PRESERVE
The Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve would be managed as a complex,
dynamic natural/ cultural system to achieve
the following vision for the future:
The preserve's magnificent, dynamic salt
marsh/estuarine ecosystem is protected
and enhanced.
The integrity of the preserve's significant
and important prehistoric, historic, and
present-day cultural resources is
protected.
The preserve serves as home, a place to
learn, a place to work, a place for
contemplation and inspiration, and a
place to play for many people free of
conicts among these uses.
The natural and cultural aspects of the
preserve are presented and understood
to form a fabric that is richer and more
diverse than any of its separate threads.
The careful interweaving of these
components in the stories and
experiences offered the preserve visitor
emphasizes the interrelationship of the
cultural history with the estuarine
environment of the lower St. Johns
River/ Nassau River system.
The preserve illustrates ways in which
humans can live and have lived in
harmony with nature. It also provides a
textbook that teaches how past misuse by
humans can be identified, sometimes
corrected, and avoided in the future.
 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
Many important issues and questions
surround the management of the preserve.
These issues and questions, listed below and
addressed in the "Management Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action" chapter,
illustrate the need for this planning process.
They are interrelated; actions proposed for
one issue likely will affect others. Central to
many of the key issues is the dispersed,
fragmented authorities performing
preservewide management and data
collection. No single agency currently
controls or coordinates decision making in
the preserve.
NATURAL RESOURCES
General
Data on natural resources are available from
federal, state, local, and private entities. This
information is limited in scope and/or
content.
Management of natural resources is
regulated or prescribed by a multitude of
laws and policies from the federal to the city
level, administered by many government
agencies. The environmental ethic and land
stewardship skills and values of the private
landowners are also important factors in
natural resource management because only
2030% of the preserve is under NPS
ownership.
Wetlands
Estuarine wetlands and waterways cover
over 75% of the preserve. These areas
provide a diverse combination of open
water, salt marsh, and vegetation important
to migratory birds, waterfowl, marine
animals, fish, and other wildlife. Wetlands
perform a variety of valuable ecological
functions including atmospheric, clima
tological, and meteorological stabilization;
13
groundwater discharge and recharge; ood
control; erosion control; water purification;
nutrient accumulation and cycling; primary
and secondary production; and wildlife
refuge. Wetlands also provide the public
with educational and aesthetic enjoyment
opportunities. Wetlands are threatened by a
variety of existing and potential uses
regulated by many different agencies.
Uplands
The uplands in the preserve provide
valuable habitat for many species. They are
zoned by the city of Jacksonville to allow
different types and intensities of develop
ment. Development on the uplands could
affect the environmental quality of the
uplands and the surrounding wetlands and
waterways. The legislation for the preserve
prohibits NPS acquisition of uplands from
unwilling sellers.
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are threatened and endangered species
in the preserve. However, data on where
they are and the locations of critical habitat
are incomplete. Other threatened and
endangered species either pass through the
preserve or use its resources.
Air Quality
Most stationary sources of air pollution in
Duval County are located near the preserve.
These sources would affect the air quality of
the preserve.
Water Quality
Water quality in the preserve is being
affected by point and nonpoint sources.
Residential uses within and adjacent to the
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
preserve rely on individual septic systems to
handle household waste. Many of these are
likely to be old and failing. Similar land uses
and agricultural practices upstream from the
preserve contribute to water quality
degradation in the preserve. Nutrient
concentration and contamination from
sanitary system and agricultural uses in
other parts of Florida with similar
environments to Timucuan's have caused
significant changes in local ecosystems.
The effects of solid and hazardous waste
disposal within and adjacent to the preserve
have not been thoroughly studied.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' What baseline inventories are available
on plants, animals, vegetative
communities, threatened and endangered
species, and nonnative species? What
additional information is needed to
determine the physical, chemical, and
biological health of the preserve?
' Where are the critical habitats, especially
those of threatened and endangered
species and species of special concern?
What are the threats to them?
' What are the current and/ or potential
adverse effects of existing and future
land and water uses on the preserve?
What mitigation techniques would be
effective? Could better interagency
coordination and public awareness
control the adverse impacts? How can
this be accomplished?
' What level of protection for natural
resources is appropriate? Is it the NPS
mandate to prevent degradation of
natural resources, or is it to document
damage, interpret impacts, and educate
decision makers and the public?
' Does the National Park Service have
sufficient information on the resources of
the preserve to determine the most
appropriate locations for public access
14
and facility development, and to assess
associated impacts? What management
strategies would be effective to
compensate for current data gaps?
FIRE MANAGEMENT
Fire is an integral part of upland ecology in
the preserve. Most plant communities are
not only susceptible to fire, but depend on
periodic burning for their survival.
Fire management policies and techniques for
the preserve among the various agencies are
inefficient, unclear, and sometimes
counterproductive to preserve goals.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' How can fire help perpetuate natural
communities and conditions within the
preserve while avoiding conicts with
private property and developed areas?
' How should responsibilities for fire
management be allocated among federal,
state, local, and private entities?
' Are certain firefighting methods more
resource-sensitive than others? How can
the various entities agree to using those
methods?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The preserve's enabling legislation identifies
10 historic sites that may be acquired. In
addition, in 1992 the Southeast Archeological
Center completed an archeological overview
and assessment of known sites within and
adjacent to the preserve. The location of 6 of
the 10 legislated sites is not known. The
following cultural resource studies have been
conducted since the establishment of the
preserve: a study of the Spanish-American
War fortification on St. Johns Bluff,
archeological studies at Pelotes Island
Preserve, and a resource inventory of Pelotes
Islands.

The existing database on historic and
archeological sites and cultural landscapes
lacks information with regard to inventory,
identification, and significance deter
mination.
There is a lack of documentation of the
cultural systems of prehistoric, historic, and
contemporary peoples in the region (e.g.,
ethnographic resources, languages,
subsistence activities).
This plan addresses the following questions:
' What additional information is needed to
assess and protect the important cultural
resources in the preserve?
' What are the priorities for protection of
historic resources within the preserve?
' What level of protection should the
National Park Service provide for
cultural sites and buildings? How can
adequate protection for historic,
ethnographic, and archeological sites be
achieved?
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
General
Some public use activities within the
preserve may have adverse impacts on
resources, or may conict with other public
use activities.
Information and Orientation
The preserve is a relatively new unit of the
national park system. Although Fort Caroline
has been designated since 1950, limited
marketing or identification of the new
preserve and its name and resources has
taken place. Limited orientation is available
to the public on recreational opportunities,
and natural and cultural resources within
and adjacent to the preserve.
15
Issues and Questions
Information and orientation have not been
coordinated to be complete and uniform in
the past because different agencies manage
the various resources available to the public.
Interpretation
Site-specific interpretation is currently
available only in a few areas. In NPS-owned
areas, current staff levels constrain imple
mentation of a comprehensive interpretive
program.
Interpretation of the historic sites listed in
the legislation is interwoven with the natural
ecology upon which occupants of these sites
depended.
Recreation
The enabling legislation stipulates that
boating, hunting, and fishing will be allowed
in the preserve. The ways, locations, and
seasons in which these activities are pursued
will determine the degree of their impacts on
the preserve's resources and the potential for
conict with other users.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' How can the preserve handle more
visitors and provide them with
worthwhile, quality experiences?
' How can a carrying capacity for the
preserve or specific sensitive areas be
predicted?
' How can information about preserve
resources and visitor orientation be
coordinated among the various agencies
managing areas within the preserve to be
uniform, accessible, complete, and
effective?
' What primary interpretive themes should
be presented at Timucuan? Where and
how should these themes be presented?
Should visits be self-guided or should
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
visitors be encouraged to experience the
resources in structured, staff intensive
programs. Do interpretive and visitor use
objectives of the preserve extend to the
entire region?
' What recreational activities are
appropriate for the preserve? Are there
ways to manage potentially damaging or
conicting uses to prevent damage or
conicts? Can boating, hunting, fishing,
and shellfishing be managed to minimize
adverse impacts on preserve resources?
FACILITIES
Current NPS facilities at the preserve are
limited and were intended to serve only Fort
Caroline National Memorial, the Theodore
Roosevelt area, and Kingsley Plantation.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' How should facilities needed to fulfill the
desired level of interpretation and visitor
services be determined? What will be the
impacts on preserve resources from these
facilities?
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
Access into the preserve is a matter of
concern. In some areas it is uncontrolled; in
others it is unavailable.
Two alignments have been studied for a new
four-lane state highway to improve access
from the beaches. One follows the existing
alignment of State Route (SR) 105 and A1A.
The other is the Cedar Point corridor. These
or other future regional transportation routes
across the preserve may conict with
resource protection and affect scenic values
within the preserve.
SR A1A historically has been one of the
major transportation routes from the north to
all points south in Florida. As it crosses the
St. Johns River, AlA relies on the Mayport
16
Ferry to bridge the river and make the route
continuous.
Continued construction of docks and piers
may conict with resource protection and
scenic values within the preserve.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' How should decisions be made as to
which new areas the National Park
Service or others provide access in the
preserve and where access should be
precluded due to resource protection or
management issues?
' What values are important for siting
roads to minimize impacts?
' What are the best ways for the National
Park Service to affect road siting and
roadbuilding decisions by other entities?
' Should historic corridors such as SR A1A
be maintained?
' Is there a better solution to water access
demands than individual docks? Is there
a way to build docks and piers that
minimizes impacts? Can the National
Park Service affect those decisions by
regulating authorities, i.e., the city, the
state, and the Army Corps of Engineers?
LAND USE AND SENSORY VALUES
General
Greater Jacksonville is one of the nation's
fastest growing metropolitan areas. The
preserve is completely within the city limits,
and all lands in private ownership carry city
zoning designations that allow varying
degrees and types of development. Preserve
uplands are largely undeveloped but highly
desirable for development because of their
aesthetic qualities and proximity to the
water. These lands are subject to extreme
pressure for residential and commercial
construction, and for support uses such as

transportation facilities, landfills, and
dredging operations.
Local and state regulations do not ensure
that potential development will be compati
ible with the resource values of the preserve.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' Are there less sensitive areas in the
preserve where appropriate, well
executed development can be accommo
dated? How can they be determined?
Will new city regulations ensure that
development on private lands is sensitive
to environmental concerns? Can the
National Park Service inuence decisions
about new development where resource
protection in the preserve is at issue?
Visual Resources
Some visually prominent manmade
structures within and adjacent to the
preserve impair the preserve's scenic
resources. Future private and infrastructure
development could be incompatible with the
preserve's important viewsheds and conict
with the preserve's scenic values.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' What are the "scenic values" and
important viewsheds of the preserve?
Are there techniques for new
construction that can be employed to
allow development without creating new
visual intrusions? How can the National
Park Service persuade other agencies or
landowners to use these techniques? Can
or should the effects of existing
intrusions be mitigated?
Noise
Noise levels and their impacts are not
known or regulated for areas within and
adjacent to the preserve.
17
Issues and Questions
This plan addresses the following questions:
' Where in the preserve is quiet an
important attribute that should be
preserved? How does it contribute to the
visitor experience?
Air Quality
Air quality standards for the area do not
preclude pollution effects, especially effects
on visibility.
This plan addresses the following question:
' Are the air quality standards of the
Jacksonville area sufficient to prevent
negative impacts on resources in the
preserve and the community?
PRESERVE BOUNDARY
The boundaries for the preserve were drawn
more on the basis of political and land
ownership considerations than on the edges
of natural systems. Those systems and the
effects of development often cross the
preserve boundaries, compromising the
integrity of the natural resources the
National Park Service seeks to protect.
Several developed areas were included in the
boundary and may not be important in
resource protection or interpretation. These
areas often create difficulties in
administration.
A portion of the southern boundary of the
preserve would be adjusted based on
resource protection and legislative
requirements.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' Does the current boundary encompass a
reasonable area to accomplish the
purposes of the preserve? Are there
adjustments in the boundary that should
be considered to protect resources,
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
facilitate administration, or enhance
public use opportunities? What criteria
should be applied to decide when
important adjacent lands are appropriate
for addition to the boundary as opposed
to relying on protection through coopera
tion with others? Are there areas that
should be deleted from the boundary
because they do not contain resources
that contribute to the purposes of the
preserve or are not feasible for the
National Park Service to administer?
SOCIOECONOMICS
The existence of the preserve and its status
as a unit of the national park system may be
an additional magnet to draw visitors to
Jacksonville, increasing the impact on the
community and heightening the demand for
lodging and other facilities.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' Can the potential impacts on the local
economy of the preserve be predicted?
' Will there be social impacts on the area
from the preserve?
REGIONAL CONTEXT OF TIMUCUAN'S
RESOURCES AND EXPERIENCES
The preserve is located in a region and a
state with many outstanding natural and
cultural resources.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' How do the resources, experiences, and
stories found at Timucuan relate to those
available at other regional, state, or
federal parks in Florida or the region?
How should the differences or
similarities inuence decisions about
resource protection, interpretation, and
visitor use? How can the National Park
Service avoid duplicating programs or
opportunities that are available elsewhere
18
and focus on outstanding aspects of
Timucuan?
FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF LAND
Ownership of the preserve is divided among
many private and public entities, with as
many as 55 entities and over 300 individuals
having a direct interest in land and water
stewardship within and adjacent to the
preserve.
The accompanying Management Matrix
illustrates the variety of entities with
authority or interest in the preserve. On the
matrix, the various entities are listed
vertically and the issue areas are listed
horizontally. The black dots in the body of
the matrix signify the issue areas in which
each agency has an interest or responsibility.
This demonstrates, for instance, that 28
entities have some sort of inuence over the
management of wetlands.
Limited land acquisition authority is given to
the National Park Service, i.e., it may not
acquire uplands from unwilling sellers.
Additionally, the National Park Service may
not impair any legal riparian rights of access
nor may it preclude the continued use of any
legal right-of-way.
The mandates, operations, methods, or
responsibilities of other management entities
may conict with the preserve's purpose or
NPS management objectives.
This plan addresses the following questions:
' Are the authorities granted the National
Park Service adequate to fulfill the
mandates of the laws under which the
preserve is to be operated? Are there
alternate methods of fulfilling the
mandate other than actual
landownership?
 C
3
=
9'5 3
Z .
Management q
3
G
t_
o
~.
- \,\ 1 3:
Matrix mm
; 1,:
;
.
E
5g
0<
Timucuan u 5 E E f, E 9 c d %\
Eeololcaland w \E g g g g ,9 c c w ;
Hletorc Preserve 9- g E o r, t!\ a g i g g f, w \ .g
0 z
"5'
E
g, \,r
I
*6> "a
O >
a "I..
wt:
l-< 0% w 02'' 995% ""gTDOOE
I 93 Qaguzg il5\ 5&9
5 >5. Es==8oa I "-E>_E?,
w- asI -a%8~ig=>\8e'"3ia;8=,=
we:
mica r33=rE\u:
M; __'=0=-=-:o"'~r,~=E
s~r~=m2m~o
=""= =Ii\\aesi= ms=-Q,- :e
ENTITIES 3'61=w:3=
.2560 Cecelia2 '0 uHarms-.12.:
2'5 c o = J f==
E5
:<33c>3i-uzoo;m:c;3ci::ua383:2
FEDERAL
US EPA
US Army Corps ol Engineers o..
.
~
.o .
..o
o. .o
US Navy o
~
0o
o..
..
US Coast Guard
US Fish 8- Wildlita Service
National Park Service .
o
..o
~.
0. .
o
~.o~ I
.o
. 0.o
Nat,i Marine Fisheries Service .o..o o..
~
Fad~l Emergency Mangm.t Agency o
~
.o..
.0.0. o
~
...o
o..
STATE

Dept. at Environmental Protection

Div. ol Env. Resource Permitting _o
~.
Div. at Recreation and Parks
l~

Div. at Law Enlorcement o ~ o

Div. at Marine Resources
Div. ot State Lands
Dept. at Health 5 Rehabilitative Sarv.
Game 8| Freshwater Fish Commission o..
0..
.0.
Inland Navigation .
o
...
.0.
0.
State Historic Preservation Olficer
Dept. at Community Altairs
Depto ol Transportation

CITY

Mayors Office I City Council

Environ. Lands Select. Committee
Environmental Law
Historic Preservation Committee
Economic Development Council
Environmental Protection Board ~ . . . ~ . . 0
Planning - Development Dept. . . . . . . . . . .
Parks, Recreation -- Entertainment . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation Authority '
Port Authority . .
Health, Weltare 8 Bio Environmental . . .
Public Works

REGIONAL

St. Johns River Water Man. Dist.

NE Florida Regional Planning Council
Nassau County
Universities / Extension Service

PRIVATE ENTITIES

Jacksonville Electric Authority

C.$.X Railroad
Other Property Owners
Chamber at Commerce
Environmental Advocacy Organizations
2ecial Interest Groups
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PIAN
' What are the NPS priorities for
acquisition? Should the National Park
Service acquire important lands
regardless of cooperative agreements
with others? Should it attempt to acquire
and restore areas that are already
disturbed?
ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Several issues relate to Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve, but because they are
20
outside the realm of the draft general
management plan, they cannot be addressed
in this document. These include definition of
wetlands, riparian rights, military
overights, definition of submerged lands/
property ownership, adequacy of current
federal and state laws/ regulations to protect
resources, and federal policy on navigable
waterways. These issues are the
responsibility of a variety of other agencies.
The National Park Service would endeavor
to work cooperatively with these agencies.
 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Management objectives, established for each
unit of the national park system, provide a
framework for conserving park resources,
integrating the park into its surrounding
environment, and accommodating public use
in accordance with NPS policy.
The management objectives that follow were
developed in a multiagency workshop held
at Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve in February 1993. A diverse group
including NPS park, regional office,
Washington Office, Denver Service Center,
and Harper's Ferry representatives; city of
Jacksonville, state of Florida, and Nassau
County officials; Sierra Club staff; and US.
Navy representatives met for three days.
They reviewed the legislation relating to
Timucuan, developed purpose and
significance statements, and listed issues
currently affecting the preserve. Using this
information, the group developed the
following management objectives, which
serve as the cornerstone of this draft general
management plan and upon which all other
planning and management documents and
decisions for the preserve will be based.
These management objectives also provide
the basis of the need for and justification of
this draft general management plan.
NATURAL RESOURCES
' To achieve and maintain Florida class II
(edible shellfish) water quality standards
within the preserve in order to promote
biodiversity and to protect the salt
marsh/estuarine system.
' To ensure that current and future uses of
uplands within and adjacent to the
preserve do not impair significant natural
habitats, water quality, or a healthy salt
marsh/estuarine system.
' To foster strenuously no net loss of
wetlands in the preserve.
' To preserve the natural dynamics of the
surface water and tidal hydrologic
regimes that are critical to the biological
systems of the preserve.
SPECIFIC CULTURAL RESOURCES
' To ensure the preservation of the cultural
resources of San Juan del Puerto and the
Spanish-American War fortification.
' To manage the Fort Caroline model as an
exhibit to interpret the historic la
Caroline settlement.
' To manage the cultural resources at
Kingsley Plantation in a manner that
conveys a feeling of the site during the
period of its agricultural operation,
1700s1920s.
' To cooperate with others to assess the
historical significance and integrity of
Yellow Bluff Fort in order to provide for
protection and management of the site in
cooperation with the state of Florida at a
level commensurate with resources,
significance, integrity, and interpretive
value.
RECREATION
' To manage, in cooperation with other
agencies, boating, boating-related
activities, fishing, and hunting, allowing
the public to experience the various
water-based resources and values of the
preserve in a manner that will not
damage cultural resources nor impair the
integrity of this relatively undeveloped
and undisturbed salt marsh/estuarine
system.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
INTERPRETATION
To educate the general population and
visitors about the following interpretive
topics in order to instill appreciation and
build support for the values of the
preserve:
The impacts and relationships between
human use and natural resources in
the preserve.
The interaction of cultures within the
region, especially Colonial French,
Spanish, British, American, American
Indian, and African, which have had a
profound impact on American history.
The wetland and upland dynamics of a
salt marsh/estuarine system.
The military and economic strategic
importance of the lower St. Johns
River.
The resources of the lower St. Johns
River that provide and have provided
basic subsistence to a variety of people.
ACCESS
To ensure the provision of land- and
water-based access allowing visitors to
have a visual and sensory understanding
of the wetlands ecology.
VISTAS
To protect the natural views within the
preserve that are now unimpaired by
permanent manmade elements in order
to allow the public to experience the
pristine, natural character of these
portions of the preserve.
To encourage enhancement or
rehabilitation of predominantly natural
vistas where manmade intrusions
currently exist.
 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PLANNING EFFORT TO OTHER REGIONAL
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AREAS AND TO OTHER PROJECTS
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REGIONAL
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AREAS
A broad cultural and historical brush stroke
has been painted across the Timucuan
Preserve landscape. Evidence of thousands
of years of human occupation can be found
within preserve boundaries. Timucuan
Indians occupied northeast Florida for
several millennia before European contact
effectively decimated them within a hundred
years.
Much is known of the Timucuan through the
historical and archeological record; much
remains to be discovered and interpreted.
Fort Caroline commemorates not only the
earliest European settlement site within the
Timucuan Preserve, but also the earliest
French Protestant colony in Florida. Here in
1564, the establishment of a short-lived
colony, "la Caroline," began almost 300 years
of European activity. During that time many
people left their legacy within the
boundaries of the Timucuan Preserve. The
mission site of San Juan del Puerto, and the
defensive fortifications of Dos Hermanas,
San Estaban, and San Gabriel tell of Spanish
activities in the region. The British were also
active: establishment of St. Johns Town in
1781 and Fort St. George in 1736 mark their
presence. Americans subsequently marked
the region for their own. An American
Revolution engagement occurred in May
1777 at Thomas Creek Battlefield, believed to
be in the western portion of the preserve.
Evidence of military control of the St. Johns
River during the Civil War and Spanish
American War can also be seen within the
Timucuan Preserve.
Seldom in NPS areas in Florida or in Georgia
is there such a sweeping story represented
by such a diversity of cultural remains. With
regard to natural resources, nowhere else in
regional NPS areas is there the opportunity
to experience one of the largest expanses of
smooth cordgrass (Spartina) salt marsh co
existing in apparent harmony in one of the
largest urban areas in the region. This
estuarine system is fed by one of the most
unusual rivers in Florida and perhaps North
America, the St. Johns River.
Additionally, the Timucuan Preserve
complements other resources and stories in
other regional NPS areas. There are
opportunities for one or more of these areas
to coordinate interpretive and educational
programming with the Timucuan Preserve
(see Regional National Park Service Areas
map).
While Timucuan's stories link with, they do
not duplicate the lessons and experiences
available in the other NPS areas. The
preserve has its own distinct combination of
natural and scenic resources, and related
cultural stories spanning broad expanses of
time.
Experienced together, the collection of
resources offers visitors a greater
understanding of the span of time and
events occurring in southern Georgia, and
northeast and central Florida, which
contributed so significantly to the
exploration and settlement of the United
States. Representative NPS areas with related
stories and resources are described below.
Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument, St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo
de San Marcos at St. Augustine was for
many years the northernmost outpost of
Spain's vast New World empire. Spain
claimed Florida through discovery by Ponce
de Leon, but France gained the first foothold
by establishing la Caroline on the St. Johns
River in 1564. Seeing this as a challenge to
Spain's claims and a menace to the treasure
eets, King Philip II sent an expedition
under Don Pedro Menendez de Aviles to
eliminate the French threat and establish
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
settlements in Florida. After Menendez
established St. Augustine as an operational
base, his troops captured Fort Caroline and
executed most of the French. The Spanish
operated from St. Augustine until 1763 when
the Peace of Paris gave Florida to Great
Britain. In 1783, at the end of the American
Revolution, Florida was returned to Spain
who retained control until 1821 when Spain
ceded Florida to the United States. The
primary cultural resource at the monument
is the coquina fortress with its diamond
shaped bastions at each comer.
Fort Matanzas National Monument, St.
Augustine, Florida. Soon after Don Pedro
Menendez de Aviles's troops captured Fort
Caroline, survivors from a French eet
wrecked by a violent storm were captured
and killed at an inlet 14 miles south of St.
Augustine. This massacre gave its name to
the area: Matanzas, Spanish for "slaughters."
Matanzas Inlet was the defensive key to St.
Augustine's protection. The Spanish built a
wooden watchtower, followed by a stone
tower, for housing soldiers scanning the
horizon as a first line defense. The primary
cultural resource at the monument is the
stone fort.
De Soto National Memorial, Bradenton,
Florida. This memorial commemorates
Hernando De Soto and his troops'
explorations of the southeastern United
States from 1539 to 1543. De Soto and his
men were among the first Europeans to
encounter North American Indians. Cultural
resources at the memorial include a large
commemorative stone and a model encamp
ment, Camp Ucita, that represents the Indian
village captured by De Soto for use as his
first base camp.
Cumberland Island National Seashore, St.
Mary's, Georgia. There has been human
habitation on Cumberland Island for
thousands of years, evidenced by shell
middens. Spanish activity in the mid-1500s
was followed by British efforts at fort
building. The legacy of subsequent American
habitation on the island is strong;
24
Cumberland Island was home to American
industrialists as well as enslaved African
Americans and their descendants. Primary
cultural resources on the island include
extant mansions and mansion ruins,
plantations with slave quarter sites, the First
African Baptist Church, and prehistoric shell
middens.
This national seashore, only 46 miles north
of the Timucuan Preserve, has more in
common with the preserve from the
standpoint of natural resources than any
other regional NPS area. Common features
include a southern temperate climate, islands
that are part of the barrier island chain,
extensive and similarly structured salt marsh
system (Spartina sp.) that is a dominant
estuarine feature, maritime forests, and birds
and larger wildlife. The one difference is that
the national seashore has an extensive ocean
beach/dune complex that is not present in
the preserve. Because of the temperate
climate, mangroves are not present as with
more southerly and subtropical NPS areas.
Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Brunswick, Georgia. The
colony of Georgia, the last of the original
thirteen English colonies to be established,
was a British buffer along the southern
frontier with Spain. Both Spain and Great
Britain claimed the region between St.
Augustine and Charleston. In 1736 James E.
Oglethorpe settled St. Simons Island with a
colony at Frederica. The British won decisive
victories against Spanish attack on the island
in 1742. By the 1750s Frederica and its fort
were abandoned by both settlers and troops.
The primary cultural resource at the
monument are the ruins of the town and
fort.
Fort Pulaski National Monument,
Savannah, Georgia. Fort Pulaski was built
on Cockspur Island to guard the river
approaches to Savannah, Georgia, as part of
a coastal fortification system adopted by
President James Madison after the War of
1812. The fort took 18 years to build and was
considered impenetrable by smoothbore
NS = National Seashore :.
NHS = National Historic Sit
NM = National Monument
N Mem = National Memoria
NP = National Park ~
N Pres = National Preserve

Regional
National Park
Service Areas
Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve

North oos-zooos-July 94-osc


cannons and mortars. In 1861 after South
Carolina seceded from the Union, federal
troops bombarded Fort Pulaski using
experimental ried cannons. Surrender came
within 30 hours. Old-style masonry
fortifications were proven ineffective against
the new weapons of war. The primary
cultural resource at the monument is the
fort.
Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida
Mississippi. As with Cumberland Island
National Seashore, Gulf Islands is a
temperate NPS area encompassing barrier
islands, estuarine and salt marsh habitats,
and ocean beaches/ dune complexes.
However, the primary and distinctive
features are the barrier islands; salt marsh
habitat is limited when compared to the
Timucuan Preserve. Practically all of the
important plant species of the Gulf Coast
may be found also in the salt marshes of the
preserve. But the frequency, dominance, and
other ecological relationships among the
species differ in the two areas. Important
historic coastal defense fortification sites are
located on the islands.
Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida. Dry
Tortugas is an area primarily dominated by
coral reefs and reef islands. The reefs and
reef islands provide habitat for a large array
of many colored tropical / semitropical fish
species that allows for an exciting
underwater experience. This area is much
noted for the diversity of birdlife, including
many species that also frequent the
Timucuan Preserve. Originally called Fort
Jefferson National Monument, the park is
dominated by a 19th century fort.
Biscayne National Park, Florida. This
semitropical NPS area consists of a warm
shallow bay with a narrow mangrove
shoreline on the mainland, many small
islands or keys, and little estuarine habitat.
Coral reefs are present as well as several sea
grass species. Birds and coral reef fishes are
the dominant wildlife.
27
Relationship to Other Areas and Other Projects
Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Big
Cypress is a semitropical NPS area
consisting of sand islands of slash pine,
mixed hardwood hammocks, wet and dry
prairies, marshes, and some estuarine
mangrove forests. The area is primarily a
freshwater-dominated system with onethird
of the area covered with cypress trees.
Everglades National Park, Florida. A
semitropical NPS area, the Everglades is one
of the attest and most extensive freshwater
wetland ecosystems in the world. It contains
freshwater habitat, hardwood hammocks,
and estuarine habitats. Primary freshwater
habitat includes freshwater marshes
dominated by sawgrass this habitat gives
rise to the name "river of grass." In contrast,
sawgrass is absent from Timucuan, and
freshwater wetlands account for only about
2% of the available habitat in the preserve.
Mangroves dominate the estuarine habitat in
the Everglades. Freshwater inux to the
estuarine part of the Everglades is limiting,
and pulses with alternating wet and dry
seasons. This results in a hypersensitive
estuary with salinities much higher than
those at Timucuan. Regardless of the
differences, continuing research of the
Everglades/ south Florida has importance to
several issues in Timucuan, including
management of wading birds, protected
species, exotic species, and fire.
As an example of the story linkages that
could be made among these sites, the
Timucuan Preserve, along with De Soto
National Memorial, Castillo de San Marcos
National Monument, and Cumberland Island
National Seashore, all interpret to varying
levels of intensity, the rich cultural heritage
of the Timucuan Indians. Visitors could be
introduced to these story linkages through
orientation or interpretive messages, and be
encouraged to visit all four sites. Appro
priate media could emphasize the larger
context and the legacy of the Timucuan
world, both prehistorically and historically.
The history of Spanish exploration and
settlement in the region could be treated
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
much the same way. Timucuan Preserve, De
Soto National Memorial, Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument, and Fort
Matanzas National Monument interpret
different, yet related, aspects of Spanish
history and inuence in Florida.
Other examples of related stories: British
exploration and settlement could be
highlighted at both Timucuan Preserve and
at Fort Frederica National Monument; and
Fort Pulaski National Monument and Yellow
Bluff Fort State Historic Site both illustrate
Civil War military actions. African-American
history, specifically the diversity of the
slavery experience, is emphasized at the
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation and could be
linked with the Cumberland Island National
Seashore in Georgia where other aspects of
the African American slavery experience are
interpreted.
Examples of story linkages through natural
resources include the following: compare
and contrast the temperate, grass-based salt
marsh/ estuarine system with the subtropical,
mangrove-based estuarine system; compare
and contrast temperate Atlantic Coast salt
marshes with temperate Gulf Coast salt
marshes; discuss importance of salt marsh
based estuarine systems to South Atlantic
Coast; and tie together importance of bird
habitat and its linkage to bird migration.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING
EFFORTS AND PLANS
Many preserve management and resource
protection issues are a direct result of the
complex pattern of multiple landownership
within the preserve and the activities that
can occur on these lands, as well as activities
on lands adjacent to the preserve boundary.
These activities could significantly affect the
success of preserve programs.
It is the policy of the National Park Service
to take the initiative to work cooperatively
with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve
potential threats. Such management requires
28
long-range strategic planning, accurate
scientific data, a sensitivity to the trans
boundary effects of management decisions,
and a commitment to cooperate in the
identification and implementation of
regionally and locally coordinated
management strategies.
The following is a brief description of other
known planning efforts or plans both within
and outside the preserve's boundary that
could have an effect on preserve
management, as outlined in this draft
general management plan, and/or resources.
Resource Inventory of Pelotes Island (1988),
Pelotes Island Preserve Interpretation and
Land Management Plan (1989), and
Archeological Studies at Pelotes Island
Preserve (1990), prepared for Jacksonville
Electric Authority Jacksonville Electric
Authority, in joint ownership with Florida
Power and Light, owns a chain of maritime
hammock islands that serve as a buffer for
the St. Johns River Power Park. These
entities, based on the above documents, have
developed this area, known as Pelotes
Island, into the E. Dale Joyner Nature
Preserve, which provides an environmental
education service to the Jacksonville
community. The Pelotes Island area is within
the boundary of the Timucuan Preserve.
The "Resource Inventory of Pelotes Island"
contains a natural and cultural resource
inventory of assembled baseline information
and management alternatives for the islands.
The "Pelotes Preserve Interpretation and
Land Management Plan" discusses facility
design, natural resource management,
habitat enhancement, research programs,
staffing, and maintenance. The
"Archeological Studies at Pelotes Island
Preserve" offers documentation and analysis
of two archeological sites on Pelotes Island,
both with evidence of extensive prehistoric
and historic occupation. Because this
planning effort is for lands within the
Timucuan Preserve boundary, it will have a
direct effect on NPS planning and preserve
resources. Cooperation and communication

among the National Park Service,
Jacksonville Electric Authority, and Florida
Power and Light are critical to ensure that
proposed actions and/or interpretive
programs are compatible.
Wonderwood Connector - Arlington to
Mayport, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (1991), by Federal Highway
Administration and Florida Department of
Transportation The Wonderwood
Expressway will provide a four- or six-lane
highway in Duval County. The proposed
project begins near SR 9A in Arlington and
proceeds eastward toward the beaches area
to end at State Road 101 (Mayport Road).
This draft environmental document indicates
a preferred alignment. Once the highway is
constructed, the highway's northern right-of
way will become the new southern boundary
for the preserve, as discussed in the
legislative intent for the preserve.
State Route 105 (Heckscher Drive)
Preliminary Engineering Report, Florida
Department of Transportation (1989), by
Florida Department of Transportation
This report discusses the ramifications of
reconstruction of SR 105 versus relocating it.
The alternate location for SR 105 is called the
Cedar Point corridor and follows the
alignment of Cedar Point Road eastward to
Black Hammock Island, turns north and
follows Sawpit Road and eventually turns
northeast, crossing the Intracoastal Waterway
and connecting with the existing road on the
north tip of Big Talbot Island. This project,
from the standpoint of either alternative,
could have significant effects on preserve
management and resources. For example, the
Cedar Point corridor alternative, due to
bridging the Intracoastal Waterway, could
have a lasting impact on significant
panoramic vistas and habitat that the
preserve provides.
Fort George Unit Management Plan (1990),
by Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Recreation and Parks This
plan discusses management of state lands on
Fort George Island and identifies objectives,
29
Relationship to Other Areas and Other Projects
criteria, and standards that guide park
administration and sets forth specific
measures that would be implemented to
meet management objectives. The state plans
to educate the public about the human
cultures on the island. Interpretation of
archeological sites, plantations, the San Juan
del Puerto mission site, and other resources
would be provided at an education center, as
well as through tours, kiosks, and trails.
Cooperation and communication are critical
between the National Park Service and the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to ensure that proposed actions
are compatible.
Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes and
Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserves
Management Plan (1986), by State of
Florida, Department of Natural Resources
A large majority of the Nassau River-St.
Johns River marshes, owned and managed
by the state of Florida, is within the preserve
boundary. This management plan lists major
objectives that ensure maintenance of
essentially natural conditions and public
recreational opportunities. The plan is
general and somewhat dated; a new plan for
the Nassau-St. Johns area is in progress. This
plan does acknowledge that the state aquatic
preserve has the status of Outstanding
Florida Waters (OFW). Because of
overlapping boundaries, the designation of
Timucuan also includes Outstanding Florida
Waters. However, some areas of Timucuan
were not given OFW status because the
boundaries are not coincident. This has been
remedied with the recent official designation
of the entire preserve as Outstanding Florida
Waters.
Chapter 187, State Comprehensive Plan,
Florida Statutes This state plan, codified
by state statute, was mandated by the State
and Regional Planning Act of 1984. It
provides long-range policy guidance for the
orderly social, economic, and physical
growth of the state. It also provides specific
policy direction for state and regional
agencies, which will affect cooperators'
actions in the preserve. (See the "Affected
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
Environment" chapter, "Socioeconomic
Environment, Land Use" section, for further
discussion of this plan and its impact on the
preserve.)
Northeast Florida Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan (July 1, 1987) The state of
Florida is divided into 11 regional planning
councils. The State and Regional Planning
Act of 1984 directed each region to develop a
comprehensive regional policy plan for
participating in public and private sector
efforts to plan and manage growth in the
regions. The Northeast Florida Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan (NFCRPP) is central to
the council's activities in planning and
managing those impacts and to the Florida
comprehensive planning framework. The
NFCRPP must be consistent with the state
comprehensive plan according to the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Act of 1985. (See the
"Affected Environment" chapter,
"Socioeconomic Environment, Land Use"
section, for further discussion of this plan
and its impact on the preserve.)
Comprehensive Plan - 2010, City of
Jacksonville (1990) - Local government
plans in Florida such as the city of
Jacksonville's Comprehensive Plan - 2010 are
intended to complete the total comprehen
sive planning framework. Pursuant to
Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Act mandates that local
government plans be developed to guide
and regulate future development and to be
consistent with both the state comprehensive
plan and the NFCRPP. (See the "Affected
30
Environment" chapter, "Socioeconomic
Environment, Land Use" section, for further
discussion of this plan and its impact on the
preserve.)
Master Plan, Naval Station Mayport, United
States Department of the Navy (date
unknown) This document provides
strategies for management of Naval Station
Mayport. Some of these strategies pertain to
naval station lands within the preserve
boundaries. Cooperation between the
National Park Service and the US. Navy
should help support mutual interests in
protection of preserve resources while
avoiding conicts with the mission of Naval
Station Mayport.
Management Plan, Huguenot Memorial
Park (1993) This management plan,
developed by the city of Jacksonville and
negotiated with the state of Florida,
describes Huguenot Memorial Park and
prescribes objectives, policies, and
procedures. The park is within preserve
boundaries.
Private Lands Development Proposals
Master plans have been developed by
private property owners for several large
parcels. The National Park Service would
continue to review environmental
documents/ permits related to land use
proposals that might have the potential to
affect preserve resources and visitor
enjoyment. These reviews could include
recommendations for actions that could be
taken to avoid any impairment of preserve
values.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ACTION
 INTRODUCTION
THE ALTERNATIVES
Four management alternative concepts that
fulfill the preserve's purpose and
management objectives in varying degrees
are presented in this section. The alternatives
are titled as follows Alternative 1:
Continuation of Existing Management (No
Action); Alternative 2: The Preserve as a
Laboratory and Classroom; Alternative 3:
Interagency Cooperation for Resource
Protection (Proposed Action); and
Alternative 4: Environmental Protection,
Enhancement, and Restoration through
National Park Service Management.
The four alternatives are offered to provide a
reasonable range of different management
emphasis and priorities for the preserve.
Each alternative acknowledges the shared
responsibilities in the preserve. Some
elements are common to all of the
alternatives, and these are described first.
33
In all altematives, the National Park Service
would make development decisions at NPS
owned sites. At a minimum, modifications
would be made at the Fort Caroline National
Memorial area, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation. Development
concept plans for these NPS-owned areas are
presented and discussed under alternative 3,
the proposed action.
Summary comparisons of the alternatives
and their potential environmental impacts
are included at the end of the "Management
Alternatives" chapter (see tables 3 and 4).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
REJECTED
During the planning process for this general
management plan/ environmental impact
statement, no alternatives other than those
analyzed in this document were considered.
 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT ZONING
Preserve lands would be classified into
management zones to designate where
various strategies for management and use
best fulfill management objectives and
achieve the purpose of the preserve. This
classification, an NPS system of prescriptive
land use designations, is based on the
inherent nature of resources, their suitability
for use or development, and the legislative
mandate and objectives established for the
area. Physical alteration of the land or
construction of new facilities in any zone
would be subject to the physical
development/ location criteria described in
table 1 (see the "Physical Development"
section).
Preserve lands could be placed in one of
four management zones natural, historic,
development, and special use. These zones
would be divided into subzones, where
appropriate, to reect various management
strategies.
The delineation of management zones would
be similar for all alternatives. Some minor
variations would be apparent, but these
variations are not representable at a map
scale appropriate for the general
management plan. Therefore, only the
management zones for alternative 3, the
proposed action, are described and mapped.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
This section sets forth natural resource
management activities that would be
undertaken on NPS-owned property under
any of the alternatives. Proposed strategies
for managing these resources are in response
to the issues identified in this draft general
management plan. Under any alternative, the
National Park Service would manage natural
resources on its properties according to NPS
policies and guidelines. Specific actions
would be taken to identify and protect
resources, such as inventorying and
mapping, establishing protective strategies,
and revising the Land Protection Plan (NPS,
USDI 1993a).
The National Park Service recognizes that
the natural resources of the preserve its
water, fish and wildlife, protected species,
and vast habitat expanses are important
contributors to the preserve's national and
international significance. The National Park
Service further realizes that no single
planning exercise or document can possibly
set forth in sufficient detail the specific
resource management actions that must be
developed and implemented to deal with the
full range of issues. Therefore, the alter
natives propose broad resource management
goals and specify only general processes
and /or actions. To achieve those goals, the
National Park Service would update the
natural resource project statements of the
preserve's Resource Management Plan (NPS
1993b).
According to the Natural Resource
Management Guidelines (NPS-77), the develop
ment of an up-to-date inventory of the
natural resources in each park is important.
Existing databases reect mostly an
opportunistic rather than methodological
approach and seldom are detailed enough to
monitor changes in preserve natural
resources. An inventory of natural resources
also would support the preserve's position in
defending its natural resources against
encroaching development and environmental
pollution. Natural resources are constantly
changing; thus, a program of long-term
monitoring is also essential. Monitoring
could help detect changes in resource
conditions before unacceptable changes
occur.
Under any alternative, the National Park
Service, working with various data-gathering
agencies and organizations, would determine

the preserve's inventory and assessment
needs by collecting existing information and
establishing a methodology for program
management. This would include develop
ment and implementation of programs for
information management, including geogra
phic information systems, computerized
databases, reference bibliography, and
natural history collections.
The National Park Service would continue to
support research by public and private
institutions and organizations and by other
agencies on NPS lands and would provide
funding whenever possible.
Air Quality
The National Park Service would operate its
facilities and equipment in compliance with
the standards set by the Clean Air Act and
Noise Control Act. Managed burning,
including slash burning for exotic plant
control, would be coordinated with local
agencies to minimize the effects of smoke on
air quality.
The National Park Service would continue to
cooperate with the city of Jacksonville's air
monitoring program (no monitoring stations
within the preserve) to identify any changes
in visual quality or changes that might prove
hazardous to visitor health or preserve
resources and scenic values. This monitoring
program continues to provide baseline data
to determine normal background levels of
regulated pollutants outside the preserve.
Water Management
Future visitor use activities and new facilities
that could affect water resources would be
carefully considered. Remedial and
preventive actions, such as use of erosion
and sediment control structures for the
former and pumpout vault comfort facilities
for the latter, would be initiated as necessary
to protect the integrity of the preserve.
35
Elements Common to All Alternatives
The National Park Service would continue to
cooperate with various federal, state, and
local agencies with interests and authorities
in the preserve to protect water quality.
Overall direction of water resource manage
ment would be to avoid or mitigate potential
disturbances to water resources on NPS
owned lands. The Park Service would
continue to rely on the existing multiagency
framework for water quality monitoring in
the preserve.
The National Park Service would continue to
avoid to the extent feasible occupation or
modification of oodplains and wetlands, in
accordance with Executive Order 11988
("Floodplain Management") and Executive
Order 11990 ("Protection of Wetlands"),
respectively. However, certain actions (e.g.,
boat clocks) are excepted from compliance
with these orders because functionally they
are dependent on water. Further, the
construction of NPS administrative and/or
maintenance facilities on existing filled or
disturbed upland would be restricted to
nonwetland and nonoodplain areas.
Primarily these lands would include Fort
Caroline, Kingsley Plantation, and a small
portion of the Theodore Roosevelt area. In
the process of siting NPS facilities, any
already filled wetlands would be considered
potential sites for restoration.
The National Park Service would continue to
consult with the city of Jacksonville, the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, St. Johns River Water
Management District, the US. Army Corps
of Engineers, and the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service in review of building and develop
ment permits and dredge and fill permits for
projects on private lands within the preserve,
and adjacent to the preserve where water
quality and quantity (especially timing,
volume, and spatial distribution of ows
through the preserve) could be affected. No
new dredging or further excavation of
previously dredged sites on NPS-owned
lands would be conducted for fill material
for any future NPS developments. Permit
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
applications, when forwarded to the
National Park Service, would be examined to
ensure the protection of the preserve's
ecological integrity.
Water pollution from recreational and
commercial boat use would be minimized by
educating boaters about proper waste
disposal, boating ethics, and potential for
damage to estuarine resources. The National
Park Service would cooperate with other
government agencies in maintaining a
contingency action plan for containing oil
and toxic material spills affecting preserve
waters and cultural resources.
To address NPS concerns about water
quality and quantity within the preserve,
water rights for specific surface waters and
groundwaters would be clarified with the
appropriate local, state, and federal agencies.
The National Park Service has developed
and would continue to revise and update an
NPS hurricane plan to protect NPS staff,
facilities, and property during a hurricane or
other storm. This plan would detail
responsibilities and procedures for securing
government facilities.
Vegetation
The preserve's Resource Management Plan
(NPS 1993b) would identify that a vegetation
management plan is needed for NPS-owned
lands. This plan would describe the steps to
prevent certain human disturbances
detrimental to the natural functioning of
plant communities. Generally speaking, plant
communities preservewide should benefit
from continuing actions by other agencies
and organizations to maintain natural water
regimes, control exotic species, and protect
individual communities. This plan would
also detail restoration methods that could be
used on the disturbed areas on any acquired
land. All activities in this plan would be in
concert with identified archeological and
cultural landscape values.
36
Vegetation management would accomplish
objectives according to management zones.
For example, at cultural sites the vegetation
would complement both the historic
resources and the interpretive story,
including screening resources from visual
intrusions such as parking areas, powerlines,
and power plant stacks. Reclamation of
disturbed sites and protection of vegetation
would occur within natural zones.
Fish and Wildlife
Management of fish and wildlife would
emphasize perpetuation of existing diversity
and populations of native species. The
National Park Service would cooperate with
the state fish and wildlife agencies in
managing fish and wildlife populations on
NPS-owned lands. Management would be
directed toward maintaining populations for
recreation, aesthetic viewing, education and
scientific study, and overall ecological value.
The National Park Service would undertake
limited pest control procedures on its lands
and would consult with agencies that have
preservewide responsibility for pest control
to ensure that regulations and guidance
applying to the National Park Service would
be considered. For example, the National
Park Service requires an integrated pest
management approach to control any pests
on NPS-owned land. Integrated pest
management includes the use of cultural,
mechanical, biological, or chemical control
methods. Chemical pesticides are used only
as a last resort and in conjunction with
nonchemical methods. An integrated pest
management plan for NPS-owned lands
would be prepared as directed by the
preserve's Resource Management Plan (NPS
1993b).
Hunting and commercial and sport fishing
are legislatively permitted within the
preserve and would continue in conformance
with existing and future laws and regula
tions. Direct management of these activities
falls with the state of Florida, and the

National Park Service would consult with
the state.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The National Park Service recognizes its
responsibility to protect endangered or
threatened species and critical habitats under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. It
has consulted with the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service on this draft general management
plan. The National Park Service would
continue to cooperate with those agencies
when implementing management actions
concerning threatened or endangered
species.
In addition, NPS Management Policies require
the National Park Service to work coopera
tively with states to protect populations of
state-listed rare species. The rare, threatened,
and endangered species survey, described in
the "Affected Environment" chapter of this
draft general management plan, lists many
species that warrant protection. It is
important to develop appropriate strategies
for protecting these species in the resource
management plan. An effort should be made
to identify the presence of other state or
federally listed species that may require
protection.
The National Park Service would rely on
other agencies with jurisdiction in the
preserve for protected species management
on non-NPS lands and waters. It would
cooperate and consult with these agencies on
protected species issues preservewide and
would fulfill its obligations under existing
laws and regulations by monitoring activities
that could be detrimental to protected
species and their habitats.
Surveys of listed species would be conducted
periodically and their habitats protected
from modification or development. Public
use of sensitive habitats would be restricted
as necessary during critical feeding, nesting,
or reproductive periods. Specific actions
37
Elements Common to All Alternatives
might include temporary closure of trails in
certain areas to avoid disturbance of nesting
species. Interpretive programs to enhance
public appreciation of protection of listed
species would continue to be conducted.
Specific surveys would be undertaken to
determine the presence of any threatened or
endangered species on sites being considered
for development, alteration, or public use.
Exotic Species
The National Park Service would develop
guidelines for the identification, control, and
management of exotic species on NPS-owned
lands that conict with preserve purposes.
Ideally, the goal of exotic plant and animal
management would be the elimination of all
exotic species; however, this goal would be
very difficult to achieve due to the potential
magnitude of the problem. Because some
exotic species pose little or no threat to
biodiversity, a more pragmatic strategy
would be to focus on reducing the densities
of harmful or detrimental exotic species to a
level where their inuence is minimized and
possibly eliminated.
Whatever the strategy, management actions
and the extent of control over exotic species
must be weighed against the costs and
benefits to native biological communities,
cultural resources, and visitor safety and the
enjoyment of the preserve, as well as labor
and budget considerations. No attempt
would be made to control exotic species that
are not a major threat to native communities
or visitor safety. This would be important
where exotic species are part of a cultural
landscape associated with historic or
prehistoric sites. Habitat alteration or
manipulation such as diking, wetland
drainage, or water level change would not
be practiced. These guidelines would also
address the importance of educating the
public about the problems and concerns
regarding exotic species.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Fire Management
The National Park Service would coordinate
with the Florida Department of Forestry to
develop a fire management plan for the
preserve. This plan would require updating
as needed. The plan would complement the
existing state fire management plan and
emphasize NPS fire management policies.
The Park Service would continue to rely on
the city of Jacksonville for structural fire
suppression on NPS-owned lands in the
preserve.
The Park Service recognizes the use of fire as
an advantageous means to achieve natural
resource management goals. Once a fire
management plan is approved, preserve
management could use prescribed fire to
attain the following objectives on NPS
owned lands:
' Reduce hazard fuel accumulations.
' Manage wildlife habitat for game,
nongame, protected, and rare species.
' Research the ecological role of fire in the
preserve's varied ecosystem.
' Control exotic plant species.
' Protect cultural and natural resources
that are fire-intolerant.
' Meet operational needs.
Fire suppression includes all actions taken to
extinguish or limit the size of a fire.
Wildfires on NPS-owned lands would be
suppressed to meet the following objectives:
' Protect human life.
' Protect public and private property.
' Preserve state and federally listed plant
and animal species and their habitats.
' Protect selected cultural resources.
38
' Protect lands adjoining NPS-owned
lands.
However, on non-NPS lands in the preserve,
suppression of wildfires may follow different
objectives, depending on the alternative
selected.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Ten sites were identified in PL 100-249 that
are significant to the preserve's history
San Gabriel, San Estaban, Dos Hermanas,
Fort St. George, St. Johns Town, San Juan del
Puerto mission site, Thomas Creek
Battlefield, Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation,
Spanish-American War Battery, and Yellow
Bluff Fort. Only Kingsley Plantation, Yellow
Bluff Fort, Spanish-American War Battery,
and San Juan del Puerto mission site have
extant remains that have been found. Only
one site, Kingsley Plantation, is currently
under NPS ownership. All 10 sites would be
interpreted to some extent under all of the
alternatives.
This section sets forth cultural resource
management actions that would be
undertaken on NPS-owned property under
any of the alternatives. It also will guide
future updates of the cultural resource
management section of the preserve's
Resource Management Plan (NPS 1993b).
Proposed strategies for managing cultural
resources are in response to the issues
identified in this draft general management
plan.
Under any alternative, the National Park
Service would manage cultural resources,
including archeological sites, at all NPS
owned property according to NPS policies
and guidelines. Specific actions would be
taken to identify, document, and protect
resources, such as inventorying and mapping
prehistoric and historic resources, developing
a database to monitor and analyze resources,
using the database to prioritize significant
sites in and adjacent to the preserve and
establish protection strategies, developing

area-specific resource protection plans, and
supporting existing research programs at
local universities and federal, state, and local
agencies with involvement in the preserve.
Resources are not to be destroyed or
impaired by the type or amount of use they
would receive under the different alter
natives, and management strategies must
reect the intent to manage or even limit use
of the resources to ensure that they are not
compromised. However, before actions can
be taken to prevent damage to the preserve's
cultural resources, it is necessary to
determine exactly what is there, what is the
best strategy for preserving and/or
protecting the particular resource, how best
to maintain it, and how much use it can
tolerate without degradation. The following
basic cultural resource plans related to
interpretation of the natural and cultural
resources would be needed at Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve. This
documentation would be needed for any
resources within the boundary.
Archeological evaluation studies
Collection condition surveys
Collection management plans
Collection storage plans
Cultural landscape reports (with
ethnographic component)
Cultural resource management
bibliography
Cultural sites inventory
Ethnographic overview and
assessment
Ethnographic oral and life histories
Exhibit plans
Historic resource study (with
historical base map(s) parkwide and
National Register of Historic Places
forms)
Historic structure preservation guide
Historic structure reports
List of Classified Structures
National Catalog of Museum Objects
Park administrative history
39
Elements Common to All Alternatives
Revised National Register of Historic
Places nominations for Kingsley
Plantation, Fort Caroline, and other
national register sites within preserve
Archeological surveys of portions of the
preserve have been completed and initial
determinations of eligibility to the national
register have been made. Work has been
started on a national register nomination for
multiple resources.
Historic settings around or adjacent to
structures would be included in these
reports to construct adequate data for
ongoing maintenance of the historic scene.
Specific structure evaluation and
preservation actions would be applied to
each building to protect and /or enhance
existing cultural remains.
Review and revision of all national register
nominations within the preserve would be a
priority. The national register nominations
for the Kingsley Plantation and Fort Caroline
especially need to be revised. Neither
nomination contains enough data to help
guide management, preservation, and visitor
use needs at the sites. Resources are
described only minimally, and criteria for
significance and contributing elements are
inadequate. The Fort Caroline nomination
should be first priority because it is
legislatively designated as the principal
interpretive center for the preserve.
In addition to revising the Kingsley
Plantation register nomination, the site
should be evaluated for designation as a
national historic landmark. The plantation
may meet national significance criteria
because of the uncommon aspects of its
layout, and because of the rarity of the
distinctive tabby slave cabins. A cultural
landscape report is also needed for the
Kingsley Plantation. This evaluation of the
plantation's historic landscape is considered
a high priority because of its potential effect
on any proposed development at the site.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Collections and archives would be managed
under NPS standards and guidelines for
protecting the resources and information.
They would be exhibited or stored in
appropriately controlled environments with
protection against accidents, theft,
atmospheric elements, insect infestations,
and vandalism, and they would be examined
periodically to ensure protection.
Two separate museum collections are
maintained for Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve. The collection for Fort
Caroline is housed at Fort Caroline and at
the National Park Service's Southeast
Archeological Center (SEAC). The collection
for the preserve contains cultural items
obtained through archeological investigations
by the Southeast Archeological Center and is
housed there. A few recently acquired items
in the Timucuan Preserve collection are
stored at Fort Caroline. In addition,
approximately 900 items were loaned to the
National Park Service for 18 months by four
Florida state agencies in conjunction with the
acquisition of the Kingsley Plantation. The
majority of these objects were returned to the
state of Florida in March 1993; more than
100 objects were donated to the National
Park Service. Scope of collection statements
for both Fort Caroline National Memorial
(1991) and Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve (1991) have been completed.
All structures open to the public would be
made accessible to all visitors and employees
to the extent possible. In some instances it
may be difficult to achieve full access to
historic properties without compromising
their integrity and significance. If the
National Park Service, in consultation with
the Florida State Historic Preservation
Officer, determines that full compliance will
have a negative effect on a historic property,
then providing a lesser level of accessibility
(called programmatic accessibility) may be
acceptable.
The following specific actions would be
proposed for sites on or eligible for the
national register within the preserve:
' The Southeast Archeological Center, in
consultation with the state historic
preservation officer, has already
surveyed and identified archeological
sites eligible for listing on the national
register. These sites are sensitive to
vandalism in spite of their remote
locations. Methods to prevent and deter
vandalism would be implemented,
including inspections and patrols;
however, increased staffing would be
required. Law enforcement personnel
would be trained in cultural resource
management law and would develop a
systematic program to protect known
archeological and historic sites from
vandalism.
' The visiting public would be informed
about laws and associated penalties for
vandalizing archeological sites on federal
lands. A variety of interpretive/
educational methods would be used to
educate the public about the significance
and fragility of cultural resources.
' Fire management and cultural resource
specialists would cooperate to ensure
that prescribed burns and wildfire
suppression activities would not
adversely affect known cultural sites.
Cultural conservation involves the
identification, documentation, protection,
and encouragement of folklife and culture.
Unlike historic preservation, which primarily
focuses on tangible and material resources,
cultural conservation is concerned with the
values and ways of life of a culture. It is
interdisciplinary and involves the work of
folklorists, historians, ethnographers,
anthropologists, preservationists, and
planners. The principal goal is to
understand, appreciate, and maintain
cultural diversity.
There is a distinctive and rich cultural
heritage in northeast Florida. The lower St.
Johns River has a folklore tradition with
origins in several cultures. The folklore
consists of tales, superstitions, home

remedies, music, hand crafts, garden styles,
and traditional customs in relation to water
and land use. Also present are local
"characters," people with knowledge of local
ways. Ethnographic resources could include
known community uses of the preserve's salt
marsh /estuarine ecosystem, especially
gathering and fishing uses. There may also
be distinctions between traditional and
nontraditional recreational, commercial, and
subsistence uses. This heritage is often
overlooked in preservation efforts.
The Kingsley Plantation is an ethnographic
resource associated with slavery in the
Americas. The extant set of slave quarters
possesses traditional cultural significance
because it is where the enslaved black
community carried out cultural practices
important to its historical identity. The
plantation's significance may extend into the
tenant farming and share-cropping system
that replaced the slave labor system in
southern agriculture after the Civil War. This
aspect of the African American experience at
Kingsley Plantation may be as significant as
its slavery associations.
Perceptions of shared identity and traditions
are as worthy of protection as artifacts and
structures. Congress legislated responsibility
for the preservation of our cultural heritage
to federal institutions through such laws as
the American Folklife Preservation Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act. Thus,
the National Park Service has both the
obligation and the opportunity to preserve
tangible and intangible aspects of culture,
including significant historic and
archeological sites, records and artifacts,
social histories, and living cultural traditions.
The National Park Service may not be able
to foresee the cultural change that inevitably
will occur - change inuenced by economic
and social conditions.
However, with adequate staff and funding,
the National Park Service would perform the
following actions to reach the goals of
cultural conservation:
41
Elements Common to All Alternatives
' Aid and assist local people in preserving
their culture, including the diversity of
perspectives related to class, gender,
ethnicity, religion, area, and occupation.
' Provide the mechanisms necessary for
community participation in planning,
implementation, and operation of historic
and cultural preservation projects.
' Develop ties among communities and the
various agencies involved in cultural
conservation.
' Avoid the negative impacts of tourism on
affected communities.
' Determine appropriate ways to interpret
local heritage and culture with local
involvement.
' Consult with an ethnographer or applied
anthropologist to identify and document
natural and cultural resources that are of
significance to people with traditional
ties to the Timucuan Preserve. These ties
may include historical association, such
as descendants of Kingsley Plantation
occupants, or traditional uses, such as
farming and fishing. Ethnographic
studies can describe community
dynamics, trace traditional relationships
between communities and preserve
resources over time and space, support
multiple points of view in regard to the
meaning or uses of a landscape, and
document a cultural system differing
from that of mainstream America.
' Consult with people having traditional
ties to the Timucuan Preserve about the
protection and interpretation of resources
significant to them.
INTERPRETIVE CONTEXT AND THEMES
Sharing with visitors the reasons Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve was
established involves deciding what visitors
need and want to know about the
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
preserve what are the stories to tell,
which are the most important, and how will
they be told?
These stories what the National Park
Service calls interpretation are basic to
any of the alternatives. These stories are told
for enjoyment as well as for deeper under
standing. Interpretation helps people enjoy
the preserve's resources, and it leads to
resource protection. Where and how these
stories would be told is described in the
description of the alternatives; what stories
would be told is described in the interpretive
themes. All interpretation from the
smallest detail of how the Timucua fished to
the largest picture of how the salt
marsh/estuary functions as an ecosystem
would be based on these themes. The
interpretive context sets the stage for the
stories of the Timucuan Preserve.
A Sense of Place
Your senses tell you this is someplace
special. The cry of the gulls. The smell of the
salt water. The rush of wind through the
marsh grass. You know this is a place full of
life, and supportive of life. This is where the
natural forces of rejuvenation, cleansing, and
nurturing occur in wetlands, relatively
unimpeded for thousands of years. The low,
clear view encompasses the natural beauty of
sky, land, and water, but there is evidence of
humans as well. Pageants of war and peace,
conquest and defeat, mercy and vengeance
were acted out on this stage of sand and
marsh grasses and owing rivers. Through
time, the natural and human histories of the
region between the St. Johns and Nassau
Rivers have become intertwined, and offer a
challenge to its inheritors.
The prehistoric trash heaps scattered across
the landscape are a visual clue to the earliest
human habitation of the area. Large shell
middens found along the St. Johns River,
composed of oyster and clam shells, reveal
the presence of a people who lived off the
land's bounty. When the first Europeans
arrived on the St. Johns, the Timucua lived
the same way as their prehistoric ancestors
They lived on fresh and saltwater shellfish
They fished and hunted and grew corn.
Through 1,000 years of stability and
settlement, the Timucua developed a
complex political and social organization.
Their political organization was based on a
loose affiliation of villages for war and
protection. Their social organization was
based on matrilineal clans with animal
names. Despite this level of achievement, the
Timucua could not withstand the onslaught
of newcomers. It took only 200 years of
settlement and missionization for the
Timucuan culture and nation to be
destroyed.
La Florida was "discovered" by Juan Ponce
de Leon in 1513. The Spanish spent the
following years exploring up and down the
eastern North American coastline as well as
around the gulf to Mexico. In the same
manner as Panfilo de Narvaez and
Hernando de Soto landed at Tampa Bay and
"discovered" the Mississippi River, a tiny
group of Protestants from France established
themselves on the St. Johns River in 1564.
They were not allowed to stay there long.
This was a time of fierce devotions and
loyalties. Their presence signaled the
beginning of bloody skirmishes in the New
World between the forces of Catholicism and
Protestantism.
Led by Ren de Laudonniere, the French
built a defensive work and established the
settlement of la Caroline. The Spanish soon
learned of this intrusion into their claimed
lands, and sent Pedro Menendez de Aviles
to destroy the heretics. Arriving fresh from
his establishment of St. Augustine,
Menendez and his Spanish took the fort by
surprise and offered no quarter. Only a
handful of survivors, including Laudonniere,
returned to France alive. With the French
threat gone and the fort rebuilt as San
Mateo, the Spanish tried to protect their
domain, building forts on the river for
defense. In the end, however, the Spanish
lost Florida to the British in 1763, gained it

back 20 years later, and lost it permanently
to the Americans in 1821.
Attempts by the first Society of Jesus (Jesuit)
to do missionary work among the Indians
failed, and the Jesuits left Spanish Florida in
1572. Later, in 1587, the Order of the
Franciscans established the mission of San
Juan del Puerto on Fort George Island. The
missions spread, and some of what is known
about the historic Timucua comes from Fray
Francisco Pareja's 1614 Confessionario,
containing glimpses of 'limucuan rituals,
politics, and domestic life. Despite the
Franciscans' inuence, the missions as well
as the Indians became victims of the on
going power struggles. The mission system
died when the Spanish lost Florida to the
British.
The new inhabitants left their own mark.
Whereas most of the Spanish design on the
land was military in nature, the British were
more commercial. As the American
Revolution approached, British Loyalists
sought refuge in Florida, away from the
colonials and tar and feathers. They
established a town on the St. Johns River
and produced naval stores, but there was no
escape from the worldwide conict. Not only
were there pitched skirmishes between the
loyalists and the colonials on Thomas Creek,
but the entire territory changed hands again,
from British back to Spanish. St. Johns Town
was soon deserted.
This time around the Spanish promoted
growth and gave away land to ambitious
settlers. A plantation system developed in
the area, based on cheap land and cheaper
labor. Slaves worked on plantations named
Fort George, and Christopher and
Greenfield, producing cotton, indigo, and
sugarcane for export to distant markets. The
remnants of their tabby homes, made from
sand and water and oyster shell, stand as
mute reminders of the only people who
came to the St. Johns River unwillingly.
The centuries-old strategy of fortifying the
St. Johns River, thereby protecting interior
43
Elements Common to All Alternatives
Florida, continued under American control.
Time has not diminished the impact of
armed conict on the American conscious
ness. Earthworks and gun batteries from the
Civil War and the Spanish-American War
can still speak to the fear, determination,
pride, and courage felt by past generations.
The naval installation at Mayport carries on
the tradition, echoing the efforts of nearly
forgotten warriors, be they Timucuan,
French, Spanish, British, or American.
The interaction of cultures within the region
over the centuries was remarkable in its
inuence and impact. Prehistoric trade
networks into central and southeastern
North America brought copper, mica, and
other nonnative materials into northeastern
Florida. The Timucua possessed political and
social alliances extending into Georgia and
middle Florida, but trade, religious, and
warfare encounters with the French and
Spanish changed the Timucuan way of life
forever. Cultural interactions among the
various European and African peoples in the
region were representative of those occurring
all over the New World involving military
action and slavery.
The challenge for the inheritors of these
resources is to preserve the balance of nature
and human use. The wetlands are not only
scenic, they also are part of an ecosystem
designed to support many forms of life.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve,
with all of its history and all of its use, is
still capable of raising and sustaining our
quality of life.
Interpretive Themes
At the Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve the National Park Service would
interpret the following themes:
At Timucuan there is an opportunity for
harmony to exist between human use and
natural order. This harmony affects the air
and water quality and the overall scenic
quality of the area. It involves a balance of
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
human use/ abuse regarding development
and disturbance. Timucuan is a "living
laboratory," where prehistoric, historic, and
present use of the wetlands can be
evaluated. The interrelationships between
nature and human use that contribute to our
quality of life can be experienced.
The wetlands are a dynamic ecosystem that
provides the interface between land and
water. Wetland loss is a national concern.
Wetlands should be protected because they
function in so many beneficial ways. They
provide atmospheric stabilization, erosion
and ood control, and groundwater
recharge, and remove pollution and toxins
from sediments. Wetlands serve as breeding
and spawning grounds for fish and birds,
including threatened and endangered
species; a wildlife refuge; and a nursery for
shellfish. They also provide a buffer from
storms.
The lower St. Johns River has historically
been and remains a strategic waterway for
access into interior Florida. The river was
fortified by several rivals French and
Spanish, British and Americans,
Confederates and Union in attempts to
control the interior access. Several military
conicts occurred in the lower St. Johns
River system involving the Spanish and
French. Physical reminders of the military
presence along the river include military
hardware and fortification, in the form of
gun emplacements and earthworks. The
continuing legacy of the river's military
significance is the modern US. Navy
installation at Mayport.
Various peoples through time have relied on
the resources of the lower St. Johns River for
basic subsistence. The daily survival of other
prehistoric and historic peoples who lived
along the river was affected by the available
natural resources. Agriculture was practiced
in several forms along the river - the
Timucuan slash-and-burn techniques and
gathering of edible plants gave way to the
establishment of formal plantations that were
dedicated to the production of specific crops.
The river and wetlands offered fishing and
shellfish harvesting, conducted by all groups
to the modern day an evolution from the
Timucuan midden piles to the present-day
fish camps. The river served as both
transportation barrier and access corridor.
The interaction of cultures throughout the
region, especially colonial French, Spanish,
and British, Americans, American Indians,
and Africans, had a profound impact on
American history. The process of cultural
interaction, by two or more different groups
of people, usually results in change. When
people meet as friends or enemies,
competitors or business partners, or slaves or
slave owners, their beliefs and values,
culture, and emotions change forever. The
cultures of American Indians, French,
Spanish, British, Africans, and Americans
have each, through history, experienced
cultural interactions in what is now the
Timucuan Preserve.
Revised NPS Thematic Framework
Mandated by Congress to ensure that the
full diversity of American history and
prehistory is expressed in the National Park
Service's identification and interpretation of
historic properties, the Park Service revised
its thematic framework during 1993-94. This
framework, originally adopted in 1936, and
revised in 1970 and 1987, was used to show
the extent to which park units and other
cultural resources reected the nation's past
in terms of significance. The framework was
conceived in terms of the "stages of
American progress" and served to celebrate
the achievements of the founding fathers and
the inevitable march of democracy.
The present revision of the NPS thematic
framework is a break with that
conceptualization. It embraces the
multiplicity of human experiences and is
composed of eight discrete, but not mutually
exclusive, categories focusing on people,
time, and place. The revised framework will
guide the National Park Service,

independently and with its private and
public sector partners, not only in evaluating
the significance of resources and in assessing
how well the themes are represented in the
national park system, but also in expanding
and enhancing the interpretive programs at
existing park units as well.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve's
primary interpretive themes are represented
within the following categories of the new
thematic framework:
I. "Peopling Places," a theme examining
human population movement and
change through prehistoric and historic
times
III. "Expressing Cultural Values,"
focusing on people's beliefs about
themselves and the world they inhabit
V. "Developing the American Economy,"
reecting on the ways Americans have
worked
VII. "Transforming the Environment,"
examining the variable and changing
relationships between people and their
environment.
Because the new thematic framework is in
the first stages of implementation, for the
purposes of this plan the significance of the
Timucuan Preserve's prehistoric and historic
archeological sites and resources are
discussed in the context of the 1987
framework, entitled History and Prehistory in
the National Park System and the National
Historic Landmarks Program (see pp. 151152
of this draft general management plan).
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
The visitor experience describes what people
would do, see, and learn when they visit
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.
There are many appropriate visitor
experiences at the preserve because the
resources mean different things to different
45
Elements Common to All Alternatives
people. For some, the preserve offers the
opportunity to learn about a people lost
through the ravages of cultural upheaval and
disease. For others, the preserve offers a
chance for a quiet, solitary walk through a
Florida forest. Still others revel in the smell
and feel of the open water.
There are three aspects of the visitor
experience orientation/ information,
interpretation/education, and recreation.
These aspects are separate, yet linked
together for most visitors. An activity with
an interpreter should be informative and
enjoyable. The visitor experience priorities of
the National Park Service would be to give
people the opportunity to experience the
preserve's cultural and natural treasures,
especially from the water, and to make them
more aware of the preserve's ecological
importance through interpretation at visitor
contact points.
There are several visitor experiences the
National Park Service wishes to provide at
Timucuan Preserve in the future. These
experiences are consistent with the
preserve's purposes and significance. While
few visitors would be able to enjoy all of the
following experiences, interpretive
programming and recreational opportunities
would attempt to provide them to the extent
possible. Of course, individual visitors
would pursue their own interests and
interact with the Timucuan's Preserve's
resources to their own desires.
' Visitors to the preserve would be
provided with interesting, educational,
recreational, stimulating, and sensory
experiences that respect the preserve's
resources.
' Visitors would be able to experience the
preserve's interrelationships of open
water, vegetation, and wildlife. This
would help them understand how
components of the wetland ecosystem
contribute to the whole and provide a
unified sense of place.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
' Visitors would be able to see from the
land and water native plants and
animals.
' There would be opportunities to enjoy
open undeveloped landscape with its
accompanying quiet.
' People would be able to participate in
hands-on activities related to traditional
use of the land, such as crabbing or
fishing.
' Visitors would learn about the chron
ology and legacy of human occupation of
the lower St. Johns River, starting with
the Timucuan inhabitants.
' People would have opportunities to
enjoy land- and water-based recreational
activities.
Information, Orientation, Interpretation,
and Education
An integrated plan would be developed for
roadway directional and site/ area signs to
identify the preserve and direct visitors to
Fort Caroline National Memorial. Fort
Caroline would serve as the primary inter
pretive center for the preserve. Interpretation
incorporating all of the preserve's themes
would be offered at the Fort Caroline visitor
center. Visitor safety information and
preserve rules and regulations also would be
available. The size and scale of the visitor
center would change in all alternatives from
what currently exists.
Because of the complexity and number of
resources and use opportunities, visitors
would begin their experience at the Fort
Caroline visitor center to gain an overall
understanding of the natural and cultural
resources, stories to be told, and available
activities. The Theodore Roosevelt area and
Kingsley Plantation would provide a repre
sentation of interpretive activities to be
offered within the preserve as a whole.
Visitors to the Timucuan Preserve would
find orientation media and one-on-one
discussions with park rangers to be
especially helpful when planning their
visit - whether it be for an hour, a day,
or a weekend.
Interpretation and resource management at
the Fort Caroline fort model would change
under all alternatives. The National Register
of Historic Places nomination for Fort
Caroline would be reviewed and rewritten to
reect preserve management's view on the
fort model's change in status from a historic
cultural resource to an exhibit that
commemorates the la Caroline settlement.
Interpretation at the model would place
emphasis on the French founders of the
settlement and memorialize the French
experience in 1560s Florida.
Part of the Wil-le-ma Lodge in the Theodore
Roosevelt area may be used for interpretive
programs, special activities, and an
education center under all alternatives,
Recreation
The amount and diversity of NPS-organized
recreational activities vary from alternative
to alternative. The National Park Service
would identify locations within the preserve
in NPS ownership where desired new
recreation sites and levels of improvements
and capacities could occur without
damaging preserve resources. The
identification of these locations would use
the physical development/ location criteria in
table 1 (see the following "Physical
Development" section) and the Alternative 3
Management Zoning map included in the
"Alternative 3" section.
Under all alternatives the National Park
Service would promote recreational activities
that have a direct relationship to preserve
resources. Recreational opportunities within
the preserve would include a mix of land
and water activities that encourages visitors
to experience the natural and cultural
settings close at hand. Activities such as

swimming, motorboating, canoeing, sailing,
fishing, shellfish gathering, picnicking,
hiking, bicycling, birding, sight-seeing,
pleasure driving, and hunting of water fowl
and small game are currently available in the
preserve, and would continue. NPS picnic
facilities would be available at the Fort
Caroline visitor center, the Theodore
Roosevelt area, and Kingsley Plantation.
While most current uses would continue
they may be directed to certain areas,
prohibited in others, or otherwise managed
to avoid threats to valuable resources. Where
conicts arise between recreational use and
resource protection, either at current recre
ation levels or at expanded levels, protection
must take precedence. An example would be
access to a beach where endangered shore
birds have nested. Management solutions
could include closing that portion of the
beach to public access until the chicks edge.
Recreational activities that do not constitute
traditional, resource-based preserve uses
would be considered on a case-by-case basis
and would vary depending on the alter
native chosen. Generally these activities
should not interfere with traditional uses of
the preserve, compromise historic or natural
resources or scenes, or present a public
safety danger. Conicts between allowed
uses would be mitigated by separation of
use locations or schedules where possible.
Many recreational activities occur on non
NPS lands. Other state and local agencies
would have the responsibility for monitoring
and regulating activities on these lands
unless agreements are in place between
agencies modifying jurisdiction.
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
Physical alteration of a site or construction of
a facility may be necessary to accommodate
management objectives. In all alternatives
the National Park Service would make
development decisions at NPS-owned sites.
The additional visitor contact points, the
47
Elements Common to All Alternatives
scope of activities offered, and the
requirements for NPS administration and
maintenance facilities would vary depending
on the alternative selected. Management
zones provide general guidelines for appro
priate levels of development and activity in
each zone. However, not all locations for
specific developments and activities have
been identified.
Regardless of the alternative selected,
candidate sites for visitor activities and
facilities must be analyzed to ensure that
valuable resources are not damaged. To
achieve this analysis, site-specific resources
would be assessed and grouped according to
broad categories of sensitivity. Levels of
"appropriateness" for development and
activities would be determined based on the
findings of the analysis. For example, a
highly sensitive site with threatened or
endangered species present, such as a wood
stork nesting site, would be judged as in
appropriate for any development. Previously
disturbed areas with no intrinsic natural
value could be selected as opportunity areas
for visitor facilities.
Table 1 sets forth the physical development/
location criteria for selecting the optimum
sites to meet the general management plan's
visitor and resource protection objectives.
Regardless of sensitivity rating, all
development would employ sustainable
design techniques i.e., new construction
or land alteration would reect a respect for
and connection to the natural and cultural
environments of the site. These techniques
strive to achieve an adaptive fit of
humanmade structures into the existing
environment to ensure minimum
interruption of the natural systems and
views in the preserve. An example of
sustainable design would be the use of
suspended boardwalks over sensitive marsh
grasses along a trail.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

TABLE 1: PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT/LOCATION CRITERIA

Sensitivity Rating and Cultural Resource Examples of Appropriate

Appropriate Level Natural Resource Opportunity! Levels of Development
of Development Sensitivity Criteria Sensitivity Criteria and Activity .

Least Sensitive: Previously disturbed High interpretive Visitor center, parking

Maximum development, area; site has no value; low threat to area, boat dock, camping
public use, and/ or intrinsic natural sensitive resources area, comfort stations with
interpretive opportunity resource value utilities, trailhead, active
and passive recreation

Less Sensitive: Previously disturbed High to moderate Boat dock, small parking
Medium development, area; site has some interpretive value; low area, interpretive media,
public use, and/ or intrinsic natural threat to sensitive trailhead, comfort stations
interpretive opportunity resource value resources with utilities, active and
passive recreation

Moderately Sensitive: Undisturbed area with High to moderate Small unpaved parking
Some development, no sensitive natural interpretive value; area, comfort stations
public use, and/ or resources resource protection a without utilities, informal
interpretive opportunity concern passive recreation

Very Sensitive: Some sensitive natural High to low Backcountry access only;
Limited public use and resources, e.g., salt interpretive value; no development
interpretive opportunity marsh, rare species resource protection a
habitat concern
Most Sensitive: Threatened and High threat to Access for scientific
No development, public endangered species sensitive and research and maintenance
use, or interpretive present; critical habitat significant resources only
access

At Fort Caroline an elevated boardwalk docks may be necessary to accommodate

would be built around Spanish Pond,
following the existing trail footprint, to
accommodate the seasonal ooding that
occurs and allow for yearround use of the
pond area. The boardwalk would have areas
for overlooks and wayside panels. The trail
and boardwalk would be barrier-free.
larger boats.
Under all alternatives the National Park
Service would advocate consolidation of
water access points to eliminate the
proliferation of private boat docks and piers.

Under all alternatives boat docks would be ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION

constructed at Fort Caroline and at Kingsley
Plantation. These docks would provide space
for concession and NPS boat operations
between these two areas and day-use only
space for private boaters.
The boat docks and boardwalk would be
similarly constructed using sustainable
design principles. These structures would be
sited to reduce potential wetland
disturbance. Some dredging around the boat
For purposes of this discussion, access means
entry to preserve resources either by roads
and multimodal trails or by boat launches
and docks. Transportation is defined as the
local, collector, and arterial routes that
provide access to private property in the
boundary, and through the preserve to
regional destinations.
The level of access to preserve resources
would vary under each alternative.

48

However, it is generally the NPS intent to
provide planned, well-designed access to
NPS-owned areas in the preserve that are
able to sustain public use traffic without
experiencing degradation of resources or
disruption of ecosystem processes. It is also
the NPS intent to discourage informal,
uncontrolled access points along the
shoreline and into sensitive or fragile areas
on NPS-owned lands.
Under all alternatives a trail plan would be
developed to provide a more comprehensive
network of trails linking destinations inside
and outside the preserve.
Access to the water from well-designed
docks would be sought under all the
alternatives. This is consistent with the
recreation element contained in the city of
Jacksonville's Comprehensive Plan - 2010.
Depending on the alternative, access would
be provided either by the National Park
Service on NPS-owned property, or in
cooperation with others. The intent is to
promote waterborne education and noncon
sumptive recreational activities, and to
provide an alternative to the proliferation of
individual docks.
Under all alternatives the National Park
Service would advocate consolidation of
docks and piers inside the preserve.
Transportation routes throughout the
preserve are the responsibility of the
National Park Service, the city of Jackson
ville, or the state of Florida, depending on
the ownership of the roadway.
NPS strategies to make or affect decisions
about access points and transportation routes
would vary under each alternative; however,
under all alternatives, the National Park
Service would either build access points,
trails, docks, roads, and parking lots, or
advocate to the responsible entity the
building of such improvements, using the
following guidelines:
Elements Common to All Alternatives
' Construct and locate access and
transportation improvements in a manner
that would minimize visual disruption of
natural and cultural landscapes and
important viewsheds.
' Construct and locate access and
transportation improvements in a manner
that would minimize damage to sensitive
natural areas e.g., build improvements
away from delicate edge areas such as
dunes and marshes; align parking lots to
be set back from, or perpendicular rather
than parallel to shore areas; construct
"community" docks in naturally screened
areas rather than permit new individual
docks to proliferate.
' Screen parking areas with either existing
or introduced native vegetation.
' Design roads to blend with the
topography.
' Coordinate circulation to allow access
between areas, and to limit the number
of access points to collector and higher
volume roads.
' Design circulation systems to minimize
preserve traffic in private residential
areas.
Under all alternatives the National Park
Service would advocate the continuation of
the operation of the Mayport Ferry. This
service is an important transportation link
for travelers on SR A1A and for preserve
visitors. It is also an important part of the
history of tourism in the region.
LAND USE AND PROTECTION
The balance between private and public
landownership and/ or land control within
the preserve would vary depending on the
alternative selected. However, under all
alternatives some lands in and adjacent to
the preserve are likely to remain in private
ownership (therefore subject to private
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
development), or under the jurisdiction of
the city of Jacksonville, the state of Florida,
the US. Navy, or the Corps of Engineers.
Protection of the preserve is tied directly to
the ownership and subsequent use of the
lands within and adjacent to the preserve.
Land use and protection therefore are
addressed together in this plan.
Primary land use decision-making authority
on privately owned lands currently lies with
the city of Jacksonville. Many development
actions also require special permits from
state or federal agencies. Development and
redevelopment in the city must be consistent
with the Future Land Use Map series and
textual provisions of all elements of the
Comprehensive Plan - 2010.
The Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve boundary has been adopted by the
city as a special management area (SMA)
within the Comprehensive Plan - 2010. This
designation mandates that the use of lands
within the SMA be subject to special criteria
to reduce the potential for disruption of the
ecological balance in the preserve by
inappropriate development of the salt
marsh/estuarine system and uplands. These
criteria recognize the preserve's values and
strive to protect them, while ensuring the
private property owners reasonable use of
the land. The city of Jacksonville has
consulted with the National Park Service in
development of the SMA criteria. These SMA
criteria are intended to meet the minimum
environmental protection policies contained
in the regional and state policy plans (see
appendix B for state and regional policies
germane to preserve protection).
The National Park Service applauds the
city's designation of the preserve as a special
management area; however, there is concern
that the environmental consideration
afforded that portion of the lower St. Johns
River/ Nassau River ecosystem within the
preserve will end at the preserve boundary.
This is a concern because the boundary does
not follow the edges of natural systems in
many places. The impacts of development
50
upstream from or adjacent to sensitive
preserve resources outside current
boundaries may be even more profound
than uses inside the preserve. Boundary
adjustments and subsequent land
acquisitions may avert some negative
consequences of development (see
"Boundary Adjustments and/ or Legislative
Amendments" section). However, the
National Park Service would seek protection
assurances from the city in one or both of
the following ways.
' Encourage the city of Jacksonville to
create a transition zone around the
special management area to graduate to
more intense uses and limit potentially
damaging impacts on fragile preserve
edges, and/ or
' Encourage the city of Jacksonville to
realign the special management area
boundary to coincide with the amended
NPS boundary if amendments are
achieved, and/ or
' Encourage the city of Jacksonville to
acquire, or assist in acquiring, sensitive
lands adjacent to the boundary.
Under all alternatives the National Park
Service would conduct a viewshed analysis
to inventory and map important views and
vistas in the preserve.
The National Park Service would seek to
protect, as part of the resource protection
methods outlined in each alternative,
important views and vistas, especially those
now unimpaired by permanent manmade
structures. Goals would include preservation
of views from visitor use sites and corridors,
and visual quality regulations of all new
development in the preserve. The city land
use approvals should require siting
techniques and design standards to minimize
visual intrusion and ensure that new
development blends with the surrounding
environment.

The land Protection Plan (NPS 1993a) would
be updated to reect lands that are
important to protect through acquisition
when an alternative is selected. Under all
alternatives, developed residential sub
divisions would only be considered for
acquisition if an immediate threat to
significant resources existed. All available
regulating authorities would be fully
explored, independently and in cooperation
with state and local agencies, before the
National Park Service would consider
purchasing developed tracts to prevent
imminent threats to critical resource values.
CARRYING CAPACITY
Carrying capacity is the type and level of
visitor and public use that can be
accommodated while sustaining the desired
resource and social conditions that achieve
the purposes and the management objectives
of the preserve. Visitor use must be balanced
with the preservation of resources. Although
it is not desirable to attract large volumes of
people to fragile areas, the National Park
Service believes that the integrity of the
preserve and the experience can be ensured
while it is enjoyed by many more people
than currently visit, if use is managed
carefully. This would include guiding people
to less sensitive areas, limiting encounters
between visitors on more remote areas
through dispersal and parking constraints,
and controlling their activity with
improvements such as formal trails and
boardwalks, carefully planned parking,
ecologically sensitive visitor needs facilities,
increased ranger/ law enforcement presence,
and interpretive programs and facilities that
inform people on elements of concern for the
resource managers.
In Timucuan, under all alternatives, effective
management of visitor and public use,
sensitive facility and infrastructure design,
and educated location decisions rather than
establishment of "appropriate" visitor
numbers would guide carrying capacity
decisions. These use, design, and location
51
Elements Common to All Alternatives
criteria are discussed in the "Physical
Development" section and in the "Alternative
3, Management Zoning" section.
The carrying capacity for all NPS-owned
historic sites and structures would be
determined on a site-by-site basis using this
same philosophy i.e., that the desired
condition of the resource is to be maintained.
This may be accomplished by several
methods, including controlling visitor
movements within a site and upgrading
movement corridors to withstand greater
volumes of traffic. In sensitive historic sites
and structures, it may be necessary to place
limits on the number of tours, the number of
people in a tour, and / or the number of
people allowed into a specific site, to ensure
that visitation would not adversely affect the
stability or integrity of the cultural resources.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
The National Park Service has analyzed the
boundary for conformance with the
legislative intent and administrative
feasibility.
PL 95-625 requires that general management
plans include measures for the protection of
the unit's resources and "indications of
potential modifications to the external
boundaries of the unit and the reasons
therefor."
NPS criteria for boundary adjustments
appear in the NPS Management Policies and
are applied in accordance with a supplement
to the NPS Planning Process Guideline dated
December 1991. These criteria provide that
boundary revisions may be recommended to
' include significant resources or
opportunities for public enjoyment
related to purposes of the park
' address operational and management
issues such as access and boundary
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
identification by topographic or other
natural features or roads, and to
' protect park resources critical to fulfilling
the park's purposes
NPS Management Policies also notes that
boundary change recommendations would
be preceded by determinations that
' the added lands will be feasible to
administer considering size,
configuration, ownership, costs, and
other factors, and
' other alternatives for management and
resource protection are not adequate.
Current Conditions
The current boundary for Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve was defined
by PL 100-249 as "generally depicted" on a
map numbered NA-TEHP 80,002 dated July
1987. This map was not based on a detailed
study by the National Park Service. Because
the map is at a scale of approximately 1 inch
per mile, there is no detailed legal
description of current preserve boundaries,
and the map does not correspond neatly to
established property lines or other surveys.
The National Park Service has prepared
more detailed segment maps to facilitate its
land protection program. These segment
maps reect an interpretation of where the
legislated boundary falls in relation to lines
depicting townships and ranges, ownerships,
and other available survey or basic mapping
resource data. As a general rule, the
authorized boundary follows the line
between mean high water and the adjacent
uplands with turns and connections to
exclude developed areas following the
nearest readily identified geographic
boundary such as a road, creek, or county
line.
Public Law 100-249 also authorizes the
secretary of the interior to make minor
52
boundary adjustments in accordance with
section 7(c) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act. This section
provides that the secretary may modify a
boundary based on a determination that to
do so will "contribute to, and is necessary
for, the proper preservation, protection and
interpretation or management of an area."
Prior to any such minor boundary
adjustment, the secretary is required to
provide timely notice in writing to Congress,
and publish a revised map or other
description in the Federal Register. Section
7(c) also provides that under this authority
the secretary may not acquire land without
the consent of the owner, and that land
owned by a state or political subdivision can
only be acquired by donation or with
donated funds. This section further requires
the secretary to consult with elected officials
having primary taxing authority over such
lands and will take appropriate steps to
inform the public about the proposal.
Minor Boundary Adjustments
Under all alternatives, several changes in the
preserve boundary would fall within the
definition of minor and the provisions of the
Land Water Conservation Fund Act (see
Minor Boundary Adjustments map). All of
these proposed changes would be consistent
with NPS criteria as noted.
1. In several places the boundary map does
not follow clearly the extensions of land
below mean high water along creeks that
ow into the preserve. The boundary of the
preserve does not appear to have been
intended to encompass the entire watershed
of each creek, and many of these watersheds
include lands that would not be feasible for
the National Park Service to manage.
However, an extension to the headwaters of
several creeks would reect accurately the
intent to encompass contiguous areas below
mean high water. The most obvious such
extension would be for approximately 0.5
mile upstream on Clapboard Creek. Other
examples of this type of adjustment include
 Legend
Existing Preserve Boundary
_ Proposed Boundary Adjustments
[I] Area of Boundary Expansion*

- Exclusion
*Boundary expansion is green because
the area is proposed to be managed as
a natural environment zone.

0 2.5 Miles North

Minor
Boundary
Downtown
Adjustments
J ackson ville
Timucuan
Yellow BiuffFol Ecological and
Historic Preserve
l United States Department ofthe Interior
National Park Service
006' 20009.] uly 94' DSC

Bogey Branch and several creeks that are not
named on US. Geological Survey base maps.
In each case, these minor adjustments would
incorporate significant wetland resources
within the preserve and facilitate boundary
identification in the field by following more
accurately a natural feature.
2. In the vicinity of Naval Station Mayport,
the adjusted boundary would follow the
shoreline of the St. Johns River south to
Sherman Point, and then the east side of SR
AlA to Sherman Creek. At Sherman Creek,
the adjusted boundary would turn northeast
along the mean high water line and continue
to encompass adjacent wetlands extending
south to the Wonderwood Expressway. This
adjustment would clarify the intent of the
original boundary to exclude essentially all
of the uplands on the Naval Station Mayport
and include within the boundary the
wetlands that are an integral part of
preserve's natural system.
Although the Little Jetties Area is not a
wetland and is largely the result of dredging
activities in the St. Johns River, it provides
an essential breakwater for the wetlands to
the south. Because this area is currently
leased for recreational use and is considered
to be an especially important component of
the St. Johns River system that perpetuates
the wetlands to the south, it would remain
within the preserve with this adjustment.
This minor adjustment would keep wetlands
under US. Navy jurisdiction within the
preserve. The navy has suggested that these
wetlands be deleted from the preserve
boundary to avoid the potential for future
conicts with the mission of Naval Station
Mayport. Because these wetlands are
integrally related to basic purposes of the
preserve, an adjustment to remove them
from the boundary would not be minor and
would require action by Congress. Under all
alternatives, the draft general management
plan delineates lands under navy jurisdiction
as a special use-military zone that directly
acknowledges the Navy's management
responsibilities and still allows for
55
Elements Common to All Alternatives
cooperation with the National Park Service
to protect important natural values.
3. Committee reports on the authorizing
legislation for Timucuan clearly indicate the
intent that the northern boundary of the
Wonderwood Expressway (when
constructed) would delimit the southern
boundary of the preserve (Senate Report 100
247, p. 4). The northern boundary of the
Wonderwood Expressway would become the
southern boundary of the preserve, with two
exceptions. The upland area known as the
Wonderwood Estates is already intensively
developed for residential uses and would be
excluded from the preserve. Moving east, a
portion of the Greenfield Peninsula that is
undeveloped and has a high concentration of
archeological sites north of the proposed
expressway location would remain in the
preserve boundary. This area encompasses
approximately 300 acres. These adjustments
would include resources important to the
purposes of the preserve, exclude lands with
little or no natural and cultural values, and
facilitate administration by having the
boundary follow a clearly defined roadway.
4. In the vicinity of Fort Caroline, the
adjusted boundary crosses the St. Johns
River at Shipyard Creek and excludes all of
Little Marsh Island south of Heckscher Drive
(SR 105). The current boundary bisects Little
Marsh Island. This adjustment would
remove the balance of the island that is
already heavily developed for residential
and other uses, and it would facilitate
administration and exclude lands that lack
significant natural or cultural values because
of existing development.
CONCESSIONS
Once an alternative is selected, the National
Park Service would revise the "Concessions
Management Plan" (NPS 1994). The revised
plan would determine the concessions
necessary and appropriate to serve visitor
needs and visitor use objectives in
accordance with PL 89-249, in those areas
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
administered and managed by the National
Park Service. As a part of the concessions
management plan, an economic feasibility
and market study would be completed. This
study would provide the foundation for
guiding the concessions management plan
under the alternative.
PROPOSED PARK NAME CHANGE
Under all alternatives a change in the name
of Fort Caroline National Memorial would
be proposed. Visitors to Fort Caroline
National Memorial are often confused about
the meaning of the name Fort Caroline,
which seems to refer to a Civil War site, or
perhaps, an English colonial fort. However,
the name given to the edgling Huguenot
outpost was not Fort Caroline at all. Caroline
is a French noun, feminine in gender,
referring to a geographical area named for
Charles IX. The word Caroline means land of
Charles. French feminine nouns take the
article "la." French historic sources reveal
several references to fort de la Caroline, la
Caroline, and fort de Caroline in descriptions
of both the fort and the settlement. The first
anglicization probably occurred ca. 1600
when Richard Hakluyt translated
Laudonniere's report of the three French
voyages (1562, 1565, 1564) into English. The
English version has since come into common
usage.
The memorial's enabling legislation
authorized the National Park Service to
"commemorate the historic Fort Caroline
settlement." Appropriately, the name should
refer to the colony and fort in its original
French form, not to the Anglicized version.
Thus, the name should be changed to Fort
de la Caroline. There is precedent for name
changes of units of the national park system.
In 1942 Congress changed Fort Marion
National Monument in St. Augustine,
Florida, to its original Spanish name of
Castillo de San Marcos. Congress changed
City of Refuge National Historical Park to its
Hawaiian name of Pu'uhonua o Honaunau
in 1978, and Mt. McKinley National Park
56
became Denali National Park and Preserve
in 1980. In 1991, Custer Battlefield National
Monument was changed to Little Bighorn
National Battlefield.
MITIGATING MEASURES
Guidelines for sustainable design have been
established by the National Park Service for
use in all planning efforts throughout the
national park system. Although many of the
individual components of sustainable design
are not new, there is still much to learn
regarding the practical application of viable
techniques that emphasize a biocentric
perspective (the structural function of the
environment and how humans fit into that
system) rather than how the environment fits
into human needs. Mitigating measures
discussed below include applicable
components of sustainable design.
Erosion control plans consistent with state
and federal regulations would be imple
mented at the design phase. Revegetation of
roadbanks and disturbed soil areas would be
facilitated by conserving existing topsoil and
using it in revegetation efforts to prevent
bringing unwanted exotic plant material in
imported topsoil. Topsoil storage should be
limited to 612 months because seed and
root viability are lost if soil is stored for
longer periods. Standard mitigating
measures, such as vegetation buffers, silt
screens, log check dams, sediment traps, and
other barriers, would be used to reduce
erosion and prevent significant short-term
deterioration of water quality during
construction.
Drainage cross sections would be maintained
or enlarged to avoid impacts on oodplains
and wetlands. Every effort would be made
to retain the natural hydrological patterns
within the preserve.
Where revegetation is required, native plant
material would be used, if available, and
vegetative management techniques would be
implemented to eliminate exotic species.

Patterns of planting should mimic native
growth patterns, where possible. Native
grass seed would be used if available,
although nonnative nurse species (species
that only last one season and stabilize the
soil but do not reproduce) could be used
until native species return naturally. Other
plant material used should be as genetically
similar as possible to what is in the preserve.
Where development proves to be a visual
intrusion, vegetation buffers would be used
to screen the development site from view as
much as possible. In cases where vegetation
in historic areas and cultural landscapes
requires replacement, historic vegetation
types would be preferred over native plant
materials.
Spills from construction equipment would be
reduced or prevented from entering
waterways through use of barriers in gullies,
ditches, and low drainage areas. Adequate
cross-drains, if needed, would be developed
to ensure proper drainage. Work activities
should be scheduled to accommodate critical
periods of wildlife use within the study
areas. Important habitat features would be
conserved or enhanced where possible.
If air quality were threatened, water
spraying along roadway/parking lot
construction would be used to reduce dust.
Detailed surveys would be made and
appropriate habitats searched for the
57
Elements Common to All Alternatives
presence of rare, threatened, and endangered
species (including their critical habitat) prior
to implementation of any proposed actions.
Clearances from the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission would be obtained
before any actions under this alternative
were implemented.
Techniques and procedures to mitigate
possible impacts on rare, threatened, or
endangered species would be developed in
consultation with the US. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the state of Florida and followed
during construction activities.
Parking areas would be constructed using
either a permeable, no-fines asphalt or
permeable, natural substrate (i.e., crushed
shells). Both would help mitigate the loss of
soil resources by reducing erosion and
channelization from stormwater runoff.
If any actions would affect significant
cultural sites, development areas would be
reconsidered. Compliance procedures would
be followed in the implementation of this
plan. If any cultural resources are found,
they would be documented and maintained
according to NPS guidelines and standards.
Any actions that affect cultural resources
would be in accordance with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Archeology and
Historic Preservation.
 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONTINUATION OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)
CONCEPT
Alternative 1 is the continuation of existing
management or no-action alternative. The
National Park Service would manage only
the lands it owns according to current laws
and NPS policies, philosophies, and trends.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
NPS management of natural resources would
be limited to those on NPS-owned lands
only (see discussion of natural resource
management in the "Elements Common to
All Alternatives" section). Priorities for
natural resource management would be Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation; other NPS-owned areas
would receive limited natural resource
management and /or protection only if
minimum needs for the three areas of main
visitor use are met and funds are available.
The National Park Service would cooperate
with organizations and agencies with
jurisdiction in the preserve on a case-by-case
(ad hoc) basis to address problems or
concerns that might affect natural resources
preservewide. However, levels of staffing
and funding would limit the National Park
Service's involvement in mitigating the
effects of existing inuences on preserve
resources. In essence, the Park Service would
rely solely on these groups for day-to-day
natural resource management on non-NPS
lands and waters and to provide the
protection Congress mandated.
The management objectives for natural
resource management would be met to the
extent possible through limited NPS
participation with neighbors or agencies, and
through NPS advocacy of agency and
individual or private stewardship within the
preserve boundary.
58
A program for natural resource research,
coordinated through the National Biological
Survey of the US. Department of the
Interior, would be limited primarily to the
gathering of baseline data for the three main
visitor use areas. The second priority would
be baseline data for other NPS-owned lands.
Finally, the National Park Service would
encourage research by public and private
institutions and organizations and by other
agencies on non-NPS lands and waters, but
would provide little or no funding for these
activities.
The National Park Service would protect air
quality in the preserve by continuing, on a
case-by-case basis, involvement in the
reviewing, commenting, and consulting
phases of any future projects proposed on
land within or adjacent to the preserve
boundary to determine whether the legal
pollutant increments for class II areas would
be exceeded. It would also support state air
quality improvement programs and the state
implementation plan.
The National Park Service would monitor its
activities to ensure that noise levels would
not exceed federal noise abatement criteria. If
these criteria were approached or exceeded,
noise abatement measures would be
considered. These could include techniques
such as traffic management.
Recommendations for Further Research
Research would be needed on several topics
on NPS-owned lands within the preserve,
including inventories of ora and fauna,
particularly protected species; the relation
ship of fire regimes to biodiversity for
different types of biological communities;
and landscape management as it relates to
visually related resources and including
maintenance and development activities.

Additional Plans
Other plans would be developed for NPS
owned lands in the preserve. These would
tier to the Resource Management Plan (NPS
1993b) and might include a rare, threatened,
and endangered species management plan.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
NPS management of cultural resources
would be limited to those on NPS-owned
lands only (see discussion on cultural
resource management in the "Elements
Common to All Alternatives" section).
Priorities for cultural resource management
would be Fort Caroline, the Theodore
Roosevelt area, and Kingsley Plantation;
other NPS-owned areas would receive
limited cultural resource management
and/ or protection only if minimum needs
for the three visitor use areas were met. The
extant sites listed in the enabling legislation
would be managed by the current owners.
The Park Service would cooperate with
agencies, organizations, or individuals with
jurisdiction in the preserve on a case-by-case
(ad hoc) basis to address problems or
concerns that may affect cultural resources
preservewide. The Park Service would rely
solely on these groups for day-to-day
cultural resource management on non-NPS
lands and waters and to provide the
protection Congress mandated.
Management objectives for cultural resource
management would be met to the extent
possible through limited NPS participation
with neighbors or agencies, through NPS
advocacy of agency and individual or
private stewardship within the preserve
boundary, or through NPS staff actions.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
The National Park Service would continue to
provide for the visitor experience only at the
three sites it currently manages: Fort
59
Alternative 1: Existing Management (No Action)
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation. The desired visitor
experiences would be provided to the fullest
extent possible, considering the land base,
staffing, and operational funding available.
The visitor center space allocated would be
devoted to orientation and interpretation
functions and visitor contact needs. Visitors
also would have access to state parks, city
parks, and other public and private facilities
on their own. There would be no direct NPS
participation in the management or
availability of those resources.
Information/Orientation/Interpretation
Existing roadway directional and site/area
signs identifying Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve would remain on primary
roadways directing visitors to the Fort
Caroline visitor center. Visitors to Fort
Caroline would be helped with orientation
and information regarding resources and
activities throughout the preserve regardless
of ownership or sponsorship. Other
identification and orientation responsibilities
throughout the preserve would be handled
by other landowners and land managers.
The interpretive emphasis of this alternative
would be on providing visitors with an
understanding of the primary interpretive
themes using media, personal services, and
access to resources in NPS ownership (see
"Elements Common to All Alternatives"
section for interpretive themes). The preserve
attracts visitors from around the country and
region, as well as from the local area.
However, present staffing levels, size and
scale of facilities, and available interpretive
media prohibit efforts to attract more
national and international visitors.
The Fort Caroline visitor center would be the
primary focus for overall interpretation of
the preserve and where the interpretive
themes would be introduced. Site-specific
interpretation would be offered at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation. Limits in staffing and
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
funding could affect how thoroughly all the
themes could be presented. Other NPS
owned areas would be interpreted onsite
only if funding and staffing became
available. Cultural resources specifically
cited in the preserve's enabling legislation
would be interpreted to a limited extent at
the Fort Caroline visitor center.
Recreation
Under this alternative the National Park
Service would continue to provide current
activities to the extent possible at NPS
owned sites. The Park Service would not
offer activities within the preserve on non
NPS property.
The scope of recreational activities would
expand only as funding permitted, and
would be promoted only locally with limited
coordination among other preserve entities,
and limited offsite identification of
opportunities. An expected result would be
use of the preserve mostly by local residents
and travelers driving through the area.
Resource-based traditional activities such as
fishing, shellfishing, hunting of water fowl
and small game would continue subject to
applicable laws and regulations. Hiking,
bicycling, and participating in preserve
sponsored interpretive talks and programs
would be available to visitors as well.
Boating and viewing wildlife and vistas from
the water are recognized to have great value
for visitors to the preserve. Therefore, a
concession-operated boat would be added to
provide limited tours to NPS-owned sites.
Several state and commercially operated
campgrounds are located near or within the
preserve boundaries. The National Park
Service would rely on these facilities to serve
visitor needs.
Where current recreational uses on federal or
nonfederal property violate laws,
regulations, or policies, the National Park
Service would exert its authority or inuence
over other authorized agencies to enforce
those regulations strictly. This would be of
special importance when the uses were
determined to be environmentally damaging.
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
Under this alternative additional physical
development at Fort Caroline and the
Theodore Roosevelt area would include
expansion of existing facilities, including
parking, to meet visitor, operational, and
administrative needs. This development
would be the same as that presented for
these sites under alternative 3.
At Kingsley, existing structures and parking
would be adapted or expanded to meet
visitor and operational needs and to relieve
stress on the resources. This development
would be the same as that presented under
alternative 3.
Negotiations are currently underway for the
acquisition of Cedar Point and Thomas
Creek, as noted in the 1993 Land Protection
Plan. This plan places a high priority on
acquiring these areas for resource protection
and visitor use.
If Cedar Point were acquired by the National
Park Service, a development concept plan
would be prepared to address basic park
operations and visitor services. Proposed
facilities would provide access to water and
upland areas. All improvements would be
sited carefully according to the physical
development/ location criteria in table 1.
If the Thomas Creek area were acquired by
the National Park Service, no public access
would be provided; however, access for
scientific studies and habitat management
would be allowed. Limited facilities to
accommodate resource management
activities and equipment would be sited
carefully according to the physical
development/ location criteria in table 1.

The total cost of physical development under
alternative 1 would be approximately
$5 million. Refer to appendix C for a
breakdown of estimated development costs.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
The National Park Service would continue to
consult and comment on access and
transportation route proposals by other
entities regarding impacts on preserve
resources and possible alternative solutions
that may result in fewer impacts. New trails
may- be developed to serve water and
upland areas.
LAND USE AND PROTECTION
Under alternative 1 the National Park
Service would have very limited ownership
of lands within the preserve (see
Landownership map in the "Affected
Environment" chapter). Thus, it is expected
that private development would continue to
occur although densities would be modified
by the city's new regulations. With these
new rules, there is the potential for more
than 1,000 new single family residences to be
built within preserve boundaries (see
"Affected Environment" chapter, "Existing
Land Use" section).
Where current recreational uses on non-NPS
property violate laws, regulations or policies,
the National Park Service would continue to
inuence authorized agencies to enforce
those regulations strictly. This would be of
special importance when the uses were
determined to be environmentally or
culturally damaging.
The Park Service would continue, on an
ongoing basis, to represent the preserve's
interests in the city, regional, and state
planning and regulatory processes as they
affect lands in and adjacent to the preserve.
The Park Service would seek cooperation on
an ad hoc basis with other regulatory
authorities with jurisdiction in the preserve.
61
Alternative 1: Existing Management (No Action)
This alternative includes acquisition of
significant uplands and wetlands as outlined
in the 1993 Land Protection Plan. Acquisition
of uplands would be from willing sellers.
Wetlands acquisition may be from willing
sellers or by condemnation, as allowed by
the enabling legislation. The above plan
would be updated to reect new information
and opportunities, as it has been in the past.
JURISDICTION
No immediate changes would be considered
with regard to jurisdiction. Fort Caroline,
including Spanish Pond and Ribault
Column, would remain as concurrent, and
the rest of the preserve under NPS
ownership would remain as proprietary. The
National Park Service would apply to the
state for concurrent jurisdiction on all NPS
lands within the preserve.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
No additional modifications in the preserve
boundary would be considered except those
indicated as common to all alternatives (see
the Minor Boundary Adjustments map).
CONCESSIONS
A concession-operated tour boat serving
NPS-owned properties would be added to
achieve the visitor use objective of providing
the opportunity to experience the preserve
from the water.
STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
Staffing and operational costs range from
$1.3 to $1.6 million annually and include
3135 positions. Staffing in this alternative
emphasizes achieving an acceptable level of
operations centering around the Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation.
 ALTERNATIVE 2: THE PRESERVE AS A LABORATORY AND CLASSROOM
CONCEPT
Preservewide, Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve would be managed for
education and interpretation of the salt
marsh/estuarine ecosystem, its role in
shaping history, and how historic and
contemporary human uses affect that system.
Resources on NPS-owned lands would be
managed according to current laws and NPS
policies, philosophies, and trends.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Under this alternative public education
would be the natural resource protection
strategy, especially for non-NPS lands. The
National Park Service would promote
natural resource protection through
interpretive and educational programs that
emphasize environmental significance and
responsibility. The Park Service would
recruit people from the local community and
those individuals, corporations, and agencies
owning land within the preserve to
participate in interpretive and educational
programs regarding natural resource
protection. As a result, the preserve's natural
resources would be protected through
heightened land stewardship and
environmental awareness as well as from
NPS efforts on its lands.
As in alternative 1, NPS management of
natural resources would be limited to those
on NPS lands. The National Park Service
would cooperate with other agencies,
organizations, or individuals on a case-by
case (ad hoc) basis to address problems or
concerns that might affect natural resources
preservewide. All other elements of natural
resource management would be the same as
in alternative 1, except that the research
program, in addition to gathering baseline
data, would concentrate more on
development of educational programs as a
62
tool for management of natural resources
preservewide.
The National Park Service would protect air
quality in the preserve by continuing, on a
case-by-case basis, involvement in the
reviewing, commenting, and consulting
phases of any future projects proposed on
land within or adjacent to the preserve
boundary to determine whether the legal
pollutant increments for class II areas would
be exceeded. It would also support state air
quality improvement programs and the state
implementation plan.
The National Park Service would monitor its
activities to ensure that noise levels would
not exceed federal noise abatement criteria. If
these criteria were approached or exceeded,
noise abatement measures would be
considered. These could include techniques
such as traffic management.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In this alternative cultural resource
management would be the same as in
alternative 1; however, emphasis would be
placed on public education as a cultural
resource protection strategy. The National
Park Service would promote cultural
resource protection through interpretive and
educational programs emphasizing cultural
heritage significance and responsibility. The
Park Service would seek local people and
those individuals, corporations, and agencies
owning land within the preserve to
participate in interpretive and educational
programs regarding resource protection. As
a result, the preserve's cultural resources
would be protected through heightened land
stewardship and cultural awareness.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
As in alternative 1, the National Park Service
would provide for the visitor experience at
NPS-owned sites, as well as provide an
introduction to all preserve resources and
interpretive themes at the Fort Caroline
visitor center (see "Elements Common to All
Alternatives" section for interpretive themes).
Visitors would be directed to a variety of
interpretive and recreational activities
available within the preserve. However, the
emphasis of the visitor experience would be
on environmental and heritage education.
The visitor experience would support the
goal of heightened public awareness of the
need for protection of fragile resources. All
planned activities and interpretive programs
for visitors would emphasize the function,
significance, and protection of the salt
marsh/ estuarine ecosystem, its inuence on
human use patterns, and the impacts of
human use on the resource. Additionally,
educational opportunities would be
enhanced at different sites throughout the
preserve.
Information/Orientation/Interpretation
As in alternative 1, roadway directional and
site/area signs identifying Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve would be
located on primary roadways directing
visitors to the Fort Caroline visitor center.
Under this alternative the visitor center
would be devoted to classroom and group
activity space and orientation and
interpretation. The National Park Service
would provide information and orientation
through media and personal services
regarding resources and activities
throughout the preserve regardless of
ownership or sponsorship. The interpretive
emphasis would be on wetlands ecology and
human use aspects of the preserve's themes.
Interpretation focusing on environmental
education and responsibility would be
offered not only at preserve sites in NPS
ownership, but also throughout and outside
63
Alternative 2: Laboratory and Classroom
the preserve as well. Preserve visitors would
have the opportunity to examine the effects,
both positive and negative, of human use on
natural systems in the preserve at sites that
best illustrate the themes. A variety of
interpretive and educational methods,
including media and personal services,
would be used to present the heritage
education and environmental themes to the
public. The National Park Service would
collaborate with individuals or agencies in
the presentation of heritage education and
environmental programs.
As in alternative 1, the cultural resources
specifically cited in the preserve's enabling
legislation would be interpreted to a limited
extent at the Fort Caroline visitor center.
Cultural and natural sites that best illustrate
environmental damage, or, conversely,
harmony between human use and the
natural order, may be the setting for
interpretive and educational programs.
Recreation
In alternative 2 recreational opportunities
and development would be the same as in
alternative 1. The concession-operated tour
boat would facilitate understanding of the
human/ ecosystem interface by providing
water access to biologically rich areas that
illustrate the salt marsh/estuarine ecology
and to areas altered by human activity. The
tour would include trips between Fort
Caroline and Kingsley. See "Affected
Environment" chapter for a description of
the use of concessioners in national park
system units.
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
In this alternative, no significant increase in
visitation would be expected over alternative
1; however, the emphasis on visitor
programs would change to meet public
education needs. The level of physical
development described in alternative 1 for
Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
and Kingsley Plantation would still apply in
alternative 2. In addition, information/
education kiosks would be added in the
north, central, and south areas of the
preserve. These developments would be the
same as those proposed as development
concept plans in alternative 3. Physical
development at the Cedar Point and Thomas
Creek areas would be the same as that
described under alternative 1. The National
Park Service would also propose to assist
Jacksonville Electric Authority, the city, and
the state in expanding public education
programs in the preserve.
The total cost of physical development under
alternative 2 would be approximately
$5.1 million. Refer to appendix C for a
breakdown of estimated development costs.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
This alternative would be the same as
alternative 1, except emphasis would be
given to access opportunities that support
the education theme of this alternative.
LAND USE AND PROTECTION
In this alternative land use and protection
would be the same as in alternative 1.
Revisions to the 1993 Land Protection Plan
would reect the education objectives of this
alternative.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction would remain the same as that
under alternative 1.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
As in alternative 1, no additional
modifications in the preserve boundary
would be considered under this alternative
other than those stated as common to all
alternatives.
CONCESSIONS
A concession-operated tour boat would
provide water access to sites that fulfill the
education objectives of this alternative.
STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
Staffing and operational costs range from
$1.75 to $2.1 million annually and include
4145 positions. Staffing in this alternative
generally would maintain the level of
operations in alternative 1; however, a major
educational program would be added. To
implement this program, staffing would
emphasize educational specialists and
community planners.
 ALTERNATIVE 3: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION
(PROPOSED ACTION)
CONCEPT
Alternative 3 is the National Park Service's
proposed action. Timucuan would become a
model for effective cooperation among
government agencies and private interests to
protect an ecosystem encompassing
important historic and prehistoric resources
as well as outstanding natural values. The
shared vision, management objectives, and
responsibilities for resource management and
protection preservewide would be pursued
through formal agreements, collaboration,
cooperation, and/or partnerships among
federal, state, and local government agencies,
and private landowners.
COOPERATION
The National Park Service would take the
lead in promoting cooperation through a
"Timucuan alliance" or similar agreement,
and a comprehensive plan for resource
protection outlining the shared objectives
and defining responsibilities for
implementation.
The Management Matrix included in the
"Purpose of and Need for the Action"
chapter, "Preserve Management Issues and
Questions" section, illustrates the entities
with a responsibility or interest in the
preserve. This matrix would be used in
formulating strategies and identifying
cooperators for each issue area.
Formal cooperative agreements and
partnerships would be established. These
would be achieved by taking the following
steps:
' Identify and include all parties with an
interest or responsibility in the preserve.
Ensure all parties can participate equally.
' Establish common goals or areas of
agreement among divergent interests.
' Establish a structure in which the
partnership can operate.
' Obtain agreement of the parties to work
cooperatively.
MANAGEMENT ZONING
Natural Environment Zone
Lands and waters in the natural environment
zone would be managed so that natural
resources would be conserved and natural
processes, such as vegetative succession,
would be fostered. Vegetative management
would be limited to actions that ensure
visitor safety, e.g., hazardous tree and limb
removal in public use areas.
Development would not dominate as in the
development zone but would be integrated
into the natural environment. Compatible
NPS development could include roads (only
minor improvements in existing routes
essential for visitor access or to relocate
paved roads away from sensitive areas),
entrance stations, limited capacity parking
lots, small comfort stations, interpretive
boardwalks and footpaths, primitive
campgrounds, and small picnic areas. These
developments should not interfere with
natural processes and would be consistent
with the physical development/location
criteria in table 1. Recreational opportunities
could include environmentally compatible
activities such as camping, shellfishing,
hiking, natural history interpretation,
sightseeing, and picnicking. Because of the
importance of the salt marshes to a
functioning estuary, the majority of the
preserve would be in the natural
environment zone.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Historic Zone
The historic zone would be managed to
preserve, protect, and interpret cultural
resources and their settings as defined by
historic structure reports, historic resource
studies, and cultural landscape reports. This
designation would be applied to lands
containing significant or numerous cultural
resources; other cultural resources would be
placed in other zones. Appropriate activities
in this zone include sightseeing, picnicking,
hiking, and history and natural history
interpretation and study. NPS development
would be limited to that necessary for
protection and interpretation; however,
structural rehabilitation for new uses would
be encouraged and permitted, provided the
qualities that make the historic resource
significant were not adversely affected.
Appropriate development could include
historic structure and associated interpretive
exhibits, boat docks, boardwalks, navigation
aids, comfort stations, interpretive shelters,
and parking areas.
Extant cultural resources cited in the
preserve's enabling legislation that the
National Park Service currently owns (Fort
Caroline and Kingsley Plantation) would be
in the historic zone except those areas
designated as development zone (see the
Alternative 3 Development Concept Plan
Fort Caroline and Kingsley Plantation maps
for approximate delineations). All other
cultural sites cited in the preserve's enabling
legislation are not under NPS ownership
and /or have not been located. If future
research confirms the location of these, or
other important cultural resources on NPS
managed lands are identified, then they
would be placed in the historic zone.
Development Zone
This zone would be managed for the
provision and maintenance of park
development to serve the needs of
management and visitors. Thus, this zone
would include lands and waters where
66
nonhistoric park development and intensive
use substantially alter the natural environ
ment. This could encompass large-capacity
facilities, including visitor centers, concession
facilities, boat docks, maintenance areas,
administrative areas, utility roads, parking
areas, picnic areas, employee residences, and
ranger offices.
The only development zones in the preserve
include the areas of Fort Caroline that
encompass the visitor center and associated
facilities and the existing housing and
maintenance area, the immediate area
surrounding the WiI-le-ma Lodge at the
Theodore Roosevelt area, and the area
encompassing the existing maintenance area
and the Army/ Navy Lodge at Kingsley
Plantation (see the Alternative 3
Development Concept Plan Fort Caroline
and Theodore Roosevelt Area and Kingsley
Plantation maps).
Special Use Zone
When NPS ownership of lands or waters is
either lacking or secondary to that of another
government agency or private party, the
special use zone would be applicable. This
zone would be divided into the following
subzones.
Historic This subzone would include
three extant cultural sites cited in the
preserve's enabling legislation that are not
NPS-owned (Yellow Bluff Fort, Spanish
American War Battery, and San Juan del
Puerto). All other cultural sites cited in the
enabling legislation are either placed in the
historic zone or have not been located. Other
cultural resources identified by future
research would be placed in the historic
subzone if not on NPS-owned property.
Transportation This subzone would
include all primary transportation corridors,
including the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers,
Mayport Ferry, Intracoastal Waterway, all
major roads (Interstate 95, Route 17, AlA,
Heckscher Drive), and railroads (CSX).
 Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation

Institutional This subzone would include TABLE 2: MANAGEMENT ZONES

lands and waters that demonstrate an

Percentage
educational emphasis. The Pelotes Island ZonelSubzone Acres of Preserve
area would be placed in this subzone
because of Jacksonville Electric Authority's Natural Zone 3l,112 67
educational emphasis. Historic Zone 180 0.4
Development Zone 13 0.02
Special Use Zone
Military This subzone would include any Historic 2 0.004
lands administered by the US. Navy within Transportation1
the preserve boundary. Institutional 4,003 9
Military 782 2
Nonfederal Parkland 2,568 6
Nonfederal Parkland This subzone would Other Federal Parkland 367 0.8
Residentiall
represent existing parks and recreation areas
owned/ managed by other governmental or
Tor-i12 39,027 85.22
private entities. This would include portions
of Fort George Island, Big Talbot Island, 1 Because of the scale of the Management Zoning map,
Sisters Creek Marina, and the state-owned these subzones were not determined.
part of Huguenot Memorial Park.
2 Open waters such as many of the creeks (e.g., Pumpkin
Hill and Clapboard Creeks) would be in the natural zone;
Other Federal Parkland This subzone however, for purposes of presentation they are not
would include existing parks and recreation included. The total acreage is therefore underestimated.
areas owned /managed by other federal
agencies. This would include the federally
owned portion of Huguenot Memorial Park NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
and Little Jetties Park.
The cooperative effort proposed under this
Residential This subzone would include alternative would offer increased identifi
existing residential development areas, such cation and protection of natural resources
as along Heckscher Drive, on Fort George throughout the preserve. Cooperation and
Island, Halfmoon Island, and Black agreements among federal, state, and local
Hammock Island, and near Fort Caroline agencies, private organizations, and private
and the Theodore Roosevelt area. landowners would establish guidelines for
management and use of natural resources
The Alternative 3 Management Zoning map and would identify and address potential
shows the management zoning applicable to problems or concerns preservewide. To
the proposed action, and table 2 provides achieve effective, coherent, and, cohesive
acreages for each zone or subzone and the natural resource management, these agencies
percentage of the preserve that the must share responsibility for planning,
zone/subzone represents. funding, and implementing management
actions. Cooperative efforts would support
The Alternative 3 Management Zoning map natural resource objectives.
is not intended to be at a scale that identifies
individual ownerships and tract boundaries. Research efforts would be directed toward
The National Park Service recognizes that providing information needed to support the
some of the preservewide zoning preserve's Resource Management Plan (NPS
designations might not be possible to 1993b). These efforts would be coordinated
implement on lands that are not in federal with the National Biological Survey, the
ownership. newly created research arm of the
Department of the Interior. Research and
support activities could be conducted by the
National Biological Service and park

67
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
personnel and through cooperative
agreements with universities, government
agencies, private researchers, and
conservation interests. Research priorities
must remain exible in order to be able to
respond to changing problem areas and
issues as well as individual cooperator
needs. However, emphasis would be placed
on air and water quality, water quantity,
threatened and endangered species
requirements, exotic species ecology and
impacts, and the ecological integrity of the
estuarine habitats and uplands, while
maintaining programs in other less critical
subject areas. As part of its natural resource
management plan, the National Park Service
would develop a research plan that would
be updated annually to reect current
priorities and expanded capabilities.
Regional demographic trends indicate that
continued growth in preserve use is likely.
With this anticipated increase comes a
greater potential for derogation of the
natural resources and values. Under this
alternative, cooperative management would
devise strategies to identify, evaluate, and
mitigate both current and potential public
use impacts on the preserve's natural
resources. This would include development
of management plans to address
consumptive activities currently allowed
within the preserve, and initiation of public
education and interpretation of impacts of
public use on natural resources.
Natural processes that affect plant and
animal populations and dynamics in the
preserve are often subtle. Human-induced
changes in the natural environment both
internal and external also can have a
profound impact on evolution of the
preserve. Adequate knowledge of natural
processes and the ability to detect changes
that threaten the long-term viability of the
natural systems are critical for long-term
preserve management and preservation.
Thus, cooperative management would
evaluate the key processes and parameters
inuencing the preserve's natural environ
ment and determine monitoring needs.
68
Research that characterizes indicator species
and communities would be initiated. This
research, designed to meet NPS and/ or
cooperator needs, would assist in developing
long-term monitoring programs that also
establish protocols for review and
interpretation of monitoring results.
Monitoring to gauge success in maintenance
of desired resource conditions also would
guide carrying capacity decisions.
The Land Protection Plan (NPS 1993a)
identifies properties that must be in public
ownership to carry out preserve purposes.
Others might be acquired. If a proposed
improvement or use on a private property
within the preserve was shown to pose a
threat to natural resources of outstanding
resource or public ,use values, cooperative
management would first seek to ensure
enforcement of existing regulations through
all available legal methods. If this proved
unsatisfactory, then acquisition would be
considered by individual cooperators.
Cooperative management could encourage
other state, local, and private entities to
acquire the subject lands.
Cooperative management would reevaluate
air quality management in the preserve and
surrounding area and develop an air quality
management plan for the entire preserve,
based in part on state air quality improve
ment programs and the state implementation
plan. This could include establishment of air
quality monitoring stations in the preserve.
Elements of this plan could be implemented
using the combined funding and staffing that
cooperative management affords.
Air quality in the preserve would be
protected through continued and persistent
involvement in the reviewing, commenting,
and consulting phases of any future projects
on land within or adjacent to the preserve
boundary to determine whether the legal
pollutant increments in class II areas would
be exceeded. Cooperative management
would provide a more active and collective
voice and better integrate a regional
perspective in reviewing air quality
 HalfMoon Island

Management Zones
- Natural Environment
[:1 Historic
Development
Special Use Zone:
Subzones:
- Historic
[3 Institutional
- Military
Non-Federal Parkland
Other Federal Parkland
Transportation
Residential
_ Existing Preserve Boundary
- Exclusions

O 2.5 Miles North 6}

Alternative 3
Downtown
Management Zoning
Jacksonville

Timucuan
Ecological and
Yellow swarm Historic Preserve
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Pelotes Island Area 006'20008'July 94'DSC
 ..
I

Put ,\w > .I\.


emissions permit applications potentially
affecting the preserve.
The National Park Service would monitor its
activities to ensure that noise levels would
not exceed federal noise abatement criteria. If
these criteria were approached or exceeded,
noise abatement measures would be
considered. These could include techniques
such as traffic management.
Under this alternative cooperative manage
ment would maintain and restore, to the
extent feasible, natural water ows and
water quality in disturbed areas and avoid
further hydrological disturbance to the
watersheds in the preserve. Management
programs would include (1) enhanced water
quality and water level monitoring regimes
to identify and quantify existing problems
and future threats to preserve water
resources, (2) regulatory actions to prevent
or mitigate new intrusions, and
(3) rehabilitation projects to alleviate existing
hydrological problems except where cultural
values could be affected.
Cooperative management would revise the
existing Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan (SWIM based on the 1987
act of same name) for the lower St. Johns
River to include all areas of the preserve for
future study and /or monitoring. This
revision would, at a minimum, meet NPS
guidelines for a water resource management
plan. The water resource management plan
would be used for the following purposes:
(1) to define the role of the preserve in the
northeast Florida region; (2) to minimize
threats to the preserve's ecosystem due to
development, pollution, hydrological
changes or other disruptive factors caused by
human activities inside and outside the
preserve; and (3) to facilitate maximum
regional benefit from the preserve within the
constraints of ecologically compatible uses.
The existing multiagency water quality
monitoring program would continue to
provide baseline hydrological data and early
warnings of problems. Cooperative
71
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
management would coordinate this program,
determining the number and location of
stations with the goal that all preserve
waters would be monitored. Until that goal
was reached, the number and location of
stations and parameters to be measured
would be prioritized to serve the immediate
needs of any cooperators. Some stations
would provide baseline water quality and
quantity information; others would monitor
impacts of specific land use activities inside
and outside the preserve. Parameters to be
measured would vary depending on the
objectives and results of specific research,
but the overall program goal would be to
preserve the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of preserve waters.
Existing spoil sites would be used as fill
sources or as spoil deposition sites, reducing
the need for new spoil sites. Another option
would be restoration of spoil sites where
these sites are filled wetlands. Ultimately,
cooperative efforts should seek spoil
deposition at approved sites outside the
preserve. All fill operations would comply
with the permit requirements of section 404
of the Clean Water Act, chapter 253 of the
Florida Statutes, and chapter 17 of the
Florida Administrative Code, and must be
free of any environmental hazards such as
heavy metals.
Cooperative management may allow a more
coordinated and collective review of water
based permit applications that would be
examined to ensure the protection of the
preserve's ecological integrity.
Cooperative management would assist
private landowners in protecting wetlands
that are near the preserve boundary but
whose use may affect preserve resources.
This assistance could include providing
educational and reference materials, agency
contacts, and onsite assessments.
Cooperative management would develop a
vegetation management program that would
assess the biotic and abiotic processes
inuencing vegetation throughout the
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
preserve. In particular, a vegetation
management plan would be developed. This
plan would detail specific management
policies and objectives, identify and evaluate
cultural landscapes, identify management
techniques and research needs, and provide
for long-term monitoring to identify and
mitigate impacts on preserve ecosystems and
values. Priorities for management actions
would be set that determine which plant
communities are in the most need of
management and protection, e.g., coastal
maritime hammock.
The National Park Service would undertake
pest control procedures on its lands, and
would encourage cooperators to consider
those regulations and guidance that apply to
the National Park Service. For example, the
Park Service requires an integrated pest
management approach to manage any pests
on NPS-owned land.
Hunting and commercial and sport fishing
are permitted legislatively within the
preserve. However, the National Park
Service, in conjunction with appropriate
cooperating agencies, would exercise its
obligation to monitor the impacts of such
use, and, if warranted, suggest new or
changed legislation or regulations as
necessary to ensure the long-term health and
survival of the preserve's fish and wildlife.
Upon consultation with responsible state
agencies, zones and /or times (of limited
extent) may be established where fishing
and/or hunting would not be permitted for
reasons of public safety.
Cooperative management would formulate
protocols for review of existing endangered
species programs, proposals, and activities,
and would develop a protected species
management plan. In addition, it would
develop information and education
programs to enhance public awareness of
endangered species issues.
Cooperative management would develop
guidelines for the identification, control, and
management of exotic species preservewide.
72
Because the natural vistas and expansive
views of the preserve have been identified as
a significant resource, the National Park
Service would initiate a long-term visibility
monitoring program. This long-term
program would provide valuable
information on any changes in visibility.
Cooperators would monitor their activities
throughout the preserve to ensure that noise
levels would not exceed federal noise
abatement criteria. If these criteria were
approached or exceeded, noise abatement
measures would be considered. These could
include techniques such as traffic
management.
Recommendations for Further Research
Natural resource management programs
would be based on a research program
coordinated with the National Biological
Survey. Priorities for research would be
based on the preserve's primary purpose to
protect scenic, scientific, and historic features
and provide water-oriented recreation, and
balanced against the needs of individual
cooperators. To prevent significant long-term
adverse effects in the preserve, the following
topics (in descending priority), to name a
few, may require additional study:
' threatened or endangered plants and
animals and their critical habitats
' water quality and potential sources of
pollution
' river and marsh use and impacts on use
of riparian and riverine environments
' fires and the long-term effects of
suppression of natural fires
' long-term monitoring of natural resources
especially the use of the estuarine system
as a HUI'SQI'Y area
' indicator species and communities

' air quality and the effects of pollutants on
certain plant species
' the ecology of exotic species and their
impacts, both direct and indirect, on
native plants, wildlife, and water quality
' water quantity and the effects of
development on timing, volume, and
spatial distribution of ows
' determining the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of continued
proliferation of private docks within the
preserve
' effects of hunting and fishing on fish and
wildlife management
' landscape management as it relates to all
visual and cultural resources, including
maintenance and development activities
Additional Plans
The following plans would be completed for
management of all preserve lands and
waters as soon as natural resource inven
tories and monitoring have accumulated the
necessary baseline information. These would
tier to the Resource Management Plan (NPS
1993b) and include the following:
' water resource management plan
(includes water monitoring program plan)
' air quality management plan (includes air
monitoring program plan)
' research plan
' vegetation management plan
' integrated pest management plan
' rare, threatened, and endangered species
management plan
' management plan addressing
consumptive uses
73
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
' exotic species control plan
Because threats to water and air resources in
the preserve are occurring on a regional
scale, the water resource and air quality
management plans would need to have a
distinct, regionally based management
approach.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
As with alternatives 1 and 2, the National
Park Service would manage cultural
resources on NPS-owned lands. However,
the cooperative effort proposed under
alternative 3 would offer increased
identification and protection of cultural
resources throughout the preserve.
Cooperation and agreements among federal,
state, and local agencies, private organi
zations, and private landowners would
establish guidelines for management and use
of cultural resources preservewide, would
identify and address potential problems or
concerns preservewide, and would pool
limited funding, staffing, and support
services for increased protection of fragile or
threatened resources. Cooperative efforts
would support cultural resource objectives. If
a significant resource is threatened by new
development and cooperative/ regulatory
techniques are not adequate, acquisition by
the National Park Service or other agencies
would be considered.
Under this alternative the National Park
Service would cooperate with the owners/
managers of non-NPS resources (Yellow
Bluff Fort, Spanish-American War Battery,
San Juan del Puerto mission site) for
resource protection purposes. This
cooperation could include technical and
financial assistance.
The management objectives for Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve state that
the National Park Service would ensure the
preservation of San Juan del Puerto and the
Spanish-American War Battery. The San Juan
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
del Puerto mission site is currently
undeveloped and owned by the state of
Florida; the National Park Service would
place high priority on cooperating with the
state to preserve the mission site. Under this
alternative, the state of Florida would take
the lead in preserving the site and would
work with the National Park Service to meet
preservation standards. The Spanish
American War Battery is in private
ownership; again, under this alternative, the
National Park Service would place high
priority on working with the owner to
ensure the site's preservation. Full public
access would not be feasible because of
limited lands for location of support and
interpretive facilities. Also, development at
any scale would affect adjacent landowners.
Limited access would be feasible based on a
reservation system and availability of
personnel. The Spanish-American War story
would be told at the Fort Caroline visitor
center.
Recommendations for Further Research
Priorities for cultural resource research
would be based on the preserve's primary
purpose of protecting scenic, scientific,
historic, and ethnographic resources, in
addition to providing water-oriented
recreation balanced against the needs of
individual cooperators. To prevent
significant long-term adverse effects in the
preserve, the following cultural resource
documents, requiring research and
publication, would be undertaken (in
priority order):
List of Classified Structures
Revised National Register of Historic
Places nominations for Kingsley
. Plantation, Fort Caroline, and other
national register sites within preserve
Ethnographic overview and assessment
Historic resource study (with historical
base map(s) preservewide and
National Register of Historic Places
forms)
Cultural landscape reports
74
Cultural resource management
bibliography
Historic structure reports
Historic structure preservation guide
Cultural sites inventory
Archeological evaluation studies
Ethnographic oral and life histories
Collection condition surveys
Collection management plans
Collection storage plans
National Catalog of Museum Objects
Park administrative history
Exhibit plans
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
General
In alternative 3, visitors would have access
to a variety of recreational opportunities and
interpretive programs available throughout
the preserve. As under alternatives 1 and 2,
the National Park Service would provide for
the visitor experience at NPS-owned sites as
well as provide an introduction to all
preserve resources and interpretive themes
at the Fort Caroline visitor center. However,
under this alternative cooperative planning
efforts would determine the scope and scale
of the visitor experience to be implemented
preservewide. Cooperative efforts would
support visitor experience objectives. A
broad range of interpretive activities would
be provided through the cooperative effort
inside and outside the preserve, and visitors
would have access to a variety of land- and
water-based resources regardless of
ownership.
Under this alternative the National Park
Service would cooperate with individuals or
agencies to provide interpretation of the
history, cultural landscapes, and resources of
the preserve. Also, the Park Service would
initiate discussions with cooperators to
attract national and international visitors to
the preserve.
Information/Orientation/Interpretation.
Under this alternative the National Park

Service would coordinate the planning of an
integrated system of roadway directional
and site/ area signs identifying Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve and other
parks within the preserve. Orientation to the
preserve would be available at the Fort
Caroline visitor center and at other NPS
owned areas. Under this alternative
cooperative efforts would identify additional
locations in the preserve where orientation
would take place. The National Park Service
and the cooperating agencies would develop
an interpretive prospectus that would
describe the stories to be told of the preserve
and the region, and how they interrelate.
Detailed guidelines for the design and
construction of exhibits and other media to
be used by cooperating agencies would be
included. Funding for visitor use pro
gramming could be shared among potential
cooperators. Interpretation would be
coordinated to complement rather than
duplicate programs at other NPS areas.
The 10 cultural resources cited in the
preserve's enabling legislation would be
interpreted at the Fort Caroline visitor
center. The National Park Service would
cooperate with the owners/ managers of the
other known cultural resources (Yellow Bluff
Fort, Spanish-American War Battery, San
Juan del Puerto mission site) for interpretive
and possibly visitor use purposes.
Recreation. In this alternative the National
Park Service and the cooperating agencies
would have an expanded ability to offer
recreational opportunities. Additional
opportunities throughout the preserve would
be determined through cooperative efforts
based on the management objective to
provide optimum use without having a
negative impact on the preserve. Traditional
resource-based uses, or uses with similar or
fewer impacts, would be expanded on NPS
owned sites and sites made available for
public access through the cooperators.
Other recreational opportunities would
include concession-operated tour boats from
Fort Caroline to Kingsley and other locations
75
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
within the preserve, enhanced / expanded
opportunities for picnicking at other selected
locations, and new hiking/biking and scenic
tour routes.
Fort Caroline National Memorial
All of the preserve's primary interpretive
themes would be emphasized through media
and personal services at Fort Caroline (see
"Elements Common to All Alternatives"
section for interpretive themes).
The visitor experience at Fort Caroline under
alternative 3 would be designed for a wide
diversity of people. Visitors would have
educational, cultural, natural, and
recreational opportunities at the site. These
opportunities would include moving through
native forest and vegetation, seeing
interpretive media on Timucuan culture as
well as the significance and history of the la
Caroline settlement, and viewing the river
with its wildlife and shipping activities
aboard a tour boat. Visitors would have the
chance to hike on self-guided trails, visit the
Fort Caroline model, picnic, buy literature or
mementos, and participate in ranger-led
programs and activities.
Visitors would be encouraged to visit the
Fort Caroline visitor center to learn of the
preserve's interpretive themes, and to plan
their visit throughout the preserve.
The Fort Caroline visitor center would
contain the following:
information area
' NPS brochures regarding preserve
resources and visitor use activities
' information on local services, e.g.,
lodging, food, attractions
schedule of preserve interpretive activities
sales area publications and sales items
relating to preserve themes
orientation map to preserve and region
restrooms
storage space
office space
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
library
Curatorial work space
exhibit area
auditorium/ audiovisual room
multipurpose hands-on education room
Orientation also would be provided in the
visitor center lobby. Because orientation is so
basic to visitor access and enjoyment of the
preserve, several techniques would be used
to provide this service.
As they leave the visitor center and
approach the fort model, visitors could see
the St. Johns River and the boat dock.
Visitors would then have several activity
options:
' walk to an overlook for viewing river
activities, including shipping and wildlife
' walk to the Fort Caroline fort model
' follow walking trails throughout the Fort
Caroline area
' take a boat ride to the Kingsley
Plantation
' have a picnic at a formal picnic area
' take a walking trail across Fort Caroline
Road to reach Spanish Pond and the
Theodore Roosevelt area
Spanish Pond is a freshwater pond offering
peace and quiet in an intimate landscape.
Wildlife, especially birds, abound in the area,
and visitors would take an elevated board
walk around a portion of the pond. From the
pond, visitors would have two options
either return to the Fort Caroline parking lot
or continue on the boardwalk/ trail to the
Theodore Roosevelt area.
When visitors leave Fort Caroline, they
would have the option of visiting the Ribault
Column. It was in the early 1560s that the
French explored St. Johns River, and visitors
to Ribault Column today would have the
opportunity to contemplate French heroism
and courage through reading interpretive
signs and viewing the column. Visitors
would see a panoramic view of a section of
the preserve, signs of development and
industry such as shipyards, Naval Station
Mayport, and a dredge spoil deposition site.
Theodore Roosevelt Area
Three preservewide primary interpretive
themes would be emphasized through media
and personal services throughout the
Theodore Roosevelt area:
At Timucuan there is an opportunity for
harmony to exist between human use
and natural order.
The wetlands are a dynamic ecosystem
that provide the interface between land
and water.
Various peoples through time have relied
on the resources of the lower St. Johns
River for basic subsistence.
The Theodore Roosevelt area is a place
where people can leave the everyday
pressures and stresses of life behind and
enter a world where the senses can indulge
in the sounds, smells, and sights of "old"
Florida. A variety of visitor experiences
would be available at the area. Beginning
with an arrival either by vehicle or on foot
through native vegetation, visitors could
participate in a variety of educational,
cultural, sensory, and recreational activities.
Low-key media throughout the area would
provide orientation/ information and cultural
and natural history interpretation. Visitors
would hike, bike, picnic, view wildlife, and
visit cultural sites. Both ranger-led and self
guided activities would be available.
Many sensory experiences would occur.
People would smell and see the forest and
vegetation in both rainy and dry seasons.
They would see a variety of wildlife on land,
in the water, and in the sky. Occasionally,
they would observe traditional human use of

the land, including crabbing or cast netting.
Visitors would also participate in activities to
learn of the Timucuan lifestyle. An
important aspect of the Theodore Roosevelt
area visitor experience would be the oppor
tunity for solitude in natural surroundings.
Visitors would have several activity options
at the Theodore Roosevelt area:
' walk on trails throughout the area;
receive orientation at trailhead
' participate in education programs led by
teachers/ park staff in the natural setting
of the Theodore Roosevelt area,
supported by a limited group camping
facility in support of educational efforts,
and a screened pavilion for activities
' visit a bird viewing platform at the
marsh overlook
' picnic at a formal picnic area
The Wil-le-ma Lodge would contain offices,
an activity room, orientation media (outside
the lodge), an education deck, and
restrooms. Any media at the lodge would be
minimal or low-key. Environmental and
heritage education would be provided,
including group gathering, orientation, and
activity space in a screened, covered deck.
The overall philosophy at the Theodore
Roosevelt area would be a focus on natural
history interpretive themes/environmental
education, and visitor interaction with
natural resources. This interaction would be
encouraged, but would not compete or
conict with resource values.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
Two preservewide primary interpretive
themes would be emphasized at Kingsley
Plantation:
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
Various peoples through time have relied
on the resources of the lower St. Johns
River for basic subsistence.
The interaction of cultures within the
region, especially colonial French,
Spanish, British, Americans, American
Indians, and Africans, had a profound
impact on American history.
The 1992 Interpretive/Curatorial Plan for the
Kingsley Plantation identified the following
site-specific interpretive themes:
The people and events associated with
Fort George Island represent a
microcosm of US. history from
prehistoric days to modern times.
The life and times of Zephaniah Kingsley
played a significant role in Florida's
transition from a Spanish to a US.
territory and eventually a state.
Kingsley Plantation was the
southernmost example of a sea island
plantation in the southeastern United
States during the first half of the 19th
century. Its slave-dependent agricultural
system based on the "task system" of
slavery differed from upland plantations
whose slaves were employed in working
fields in "gangs."
Slavery, as understood and implemented
by Kingsley, was more than a peculiar
institution.
Recorded history often remembers the lives
and achievements of the noble born, the rich,
or the powerful. At Kingsley Plantation
visitors would have the opportunity to visit
a Florida sea island plantation, home to
many enslaved people. Visitors to Kingsley
Plantation would learn that with personal
power and conviction enslaved people
preserved family and cultural traditions.
Visitors to the Kingsley Plantation, arriving
by land or water, would feel a sense of
leaving the modern world behind them, and
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
arriving at a special place. Both the boat ride
and the drive through native forest and
vegetation would serve as a transition for
people as views of the plantation open
before them. Even though the plantation
does not look as it did in Zephaniah
Kingsley's day, it reects a continuum of
both human use and land use patterns. The
plantation also reects a sense of human and
cultural survival for visitors to learn about
and relate to their own life experiences.
Visitors would have a variety of activities to
choose from at the plantation:
' walk the plantation's grounds
' tour the main plantation house, Anna Jai
house, and slave quarters
' see exhibits and / or audiovisual
programs about slavery and plantation
history
' picnic at a formal picnic area
Orientation to the site would be provided at
the carriage house. Visitors would be
encouraged to visit the carriage house to
learn about the preserve and activities at the
plantation. Ranger-led and self-guided
activities would be available. The main
plantation house and the Anna Jai house
would be open for visitor use/ interpretation.
The slave quarters would be interpreted. The
Army/Navy Lodge would continue to be
used as staff offices and housing.
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
The actual types and quantities of additional
improvements preservewide would be
determined through cooperative efforts. At a
minimum the improvements described in
alternative 1 would be incorporated in this
alternative; however, the expansion of visitor
facilities in this alternative would
accommodate cooperative purposes. Kiosks
would be added in the north, central, and
78
south areas and would be focused on
cooperative efforts and themes.
If the Cedar Point and Thomas Creek areas
were acquired by the National Park Service,
proposed development would be the same
as described in alternative 1.
Additionally, the National Park Service
would encourage the managers of Huguenot
Memorial Park to improve access, beach use,
picnic areas, comfort stations, and trails in
relation to resource protection, especially
threatened and endangered species and
visitor safety.
All physical structures or changes to the
land would conform to the physical
development/location criteria in table 1.
Development Concept Plans
Fort Caroline National Memorial. The
proposed physical developments for the
national memorial are described below.
To accommodate the increased numbers of
visitors and duration of visitation, the
parking area would be redesigned and
enlarged to accommodate 7080 vehicles,
including pull-through spaces for buses and
RVs. This parking area would be constructed
of a porous material that can be compacted
yet allow for natural drainage, to avoid
costly, hard-to-manage stormwater runoff.
Grading would be kept to a minimum.
Locally grown native plant material would
be used for revegetation. An effort would be
made to preserve any plant material that
could be transplanted during construction. A
barrier-free walkway from the parking area
to the visitor center also would be
constructed of a porous material.
An overow parking area would be
constructed just east of the existing parking
area. It would be designed for 3040 vehicles
and be connected to the redesigned parking
area by a new two-way road. This parking
area and road would be constructed of a
w

porous material. A gate would be used to
secure the parking area when it was not
needed. A walkway would connect this
parking area with the visitor center.
A picnic area would be located northeast of
the expanded visitor center on the bluff to
give panoramic views of the river and
provide for seasonal comfort. A trail would
connect the picnic area with the visitor
center.
To connect Fort Caroline to Spanish Pond
and the Theodore Roosevelt area, a 0.25-mile
hardened porous surface trail would be
constructed from the expanded visitor center
to Spanish Pond. At the trail intersection
with Fort Caroline Road, an at-grade
pedestrian crossing with traffic signals
and / or signs would be built.
The existing trail network between the
proposed dock and the visitor center would
be used wherever possible. However, to
make this trail accessible to everyone, some
new trails would be cut and boardwalks
provided where needed.
The existing parking area at Spanish Pond
would remain, but it would be redesigned
within the existing footprint to accommodate
10 vehicles and integrate better with the
proposed boardwalk.
All other trails around Fort Caroline would
remain unchanged.
Although space allocation has not been fully
defined for the needs of the visitor center, an
estimate has been drafted to identify a
general square footage for the visitor center
expansion. It is envisioned that the
expansion would consist of a 4,500-square
foot, two-oor structure. A second story
would be constructed on the present
structure accompanied by a single-story
expansion to the north. These two additions
would provide the necessary space to
accomplish the goals of the visitor center.
Barrier-free access between oors would be
provided. The proposed expansion of the
79
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
present offices at Fort Caroline would double
the current available space. The expansion
would enlarge the existing structure to the
north and west.
The Alternative 3 Development Concept
Plan Fort Caroline and Theodore Roosevelt
Area map shows the general locations of all
proposed physical development actions.
Theodore Roosevelt Area. The proposed
physical developments for the Theodore
Roosevelt area are described below.
The north leg of the existing entrance road to
the Wil-le-ma Lodge would be redesigned
and developed into a two-way road (with
gate) leading to a new 20-space parking area
for preserve staff and visitors to
administrative offices. Only minor site
improvements, such as walks and plantings,
would be necessary to connect the parking
area to the lodge. Use of the south leg of the
existing entrance loop would be
discontinued and the surface revegetated.
A new two-way access road approximately
1,000 feet long would intersect with the new
entrance road and lead to the existing
trailhead and 20-car parking area. The
parking area and restroom facilities at the
trailhead would be redesigned and
rehabilitated. The entrance to the trailhead
parking from the road would be revegetated.
The overlook structure at the end of the
Willie Browne trail would be removed, and a
new barrier-free elevated platform would be
constructed. Access to the overlook platform
would be available for the physically
disabled upon request.
A limited group camping facility would be
developed at a site where similar activities
have occurred in the past. The use of this
camping area would be for organized groups
participating in educational programs within
the Theodore Roosevelt area. An existing
lOO-foot-long road would be cleared to
provide access to the site. The existing
structure would be modified to provide a
screened-in, covered meeting space for
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
groups using this facility. The water and
septic system would be rehabilitated. Ten
tent pads and parking spaces would be
developed. A gate would provide the
controlled access to this site.
Two proposed pods would be constructed
that would connect to the lodge by elevated
boardwalks. One pod south of the lodge
would consist of a screened-in, covered,
elevated deck. This deck would provide an
outdoor gathering space for education
programs. The other pod, an elevated
structure approximately 1,200 square feet in
size, would be used for administrative
purposes. This pod would have its own
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
system.
Refer to the Alternative 3 Development
Concept Plan Fort Caroline and Theodore
Roosevelt Area map for the general locations
of all proposed physical development
actions.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation. Proposed
physical developments for the Kingsley
Plantation are described below.
The 1,100-foot-long Evans Road right-of-way
would be cleared, and a two-way entrance
road leading to a new 4050 vehicle parking
area north of the slave quarters would be
constructed. Access to adjoining property
would not be impeded. Gates would be used
to allow property owners to have access to
their property at all times. The service access
road would lead from the proposed parking
area and join the existing access road.
To help protect the slave quarters, Palmetto
Avenue would be closed and revegetated at
Beatty Avenue to redirect traffic to Evans
Road and the new parking area. Palmetto
Avenue between the service access road and
the slave quarters would be narrowed for
pedestrian use.
A new boardwalk would be constructed and
integrated into a new bulkhead to direct
visitors from the boat dock to the carriage
80
house. The approximately 2,000 feet of
proposed walkways would be constructed of
a porous material and provide access from
the parking area and boardwalk to the
interpretive and recreation areas onsite. A
picnic area would be provided.
The 2,000square-foot carriage house would
be converted to a visitor contact station that
would include restrooms, an information
desk, interpretive displays, a multipurpose
room, and a sales area. This station would be
the first stop for orientation to the site.
All other structures on the plantation would
remain unchanged.
See the Alternative 3 Development Concept
Plan Kingsley Plantation map for the
general locations of all proposed physical
development actions.
The total cost of physical development under
alternative 3 would be approximately
$5.1 million. Refer to appendix C for a
breakdown of estimated development costs.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
The National Park Service would participate
in comprehensive, coordinated access and
transportation planning with other agencies
for routes within and through the preserve
to increase efficiency, avoid duplication, and
minimize negative impacts. New routes and
transportation facilities would serve the
visitor experience/public use described in
that section.
Alternative modes of nonmotorized trans
portation, i.e., bicycle and foot, would be
encouraged and accommodated to maximize
opportunities for preserve use while
minimizing improvement costs and impacts
on resources. Appropriate access locations
would be determined using the management
zones in each alternative and the physical
development/ location criteria in table 1.
 Fort Caroline
National Men.

1
Proposed l
from boat
Proposed 1
Proposed 2
expansion
Proposed '
expansion
sq. ft.
Proposed .
visitor cen
Proposed \
for 30-40
Developme

Two-wa an
to over 0

Redesign e
for 70 cars
pull-throu)
\ Ft. Caroline Visitor
i :. Center "apart;
an e i
Development New emu-l
m 6
50~ North
Alternative 3
Development Concept
Plan
Fort Caroline and
Theodore Roosevelt Area

Timucuan
~ Ecological and
Theodore Rod Historic Preserve
Development., National Park Service
m I United States Department of the interior
o 15o~ 3oo~ 006200ll-July 94'DSC
_ Development zone

,- Existing Maintenance Area

Proposed Boat dock

Army / Navy Lodge

Anna Jai House

Main House

Construct boardwalk along

the reconstructed bulkhead

Bulkhead

Convert Carriage House

to visitor contact station
Proposed Picnic Area
l_l_|
0 60' 120' Norma

Alternative 3
Development Concept
Plan
Kingsley Plantation

Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve
National Park Service
United States Department of the interior
006-20013'July 94'DSC

LAND USE AND PROTECTION
Land use management in the preserve would
be through a process of cooperation among
landowners, regulatory authorities, and
others with jurisdiction or an interest in the
preserve. This would include joint planning
with the city of Jacksonville as described in
the "Elements Common to All Alternatives"
section. The National Park Service would
pursue a formal "review agency" relationship
with the city, wherein the city would refer
all development proposals in and adjacent to
the preserve to the Park Service. The city
should agree to consider NPS responses and
recommendations when formulating their
final decisions. However, the city has no
legal obligation to implement changes
recommended by the Park Service. An
intergovernmental agreement would be
proposed to document the roles of the Park
Service and the city of Jacksonville and
define the scope of the review area.
Additional cooperative agreements would be
negotiated with the other agencies. These
agreements would define opportunities for
the Park Service to participate in planning
and regulatory processes at the ground level,
and to avoid the adverse impacts of new
construction in and adjacent to the preserve.
It must be recognized that reliance on
cooperative efforts may not ensure
protection of preserve resources. The city's
regulations may allow uses that are not
compatible with the preserve objectives.
Those city regulations and zoning on
individual properties may be modified in the
future under different city councils and /or
changed conditions. Zoning alone does not
ensure protection of resources. Therefore,
under this alternative, attempts would be
made by the Timucuan alliance to acquire
the remaining private lands on Big Talbot
Island and Fort George Island. Removing
these areas from future development would
eliminate approximately 150 potential single
family residences from the total of 1,000
possible under alternatives 1 and 2 (see
85
Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
"Affected Environment" chapter, Existing
Land Use" section).
Portions of Half Moon Island, Black
Hammock Island, and the Greenfield
Peninsula that are developed would remain
in private ownership. Private ownership on
these islands predominates (approximately
75%), in contrast to Big Talbot and Fort
George Islands. On those islands approxi
mately 85% is already in public ownership.
The 1993 land Protection Plan would be
revised to conform to the acquisition/
protection concept presented in this
alternative.
JURISDICTION
When the land base within the preserve has
been consolidated, the National Park Service
would apply to the state of Florida for
concurrent jurisdiction on all NPS-owned
lands within the preserve.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Under this alternative several major
boundary adjustments would require
congressional action to amend Public Law
100-249. These adjustments are designed to
reect more accurately the natural
boundaries of the St. Johns/ Nassau Rivers
estuarine system and ensure protection of
resources critical to preserve purposes. In
some cases, these adjustments also would
facilitate efficient management. All major
adjustments are considered to be feasible.
The Major Boundary Adjustments map
depicts these adjustments as discussed
below. These adjustments satisfy the primary
NPS criteria for boundary adjustments.
1. The northern boundary of the preserve
established in 1988 generally follows the
Nassau / Duval county line in the middle of
the Nassau River. The proposed boundary
change would encompass the other half of
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
the Nassau River estuarine system beginning
where SR A1A touches Amelia Island and
following the Amelia River to Alligator
Creek, and then following the mean high
water line west to encompass the area within
the boundaries of the State Aquatic Preserve.
Although this adjustment would expand
substantially the acreage of the preserve,
virtually all of these lands below mean high
water are recorded as owned by the state of
Florida.
The northern half of the Nassau River
system clearly is integral to the protection
and public use of the southern half currently
within the boundaries of the preserve. Water,
fish, wildlife, and public uses move freely
across the county line in mid-river. The
adjustment envisioned by this alternative
would address operational and management
concerns by having the boundary more
easily identified by the natural demarcation
between mean high water and uplands
rather than an administrative line in the
water itself. Cooperative management with
the state may be appropriate, and impacts
from adjacent uplands still would be a
concern, but adding these wetlands to the
preserve would help protect wetlands
currently within the boundary.
2. The area known as Pumpkin Hill, directly
adjacent to the west central portion of the
preserve, represents a large amount of the
shoreline of Pumpkin Hill Creek, and
contains a type of sandhill vegetative
community that is especially significant to
the purposes of the preserve. This area is a
peninsula projecting into the preserve
between Tiger Point to the north and the
Buck property, currently scheduled for
purchase by the city of Jacksonville, for
environmental protection to the south. The
boundary of this addition could be defined
further by a line connecting Cabbage
Hammock Swamp in the northwest to Greys
Swamp in the southeast. By adding this
peninsula to the boundary, the preserve
would encompass the uplands with the
greatest potential for development that
86
would damage or destroy significant
resources currently within the boundary.
This area also is believed to include
important natural and archeological values
related to the preserve. For example, an
active rookery provides nesting sites for five
species of wading birds, including the
federally endangered wood stork. It also is
very diverse in bird species; a 1987 survey
found 56 species in the area. The salt
marshes of Pumpkin Hill Creek are valuable
spawning and nursery grounds for sport and
commercial fish.
Archeologically this area contains several
shell middens, a number of archeological
sites identified by the Florida Division of
Historic Resources but as yet not investi
gated, and a St. Johns II habitation site.
CONCESSIONS
Through cooperative efforts, a comprehen
sive preservewide concessions management
plan would be developed. In addition to a
concession-operated tour boat for Fort
Caroline/ Kingsley Plantation, locations for
other concessions/ facilities in the preserve
would be determined in this plan. Other
public and private concession facilities
would continue to operate on their own.
STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
Staffing and operational costs range from
$2.9 to $3.2 million annually and include
4566 positions. Staffing in this alternative
would maintain the level of operations in
alternative 1; however, a major cooperative
program would be added. To implement this
cooperative effort, staffing would emphasize
natural and cultural resource specialists and
community planners. The range of staffing
and operational costs would depend on the
degree of direct NPS management versus the
degree of NPS financial and technical
support to cooperators to manage the
preserve's resources under their ownership.
 Legend
_ Existing Preserve Boundary
_ Proposed Boundary Adjustments
Area of Boundary Expansion*

- Exclusion

*Boundary expansions are green because

these areas are proposed to be managed
as a natural environment zone.

l_l__|
0 2.5 Miles North)

Major
Boundary
Downtown
Adjustments
Jacksonville
Timucu an
Ecological and
Historic Preserve
United States Department ofthe lnterior
National Park Service
006- 20007.] uly 94' DSC
 ALTERNATIVE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT, AND
RESTORATION THROUGH NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT
CONCEPT
The National Park Service would protect,
enhance, and restore the quality of natural
and cultural resources in the preserve by
acquiring and managing all lands within the
revised boundary important to resource
integrity, using any available acquisition
methods.
In contrast to the other alternatives that seek
to perpetuate or make marginal improve
ments in current conditions, this alternative
emphasizes restoring natural and cultural
resources to a relatively pristine condition
representative of the area before changes
brought about by 20th century development.
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The National Park Service would have the
primary responsibility for natural resource
management and research on a greatly
increased land base under this alternative.
The Park Service would manage significant
natural resources preservewide and develop
management and use guidelines for those
resources. It also would be solely responsible
for identifying and addressing problems or
concerns that may affect natural resources
preservewide.
Appropriate controls, such as seasonal
closures, would manage carrying capacity
limits for high-use areas. Controls would be
placed on recreational activities to minimize
visitor use conicts and resource damage.
Natural resources would be managed
through a exible program designed to cope
with changing pressures on the preserve
from regional development and expected
increases in preserve use.
The National Park Service would develop an
air quality management plan as described
under alternative 3 for the entire preserve
89
and determine the need for monitoring
stations in the preserve. The location of
monitoring stations would be based on NPS
priorities and needs. The National Park
Service would also continue to review future
projects regionally that might affect air
quality and land uses adjacent to the
preserve, as discussed in alternative 3.
However, under alternative 4 the National
Park Service would petition the state for
redesignation of the preserve to a class I
airshed.
In many or most cases, NPS goals for
resource protection within the preserve
boundary are such that no private or
commercial uses of wetlands and
undeveloped land would be acceptable and
therefore acquisition would be required.
Improvements or avoidance of damage to
water quality would be accomplished by
acquiring uplands and wetlands where
future uses could damage resource values
within the preserve and by a coordinated
program with other agencies to protect these
qualities from adverse impacts of adjacent
upstream land uses.
The National Park Service would continue to
cooperate with the current multiagency
water monitoring program within the
preserve, but it would take responsibility in
developing a preservewide water resource
management plan and water quality moni
toring plan. This program would emphasize
complete coverage of the preserve including
monitoring of impacts from specific land
uses.
Existing spoil piles acting as hydrological
barriers or as refuges for exotic plants could
be removed and recontoured. The National
Park Service would not permit new spoil
sites within the preserve. The National Park
Service would not acquire existing sites
unless a strong opportunity exists for
wetland restoration. All fill operations would
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
comply with the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, chapter
253 of the Florida Statutes, and chapter 17 of
the Florida Administrative Code.
The National Park Service would assist
private landowners and cooperative
regulatory agencies in protecting wetlands
outside the preserve boundary whose use
may affect preserve resources.
Management of vegetation, fish and wildlife,
threatened and endangered species, and
exotic species would be the same as in
alternative 3, except that the National Park
Service would have primary responsibility
for either management or coordination of
these resources, and it would have
responsibility for developing management
plans for these resources. Recommendations
for further research and additional plans
would be the same as under alternative 3.
The natural vistas and expansive views of
the preserve have been identified as a
significant resource. Thus, the National Park
Service would initiate a long-term visibility
monitoring program that would provide
valuable information on any changes in
visibility.
The National Park Service would monitor all
activities in the preserve to ensure that noise
levels would not exceed federal noise
abatement criteria. This monitoring would
establish baseline data for assessing the
impact of boat/vehicle/ air traffic and other
noise on preserve wildlife and the visitor
experience. If these criteria were approached
or exceeded, noise abatement measures
would be considered. These could include
techniques such as traffic management as
well as more stringent measures.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The National Park Service would expand
previous efforts to locate those sites listed in
the enabling legislation if new information
became available. The Park Service would
90
manage as many of the 10 cultural resources
cited in the legislation as it can locate and
acquire.
The National Park Service would have
primary responsibility for cultural resource
management on a greatly increased land
base under this alternative. The Park Service
would manage significant cultural resources
preservewide and develop management and
use guidelines for those resources. The Park
Service also would be responsible for
identifying and addressing problems or
concerns that may affect cultural resources
preservewide.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PUBLIC USE
The National Park Service would provide a
broad range of recreational and interpretive
activities on an expanded land base under
NPS ownership. It would have primary
responsibility for the visitor experience
throughout the preserve. Visitors would
have access to a variety of Iand- and water
based resources, providing a wide range of
group and solitary experiences. An
introduction to all preserve resources and
interpretive themes would be provided at
the Fort Caroline visitor center, and visitors
would be encouraged to visit sites
throughout the preserve. As in alternative 1,
the visitor center would be used for more
traditional purposes i.e., orientation and
interpretation and visitor contact needs.
The Park Service would promote national
and international visitation to the preserve
through an emphasis on significant resources
and visitor experiences, stressing 'I'Imucuan's
uncommon, diverse natural and cultural
resources combined at one place.
Information/Orientation/Interpretation
The National Park Service would have sole
responsibility for placing roadway
directional and site/area signs to direct
visitors to the Fort Caroline visitor center

and to other visitor use areas. The Park
Service would provide orientation to all
activities and resources throughout the
preserve, and encourage visitors to enjoy
resources throughout the preserve as well.
Orientation media and personal services
would be available not only at Fort Caroline,
but also throughout the preserve.
Under this alternative the Park Service
would be responsible for interpretive
programming throughout the preserve, at
locations that best support interpretive
needs.
As in the other alternatives, the primary
interpretive themes would be introduced at
the Fort Caroline visitor center (see
"Elements Common to All Alternatives"
section for interpretive themes). Interpretive
emphasis would be on all the themes, to be
illustrated by a variety of resources under ,
NPS management throughout the preserve.
Despite NPS emphasis on preserve resources,
interpretation under this alternative would
continue to cover the regional stories of
which Timucuan is a part. Timucuan's
significant stories having contextual and
global appeal would be identified and
interpreted in several languages. Timucuan's
rich history has the potential to attract
present-day African, British, French, Spanish,
and American peoples whose ancestors
and/or countrymen and women contributed
to that history.
The 10 cultural resources cited in the
preserve's enabling legislation would
continue to be interpreted at the Fort
Caroline visitor center; however, under this
alternative the Park Service would pursue
onsite interpretation of those extant
resources it owns.
Recreation
With NPS management of the entire
preserve, the goals of optimum, low conict,
environmentally sound, resource-based
recreational use would be more feasible to
91
Alternative 4: NPS Management
achieve. Optimum use may include an
expanded trail system that separates user
groups to reduce conicts, overnight ~
camping facilities, biking trails, accessible
trails, boat docks, ranger-led tours,
concession-operated fishing with rental
equipment, and concession-operated tour
boats from Fort Caroline to Kingsley and
other locations throughout the preserve.
Appropriate locations and levels of
development for these activities would be
determined by preserve management using
the guidelines and criteria of this plan.
A broad spectrum of well-developed
recreational opportunities would appeal to a
national and international audience and
likely increase visitor use days significantly.
Existing activities that have a damaging
effect on the preserve's ecosystem or specific
resources would be modified and controlled
or eliminated.
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
The National Park Service would determine
levels and types of improvements preserve
wide. All of the improvements described in
the development concept plans under
alternative 3 would be implemented in this
alternative. At a minimum, the following
additional improvements to the preserve
would be made to support visitor activities,
resource protection, administration, and
maintenance.
Cedar Point:
visitor center and support facilities
maintenance facilities
visitor amenities e.g., picnic areas
boat dock
visitor access to uplands
parking
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Thomas Creek:
road access, including from I-95
visitor center and support facilities
maintenance facilities
picnic area
boat dock (limited by boat motor
size)
lake access
parking
Huguenot Memorial Park:
rehabilitation for habitat values
redeveloped visitor facilities and
access (including existing
campground and comfort
stations)
Big Talbot Island:
satellite visitor/ maintenance facility
parking and road access
Sisters Creek Marina:
rehabilitation to full service marina
Pelotes Island:
expanded education facilities
Fort George Island:
visitor center (rehabilitated
clubhouse)
Information kiosks would be added at key
resource points throughout the preserve.
Actual locations of physical structures or
changes to the land would be determined
using the physical development/ location
criteria in table 1.
The total cost of physical development under
alternative 4 would be approximately $12.1
million. A breakdown of estimated
development costs is in appendix C.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
The National Park Service would develop a
comprehensive preservewide trail, beach,
boat, and roadway access plan to implement
visitor experience and public use policies
92
and objectives, ensuring preserve resources
are not degraded by these facilities. lnforrnal,
unregulated pulloffs and parking areas
would be inventoried and funding assistance
sought to contain uses and runoff that
damage preserve resources.
Alternative modes of nonmotorized trans
portation, i.e., bicycle and foot, would be
encouraged and accommodated to maximize
opportunities for preserve use while
minimizing improvement costs and impacts
on resources. Appropriate access locations
would be determined using the prescribed
management zones and the physical
development/ location criteria in table 1.
LAND USE AND PROTECTION
The National Park Service would take direct
responsibility for protection of lands by
acquisition of all land subject to develop
ment and certain developed lots that lie
within the preserve's authorized boundary
using any available method.
The Park Service would identify areas of
critical concern outside but adjacent to the
preserve, and seek the cooperation of other
entities to develop protection strategies to
minimize development-caused degradation
of resources. This cooperative effort would
stress boundary adjustment and acquisition
in cases where other measures were
determined to be inadequate.
The Land Protection Plan (NPS 1993a) would
be revised to reect this change in
acquisition policy and would prioritize
acquisitions as follows: imminent threats to
important resources (e.g., subdivision for
residential units of an upland laced with
wetlands and fragile marsh edges); visitor
and administrative needs; valuable resource
areas not under immediate threat; and other
areas within the boundary.
Under this alternative the National Park
Service would acquire lands or interest in
lands throughout the preserve as needed to

protect and enhance natural processes and
cultural resource values. This could include
uplands where existing development is
having an adverse impact on water, wildlife
habitat, and scenic vistas.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction would be the same as that under
alternative 3.
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Boundary adjustments and legislative actions
would be the same as those described in
alternative 3.
The National Park Service would expand its
land base by acquiring most of the land
within the preserve's authorized boundary to
provide resource protection, mitigate land
use impacts, and maintain the existing
significant values of the preserve. An
expansion of acquisition authority (i.e.,
condemnation authority) would be necessary
to achieve this.
93
Alternative 4: NPS Management
CONCESSIONS
The National Park Service would develop a
comprehensive preservewide concessions
management plan to provide necessary and
appropriate services and opportunities for
preserve visitors. Under this alternative the
level of concessions needed would be
significantly greater than under the other
alternatives because visitors would be
accommodated and dispersed among at least
nine areas.
In addition to a concession-operated tour
boat from Fort Caroline to Kingsley and to
potential Nassau River sites, other locations
and / or facilities for concessions needed in
the preserve would be determined in this
plan.
STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
Staffing and operational costs range from
$2.9 to $3.2 million annually and include
6166 positions. The emphasis in this
alternative would be on direct NPS
management of all resources through
increases in resource management,
interpretive, and law enforcement staff.
 of
Provide
broad
intrange
aerpretive base.
land
expanded
primary
Assume
E4: Io-IrAENcEnMoENr, NRAETSrHIORoONATUIGOH.N
ANLVTIERONMAETNIVAEL EPNnAND cCo ordpienartaiotnion of
for
other
especially
entusesities, 20th
of
beginning
the
before
century the
throughout
exprersiervnec.e
ACTION)
D(PROPOSED
(NO
CLASSROOM
PIRSOCTREIPCTION
MANAGWENT
SERVICE
PARK
and
with adjacent
would
upstream
or
areas, all
NPS
through
Protect
resources resources of
restoring
emphasize
to
a the
croepnarea
rdeisteinotantive
Nwould
Park
ArLaieTtsmEeRiurNovcAeTnuwIaiVdElne, be
PThe
TService CONCEPT
lands
the
oonly
for
managed
Nit
lands.
and
enhance,
cbPrprotect,
soSeowns
to manage
n-rstoviawtonirueodn, NPS
by
the
in
preserve
resources and
aIn
cmaqnuaigseimteinot.n
cultural
and
natural
of
quality raectron
and anieavti oineasl
and
acmaqnuaigseimteinot.n alto
other
ctoenrtartaivsets, rvisitor
the
for
esponsibility

conasteciensueary.

development.

address
problems
potential
or
concerns be
the
of
scale
and
experience
visitor
to
nerships local
pastate,
federal,
and
rtamong and
agencies,
private
government iand
protection
dnectrifeiacsteiodn a2,
NPS
a1
under
As
lto
tendrnatives NPS
prersoeusrcersve. for
throughout
of
the gEusmtiandbaelgiesimhnenst for
provide
eat
visitor
xperience dceotscope
efforts,
epremrianetive
IA3:
NL'TrERNAcTEINVcYE CRoEFOR
sroERuARncoEN coloor
and/apbeoratioino,n, Through
offer
efforts,
co perative of
and
identify
ruseesources, and
staffing,
for
ssupport
ervices
preservewide
pursued
be
would preservewide,
funding,
pool
and
Cmoantaigneume nt lands.
NPS
of NPS-onreoswunrecds through
owned
However,
sites.
shared
the
addition,
In
vision,
CTABLE
SUMMARY
M3:
AOLMTNor
PEARGNREAITMSEVONETS and
ombjaencatgievmesn,t for
respornesiobuirlcieties and
protection
management formal
through
agre ments, pirmepslermvenwitded.

ipnrcorteacsteidon.

landowners.

human
affect
couses
ntemporary lands
owned
managed
be
would the
for
Provide
experience
visitor nsteirtporestive arin
other
and
vito evcatrieavltiaboinleasl
PTHE
A2:
LRTERSNEATRIVE eof
and
idnutecraptrieotant,ion policies,
pNPS
and
hilosophies, ahowever,
Same
1;
lteas
rnative
Rthat
NPS
esystem.
sonources by
pstrategy
roretseoucrtceion
role
shaping
its
in
ecosystem, and
how
history,
historic according
laws
and
cur ent
to articipate regarding
asking
others
pto
in edupcartoigornams emphasize
environmental
and
LAsAND
A
As
oRA~roRv epdruecas
asaetrivoenwide
Nsites.
Direct
Pat
S-owned
the
marsh/estuarine
salt emphasis
place
public
on
the
However,
preserve.
proetseoucrtcieon. education.
heritage

trends.

Emphasize
marneasoguercme nt TCohaersoedlvoiernlet,
Rthe
C1:
AOLNT'EIRTNUATIVOEN needs
mpriononcetiemcutmion paffecting
resresrovurecweisde.
MEXISTING
AOF
NAGEMENT pNPS
and
policies,
hilosophies, jurisdictional
other
with
basis funding
managed
proasperties
according
and
laws
cur ent
to Theodore
the
Caroline,
Fort
at PProvide
NPS
other
lantation. /or
and
marnesaoguercme nt problems
address
concerns
or Fort
Provide
inat
terpretation Planarea,
Kingsley
and tation ftheir
private
aciown.
onlities
Kingsley
and
Ro area,
sevelt cCooperate
ason
ae-by-case
ac es of
and
Provide
only.
to NPS
other
interpretation aVlisiotwosr.s parks,
have
would the
city
to
state
ac es
parks,
public
other
and
owned
limited
with
areas for
above
met.
were
areas the
eto
in
ntpirteisesrve

trends.

NATURAL
AND MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE PUBLIC
AND
CuLTuRAL REsouRcE
VIsIToR

UsE

I1,
 -n - .

E4: RHOATNECETMIEONT, NREATsIoRoANTuAIcoLnN

ANLVITREONMAETNIAVLE EPNANo RArea:
Theodore
Same
o as
sevelt
MPARK
SERVICE
DACTlON)
PC(No
(PRoPosED
ACnoN)
ARELNOsATcsGERCmMRT'EoINOoTMN MFort
National
Caroline
Carolina
PHYSICAL
emorial:

and
Redesign
Same
aparking
3.
existing
enlarge
DlEtVeasErLnOaPtMiEvNeT

alternative
3.

Cwith
road.
otwo-way
enstrauncte Pond.
leading
trail
Two-Ponds
lmprove trail
TBrowne
Rthe
in
ohesoedvoerlet parking
Redesign
existing
at
area.
area RTArea:
and
Redesign
ohesoedvoerlet road
of
leg
north
develop
into
entrance Ovbrilesivteorgaest.eate loop.
and
south Cleg
of
existing
oenstrauncte road
and
with
ieto
ntnewerasnecte redesign
existing
structure ;
to
area proposed
and
parking
coarean ect
to by
Expand
visitor
center
center. long)
ft.
1,000
(approx.
road
ac es
new
parking
overow
vehicles)
(3040
of
4,500
ft.
consist
two
to
approx.
sq. and
trail
Browne
Willie
lmprove
area. oand
vcseotnrnewsultcorucrkte Develop cre ned-in, Cfor
smeeting
provide
covered pods
otwo
ngroups.
space
struct bbe
pod
covered,
oato
rone
dwalks used ucpartoigornams; be
re ned-in, for
sbe
elevated
deck
cto eother
pod
dto 1used
,in
size
2to
0 -square-fo t
I3:
ANLTERANGETNICVEY REOURCE
COEoR
PERATION from
boat
planned
Spanish
ardwalk leading
road
20-space
two-way
to
a tlead
and
parking
20-car
rto
ailhead levrted around
eplatform.
viewing existing
camping
group
area
and
elto
with
lodge
ceovnatecdt
Cvfor
7080
oenhareasitcrluecst. expanded
of
npicnic
orareatheast Spanish
expanded
visitor
to
center for
and
staff
parking
area
preserve
oors.
Cocto
trail
nosntreuct and
Pond
Willie
with
con ecting
trail.
oRemove
existing
verlo k
for
Pond
vSpanish
10
ehicles. adminpisutraptiovsees.
for

THE
ALRTEsRNEARTvIVE
P2.- RArea:
Theodore
Same
o sevelt
LAAND
As
BA
ORATORY

a3.
lteas
rnative

CA1:
OLNTEIRNUATIVOEN RArea:
Theodore
Same
o sevelt
ExIsTINc
MAor
NAGEMENT

a3.
lteas
rnative

S,
 af(e.g.,
picnic
visitor
mceinlities, MHuguenot
Redevelop
Park:
emorial including
fvisitor
and
aciaccess,
lities
HoANrCEcMnENOT, NREATSHIOROANTUAIGOLHN
ANLVITREONMAETNIVALE EPNRAND
E4: Add
and
Point:
Cedar
visitor
center dock,
boat
bareas),
trails,
oardwalk,
fand
parking;
asupport
center
cilities; boat
trpicnic
ailsarea;
/boardwalks;
CDPARK
ACTION)
P(NO
M(PROPOSED
SERVICE
EARLSNOACTSRGEICPRMTOEINOMT from
including
visitor
I-95;
access, comfort
and
campground
stations.
road
Provide
Creek:
Thomas
new boat
by
(limited
dock
size);
motor
fmasupport
icntleintanices,
PKingsley
Same
Road
Evans
Clear
lHanYastSaItiCoAn:L uplands.
and
visitor
toac es

aSame
2.
lteasrnative
lake
and
ac es .

aand
r3.
DliEttwo-way
cVgeoEhrnLstOna-PtrMoiuEfvcN'teTway

and
PClose
raquarters.
elvmegtetoate of tlermsection rtraffic
Pianat
Drive Beatty
and
Avenue
eto
direct bRoad.
and
CEvans
oanrstdrwuacltk 2house
Convert
carriage
,to
0 0-sq.-ft. with
visitor
station
contact
restro ms, MEncourage
Park:
Huguenot
emorial
IA3:
LNTERNAGTEINVCEY CRESOURCE seawall
direct
into
integrate
to
new from receptacles.
trash
and
tables
include park
of
improve
to
macnaesge,rs
OFOR
PERATION parking
vehicle
slave
of
north
area dock
boat
vto
carriage
isitors n ation displays,
idesk,
sales
inter
nfoarea, mpretive
and
ultipurpose Same
Creek:
aThomas
1.
lteas
mative
and
Cpicnic
house.
onareastruct Same
Point
aCedar
1.
lteas
rnative beach
comfort
picnic
areas,
use, and
trails
relation
in
stations,
to
leading
road
(CONTJ
4050
ennewtrance
to

aSame
2.
lteas
rnative proetseoucrtcieon.

room.

A2:
PRESERVE
THE
LTERNA.ITVE
Add
ein
kiosks
north,
ducation of
central,
the
south
and
areas
LAAND
As
BA
ORATORY

Same
Creek:
Thomas
as
Cedar
Same
Point:
as

a1.
lternative a1.
lternative
preserve.

C1:
AOLNTEIRNUA.TITVOEN Cedar
by
acquired
If
Point:
NPS, acmtarinevsaiotguirecmse nt with
EXISTING
MAor
NAGEMENT deconcept
vprepare
elopment and
soeprevriactesi.ons
visitor limited
Provide
Creek:
Thomas and
public
eqnouipment
plan
basic
address
park
to afcto
oimliotdiaets

ac es .

,
 RHOATNEcCTMEINOT, NA110NAL
RETSHTOROAUTIGOHN parking
facility,
visitor/
maintenance RSisters
Marina:
Creek
eto
habilitate cpossible
wohto
impacts
entervoelr
ENVIRONMENTAL EPNAND
ALTERNATIVE
4: preservewide
and
boat,
beach,
trail, lands
revised
the
all
within
Acquire
MPARK
SERVICE
ANAGEMENT sIsland:
Provide
Talbot
Big
atel ite caocqupiesriation.
Negotiate areas, for
and
adjacent
from
upstream and
lands
pirnoastercitmion
teasrnative of
seek
aSame
3,
lexcept land
NPS
aexpansion
cquisition
education
Expand
Island:
Pelotes dland
Prevent
eto
trusesimental boundary
important
to
resource
roadways.
and
kiosk,
area,
new ehabilitate Add
RFort
Island:
George cvisitor
lto
uebnhtoeurs.e
kiosk.
Add
full
marina.
service
through
primarily
resources aintegrity
using
vaiany
lable
cDevelop
omparehensive

fkiosk.
Add
acilities. roadway
plan.
ac es boundary.
the
within maectqhuoidsi.tion

authority.
kiosk.

ad itional
supplement
and
complement
cand
o mraccess
pdrienhaetnesdive, stareasuarine of
wetland
adjacent
the
ein Seek
legal
the
expansion
system.
no
and
Ecsaotgarpbelrimasethnitvse eacquire
agencies
to
xcareaseptional public
that
tValues
hreare
useatened. aSame
1,
lexcept
teas
pursue
rnative
sPEoRUARTIcOEN (ACTION)
NLTERANGETNVCEY RCOEFOR
IA3: PRORTOEPCOTISOEND NPS
cin
poto
arpteiractipvaetley opuotsor
retseoausnrcdeing outlined
authority
the
acquisition
in
for
planning
trroutes
ansportation ipato
land
nrusetunenrcsehips Use
regulation
and
cto
o peration land
CNPS
aocqupiesriation.g
limportant
include
eto
gislation

decisions.
and
policies
throughout
preserve. legislation.
preserve's

Provide
Island:
Pelotes
as istance aSame
1,
give
lexcept
teasrnative
PRESERVE
THE
ALTERNATIVE
2:
emphasis
sto
uapc oersting (from
lands
those
only
Acquire
LAAND
BAs
A
ORATORY and/
the
enhance
support
or the
op porteusneirtvies.
in
expanding
trails.
in
nature eodpucoartiuoniatlies. would
that
sellers)
willing
redeuscaetaironcahl
and
CLAsSRO M
aSame
1.
lteas
rnative aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

C1:
AOLNTEIRNUATIVOEN by
proposals
trroute
ansportation
MEAXOF
NIASGETMIENGT Provide
other
eto
ntaicties. make
Cto
ocnmtienutes rland
plans,
and
eguse
ulations, authority
adcqiutiosniatlion
the
other
and
city
agencies
on be
recnot
ommay
endations sel ers limited
willing
(from
and
only) wetas
basis
alands
on
and
coon
amc enst
any sAcquire
uplands
ignificant follow
ato
djmoreustments and
features
natural
closely
famcainlaigteamtent.
No
Coto
and
consult
ntinue NPS
realizing
proposals, enabling
the
by
allowed
(NO
ACITON)
Seek
boundary
minor
NPSaroewanse.d

legislation.
adopted. required.

DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT USE

LAND
AND ADJUSTMENTS AMENDMENTS
ACCESS
AND PROTECTION LEGISLATIVE
TRANSPOR BOUNDARY
PHYSICAL
(CONT-l AND/OR
TATION

,
 Emphasizes
i61-66
Mand
positions.
p4566
OnaoPcisEnliRtuAatdTiIeonOdsNns.
3135
41-45
RHOATNECETMEINOTN, NATIONAL
ANLVTIERONAM'EIN'TIAVLE EPNAND
E4:
RETHROUGH
STORATION
MSERVICE
PARK
ANAGEMENT aa1
also
2;
Same
ltendrasnatives m$3.2
and
annually
$29
ito
l ion
of
all
Generally
staffing
level
NPS
direct
achieving
Emphasizes
OmCOSTS
in
apat
iean
nratgatienimseonts

omparehensive pcronecse srivoneswide

cdevelop

plan.
management

of
adds
acceptable
level
ao1;
however,
major
in
lpterarsnoaurtcievis.eons

corepaseravteiwviedley
pdevelop staffing
of
adds
however,
Range
Cmajor
Fort
caround
centering
1;
oarprogram.
apoelriantei,ve NPS
of
degree
the
Pmlanvteartgsieounms.ent
Kingsley
The
IA3: SPEORUARTICOEN (PROPOSED
NLTERANGETNIVCEY RCOEFOR PAc'noN)
ROTECTION
cFort
for
fbudget
94
FY
ito
support
onmaobpniecnrieadtlors
aaSame
also
1
2;
lteas
ndrnatives and
m$2.9
$6.2
annually
to
il ion depends
NPS
direct
of
degree
Tdohueon
eRthe
and cprogram.
area,
soaetdvioernlaetl the
CpTis
andariemrmanage
ouslceuriucenavse. \s
plan.
cmonacnesagieonmsent

Use
coto
tour
operate
nces ioners
PALRTESRNEARTVE
THE
2:
$1.75
annually
million
$2.1
to
LABAND
As
A
ORATORY

fulfill
boats
that
sites
to of oedbujceactionves
CLAS RO M

alternative.

cotour
Use
operate
to
nces ioners
C1:
AOLNTEIRNUATIVOEN and
annually
million
$1.3
$1.6
to ap ranoximately
with
$872,000
MEAXNor
IASGETMIENGT

NPS
between
boats
sites.
(NO
ACTION)
a18.5
of
FTE
uthorized

employees.

DBCRIFTION CONCES IONS STAFFING

AND DEVELOPMENT
$1E542S,T190I2785M391A,T8139E05D0
COSTS

,
 IENTHAND
EARPNRCETAMT,EINOT SERVICE
PARK
NAnoNAL
THROUGH would
Rlands
ehnot
aboiclitautrio.n quality
achieve
would
incanrease
in for
raerstpiocnipsaitbiloen
ptotally
in would
done
cbe
anot
son
ae-by-case staffing aapproach
in
lmtearnagtievme nt
be
Naetrivoincael
SThe
Park
would pregulatory
involve
that
roce dings depending
and
buton
basis, be
would
of
level
result
protection
a This athan
in
3.
is
lgreater
ternative with
problems
the
should
overcome
din
of
the
ispatruebsaesdrve proptrecsteirnvge of
and
managing providing
arsesuroaunrces ,
bemaconeagency
naugseme nt
P4:
ARLTOETRENCATIVOEN, dPrivate
evon
perleospemrevnet natural
and
of
quantity
preserve Partpeirsoceuirscpeas.trivoen would
National
The
Service
Park of
long-term
proptrecsteirovne end
the
alexcept
3,
that
ternative
mandates
conicting
could
that
funding,
than
less
be
would
it responsibility
broad
have
for alands
NPS
with
in
c ordance
be
could
lmpacts
similar
to ocvoerpbeurdaetnive
the
'MANAGEMENT

alternative
3. objectives.
resources.

3.

PRoA3:
LTERcNAnTIOVEN, IEN'HANo.EARPNECI,AMIE'NOT, nmpositive
impacts
oadtoneuratle cwould
and
improve
oment
rdination ecological
mapreserve
annagement
as
devon
Private
land
perleospemrevnet would
land
adjacent
the
but
continue,
erin
that
alter
setdoveriumacted
of
rThe
a2.
neagusetnduilvaetsory and
1 psauthority
etranfdoarmdasnce eunit,
of
goal
the
with
liminating marnesaogurecme nt and
would
Natural conot
but
piecemeal
berdinated,
rcin
with
private
eodmubcitnieodn through
of
co manage
useperative as ociated
risks
reduce
would
with the
of
protection
ecpreserve
osystem.
eand
snevnion
srointmievnetal y deamount
of
be
would
velopment Capouelthroamrti tioensing
of bresult
through
positive
in
enefits
(MACn...
APNRAOGPEOMESNETD casresporwe
basis.
a
on
e-by-case Cwould
omapneargaetmievnet fragmentation.
habitat
of
problem
COTPHERAOIU'GVHE be
would
effects
preservewide.
result
din
would
evelopment effect
Ultimate
the
be
would

TABLE
ESUMMARY
IMPACTS
4:
NVOF
IRONMENTAL

resources.

PA2:
THE
LRTAsERSNEARTIVE CLAA
AND
BOSRARTORMY development
the
be
would
trends adverse
slightly
be
would
impacts
Cprivate
of
ocntuirnuaetinotn a1;
however,
ltesame
asmative emphasis
the
of
because
less
on
eduas
public
rceastoiurocne
a

pstrategy.
rotection a1.
Same
lteas
mative Same
a1.
lteasrnative a1.
Same
lteasrnative

CA1:
oLNTnENRuATIoVNE would
National
The
Service
Park nin
matrneusaroguaerclme nt jin
the
with
agencies
urisdiction would
be
piece
cto
oon
natinue cmeal protected
beroveresources
may
of
Cprivate
ocntuirnuaetinotn and be
would
marnesaoguercme nt lacking
basis,
o rdination
MEAxor
NIAsGTEMIENGT preserve dcresult
development would
within
trends adjacent
the
to in
oengtrianduaetdion quality
aof
and
twater
endant
cparsoon
aecebyd-icnasges and
would
basis
be
expensive rthe
other
elon
piraenscerve; Natural
marneasoguercme nt
short-term,
the
long-term
but
regulatory
Pin
articipating control
minimal
have
over natural
direct
for
preserve leaas
and
result,
adership;
might
be
pnot
rotection
ACTION)
(No

biota.
impacts
on time-consuming.
problematic.
adequate.

TOPIC
IMPACT
REsouRcEs
NATURAL

,,
 IENTAND
EHRAPNRECTAMTIEONT, SERVICE
NPARK
ATI RONUGAIL
PALRTOETRENCAIT OvEN,
4:

(No
ACTION)
M(CLAuPNAND
BA
tRAOsGRPEARMTOoESNREMTYD

a3.
Same
lteas
rnative aSame
3.
lteas
rnative aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

IENTAND
HERAPNRECTEAMTIEONT, pendangered
species
reon
a
servewide only
with
of
loss
0.96
0.16
acre,
acre
staff
small
plan,
(CONT.)
of
lack
plan
well
size,
maas
rnesaogurecme nt emphasis
More
rpersoeursces.rve
on would
knowledge
for
basis
serve
a
as dwould
there
Kingsley,
At
isturbance.
result
would
This
basis.
long-term
in
of
sphnot
rorets-eotucertemis,on 1.46acres of
totaling
loss
habitat
Minor with
Caroline,
Fort
0.42
at
acre
new hammock
habitat
Minor
com unity.
adasioveretlioinael
bknowledge rwould
offset
be
ehto
abnewilitated
PA3:
RLOTERENCATIVOEN, About
land
of
Ro acre
0.16
sevelt. acres, About
about
with
of
1.46
acres
new dof
0.5
land
istuacrerbance.
COTPHEROATUIGVHE of
absence
pThe
CNATURAL
would
romea
aspneargvaetwmiedvnet natural
Rpdevelop
EmrSaerOasneUaRorgCuverEcmSweindte for
other
plans
iwater
mportant slong-ten~n
impacts
igonnificant
have
Resprogram
would
earch elong-range
cfoenctinvueing be
loss
habitat
minor
2.36
totaling
a rehto
be
would
help
abilitated dthe
threastoeurnceds
and dhiato
the srtudrwboancde diat
Theodore
stnew
urbance mitigate
istnewurbance.
amdonititonrailng.
This

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

management.

benefits.

A21
PRESERVE
THE
LTAs
ERNATIVE

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative a3.
Same
lteas
rnative aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

CA1:
OLNTEIRNUATIOVNE
impacts
positive
maonnagement Ro sevelt
Theodore
the
Caroline, the
be
awould
ltesame
as
rnative
closses
of
leading
size,
rto
itical Pdisturb
would
about
lantation
EMxAor
NIAsGTEIMENGT authority
limited
and
funding, and
stability,
population
range have
would
Resprogram
earch
resprogram
this
because mited Ndata
earch lwould
obtaining
be
ito bPaSson-emlainaeged
natural
Impacts
ronesources and
Plaarea,
Kingsley
ntation Cboat
of
docks
oat
nstruction
chdin
oeancbdlitniaeotsn, habitat, and
fragmen
population local
etation,
xtirpations.
natural
of
NPS
atresources bpraeselrivnewide
data Caroline
Fort
Kingsley
and of
0.17
bottom
rivacreerine
result
cwould
in
ontinued managed
However,
areas. dFort
from
eat
velopment
useful,
of
lack
the
areas,

would
continue.

habitat.

3.

IMPACT
TOPIC

>I
 "IENTAND
EHRAPNRECTEAMTEIONT, SERVICE
NPARK
ATHIRONUAGLH fTalbot
Island
SBig
action
eliltietse of
mimpacts
because
mainly
oderate
l-. a DPoint
Cedar
would
eat
velopment disturb
about
Thomas
45
at
acres; Fort
acres NPS
and
120
disturb
would
Marina These
r5
esnewpacres,
ectively. dof
magnitude
the
evelopments.
PI O'I4:
ALETCERIN.AITONIAVE;~ about
Creek
and
23
at
acres; rand
0.1-0.2
espacre,
acresectively.
0.5-0.7
about
Island
George
acre. disturb
would
Island
Pelotes
and
23 and
Creek
Memorial
Park
Sisters
bemore future
would
clearly
Impacts ddefined
in
evelopment plans/
enconcept
vironmental
Redevelopment
Huguenot
of din
result
would
evelopments
MANAGEMENT these
for
sites.
as es ments

aSame
3.
lteasrnative

iENTHAND
ERAPNRECrAM'nEoNT, would
Memcauseorial
Huguenot
Park
(MPANRAOGPEOMSENETD
ACTION) rvisitor
fof
aeat
cdielvietlioepsment dImpacts
minimal
would
isturbance. of
the
south
and
central,
north,
areas
defined
future
be
clearly
inmorea
PA3:
RLOTERNCATIOVNE, kAdding
the
initoesrlprcestive
in
COTPHEROATUIGVHE would
minimal
preserve
cause
pPin
NPS
aorteinctipaltion
velopment enavsireosnmenta.l
deconcept
plan/

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

disturbance.

PRESERVE
THE
ALAS
2:TERNATIVE Authority
expanding
public
its
on
CLAAND
BA
OSRARTORYM interpretive central,
Adding
kiosks
the
in north,
south
and
ofareas JElectric
ato
sckisotnavciel e
Pelotes
edat
ucprogram
ational isturbance. future
dImpacts
be
would defined
clearly
in
more
a
should
Island
minimal
cause envaisroensmenmteanlt,
if
the
providing
and
preserve,
deconcept
plan/
velopment

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

neces ary.

CA1:
OLNTETRNUATIVOEN and
Dat
Point
Cedar
evelopment urbance. future
dImpacts
would
istnew defined
be
clearly
in
more
MAOF
EXISTING
NAGEMENT however,
limited
be
would
this envaisreosnmentasl
for
disturb
would
Creek
Thomas
34
plans/
dconcept
evelopment
of
and
land
water;
acres
ACnON)
(No

the
sites.

TOPIC
IMPACT
RESOURCES
NATURAL
(CONT.)

[,
 CAIE1:
OLNTAND
HERAIPNRCUEATEAMITEVONT, funding.
of
result
swould
This
lands.
iin
and
prdegntocasnitef ifcacvtiteoinaontn
AMEPARK
SNC2:
PLXOATEor
THE RNAs
ITARPHSGIENVRTAOEMINRTUCAVGTELH
depending
high
others
Cpidroto
enhance
would
aefforts
nmon
ciotprneiraoscintaetislroeinsv,;e I
I.
9"
It
I!
I\0Q
p.
!\
III
!I\A
q
l\
na;pQa1~1Rasp\.. L
P4:
ARLOT"ERCNTAITOINVE, Cunder
NPS
best
that
would
receive
UuLlrTtesUuoRruAarcLels iwould
eRthat
the
theme
pclnEto
in OrstUneaimRregnCsaceEtuatmSeldinotn of
mvorSicaunoover iwould
funding
and
staff
level
the
r3
proposed
aareceive
2.
in
1letcepsamendrenfaietvisevsrve ICSwould
under
aand
Reprndcufenot
be talschoretarsoucipelrotcnaegtdliescoavnle
aimpacts
bfunding
celunleon
long-term,
the
throughout
rotfwsiuoceruidac.els suffer
NPS
might
by
aemphasize
of
the
throughout
funding
would
vmamount
apinrlaeogbselrmeavmnest
iPublic
of
lack
cfrom
and
eheritage.
level
the
by
preceive
dnurtype
cltorictfeaiuctarcsiateodilnon.
TOPIC
ACI1ON)
IMPACT
L(NO
MCACTION)
(ALPA
BNAND
AR'OSGAPERTMOESORNEMTYD

caSame
All
NPS
under
1.
lutleras
tsnuoartiacvels DC1.
aSame
Fort
leaat
tvreasonlaotipnvme,nt
of
cregardless
ownership.
ulrpetrsuoerscaeslr.ve,

local
might
pcrioamong
mtaewiasezrucrnets.ion
aespecially
rto
chresoulrocegsi.cal
PALRTOETRENCATIVOEN,
32 of
ad
between
presult
because
the
cin
roaegsmay
preroevgamrteainomtngs but
lead
also
might
to
resources,
hoc
landdpriorevorsiweodnuseraclesr,ve and
approach
neighbors,
iagencies
the
anto pIPark
SNadopting
vrnaeioctrsiveotiacnstareisl.don.
proactive
iwillful
damage,
nador
vertent
result
impacts
positive
inon

Ro area,
Theodore
the
andsevelt
Kingsley
P(e.g.,
roads,
lantation eological Atesting
affect
arextant
chany rcrhesoulrcoegs.ical reshtarbucitluirteas.ting
historic
and
house
carriage
Jai
Anna Kingsley
Phouse
lat
antation gstuaindearldisnes
and
for
parking
trails,
would
areas)
eand
cvatleugaotreidzed Rin
work
the
ehabilitation follow
would
ap ropriate
be
should
management according
for
cto
riteria
performed.
be
would

significance.

Z,
 IENTAND
EHRAPRNECTEATMIEONT, PARK
SERVICE
NATIONAL
THROUGH and
would
the
bthis
edue
visitor
asNPS
impacts
expansion
PUBLIC
lhxtto
noapAND
on
ernftdir-acitreadvrnlsemc,;e cblong-term
be
would
in
due
lack
result
Tportation
impacts
exist
oeto
RmnApeNrfSeiPhceOinRas-live of rAmitigated
land
future
public
acquired.
be
would
aefcsEqiCeudOciNetsOnMeitIdstCion smbenefit
would
local
the
have
positive
ioto
gdencirofanitcoeamnyt.
rand
cplanning
direct
the
scale
land
impacts
eoswater
TATION
pron
doinsaitbiolnity NPS
the
result
end
The
mitigate.
tto
agencies.
systems.
ranamong
sportation A1,000
from
homes
aSame
the
base
private
impacts
Negative
1.
Impacts
SOCIO-
pltax
teron
asonxaitmiavte ly for
and
homes
their
of
would
regulation
possible
value
market
rceopayments-
qnutirneuments
P4:
ARLOTERNCATIOVEN, provide
would
CeAlthough
efforts
NPS
have
Visitor
and
sVISITOR
dmouexacmore
rpnavteigroceainmteslinvcte be
bishould
encean
rfeiacsiaeld rdue
Other
bthese
long-term
and
short-
impacts
eto
snionedfnits. would
Same
c1.
aNPS
olcntseas
itrvniuatcievosen
minimum
blong-term
slikely
would
under
and
short-
Eexist
oeiXpnnot
meet
gPeEnofRriItcfEuiNnaCcilEtainets and
Caimpacts
The
design
planning
mnegative
Direct,
Same
1.
ACCESS
trans
oltAND
aredon
asceinraetistevd
fair
crand
be
would
for
enin
by
EoNedfmVgoIua
Law
provision
service prlRceOitNngmiMseEoanNbtTled. inegative
smwould
cnhouedfrmieptsrc-lditaeitcnraemt.,ieodn
jand
have eiimpacts
and
the
be
would
lower
nfcosameasrisecatsie.dncy local
the
impacts
eonconomy.
would
iin
rChanges
resulting
be
ncecosts,
-to
loiuencrt-oaif-tneiaunxoestn.
MC(LlMrACr
ACTION)
(No
TOPIC
APNAND
ABA
ROSGREPARMTOESNORETMYD

Mpositive
Same
local
athe
3.
Minor
1.
impacts
lotdeas
onrenratitve Marsh
Little
and
Creek
Sherman
aSame
1.
Minor
lteasrnative

cavisitor
better
of
and
be
sthe
impacts
negative
USE
1.
oletreas
dsame
on
vinacteisvo.en
alternative
3.
impact.

IENTAND
HERAPNRECTEAMTIEONT, local
from
result
would
inceconomy
reases
PA3:
LRTOETRENCATIVOEN, staffing.
and
incexpenses
operating
in erxepasens es
COTHROUGH
PERATIVE

public
would
oepxuseporectruinret.niecse.

PRESERVE
THE
ALAs
2:TERNATIVE

C1:
AOLNTEIRNUATIVOEN iuplands
pnosigsneisficiangt
EMXAOF
NIASGTEMIENGT
of
about
exclude
260
acres
Island
would
aAdjustments natural
values.
cultural
or

staffing.
and

ADlUSTMENTS
BOUNDARY

>1
 IENTAND
EHRAPRNECTEATMIEONT, SERVICE
PARK
NATIONAL
THROUGH

P4:
ARLOTETRENCAnTIOVNE,

MANAGEMENT

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative aSame
1.
lteas
rnative aSame
3.
lteasrnative aSame
3.
lteas
rnative aSame
3.
lteas
rnative

IENTAND
HERAPNRCETAMTEIONT, by
better
provide
pecosystem
rotection of
boundary
the
moving
outpreserve boundary
the
within
curesroeurnctes
ebe
without
sicannot
tncirmeatsed aThe
Hill
would
Pumpkin
djustment Athe
uplands
dto
iptrieosnearlvye,. potential
be
the
have
that
to
greatest
ACTION)
(MAPNRAOGPEOMESNETD the
in
preserve;
acreage significant
of
4,000
about
add
acres
would
aNassau
County
djustment wetland ailed would
high
detmean
the
of surveys adwater
This
line.
justment could
aThese
boundary
djustments three
of
aresult
in
to
cup
quisition
P3:
ARLOTERENCATIOVEN, singcnriefiacsaently
the aprivate
dby
efvelcotpemdnt.
COTPHEROATUIGVHE River.
Nassau
of
middle
the
athis
would
protect
djustment

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative a1.
Same
lteas
rnative
rprivate
esidences.

PRESERVE
THE
A2:
LAs
TERNATIVE
CLAAND
BA
OsRARTORMY

aSame
1.
lteas
rnative aSame
1.
lteas
rnative

impacts.
No

C1:
AOLNTEIRNUATIVOEN about
by
the
inpacreage
reserve ahDrainage
edajduwsatmernts
MEAXOF
NIASGETMIENGT WEThe
oxnpderewso dway acres. natural
the
have
lands
These
300 significant
for
potential spirgontiefictainotn
for
plant
swould
ingcnoirfpiocrante
aidnjcruesatsme nt
would provide
could
thatpreserve teand
hnrdeantegnerded,
the
winto
ertelsoaurncdes
ACTION)
(NO and
comrare,
unities
culortural
Values.

No
impacts.

species.

TOPIC
IMPACT
Adjustments Adjustments

Minor Major
(cont.)

IV,
 TIMUCUAN
E( ()H )( il( Al AND HISTi )RNI PRESERVF.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

1;
.~ , ~'

. --TDF
1' ~ II"
~4 __

t.. .9 -
.- x - .
a I

- ,.- q ~
. ..
.~
"2'" a .. v
*0 .-
om- :i ..ll.
h: _ -
. -_-~''
. .
-~_-
L's, . . .
. . e _
.. . s ~ .
Ci- . -
7 .
\
- '.\
..-u~\-:\:
J.
- ,-el- . -~ ,... ,
.
-

7
-
;..
 INTRODUCTION
The section that follows is intended to serve
two purposes. An exhaustive search for
existing, current information was conducted
by the project team. The first function of this
section, therefore, is to provide a
comprehensive summary of existing data
obtained from all sources and to act as
"finding guide" for information. As such it
will be a resource for the park and for others
who manage the lands and waters in and
around the preserve.
107
The second function for this section is to
describe the environment to be affected by
the proposed management strategies as
required by the National Environment Policy
Act. Because this environmental impact
statement is programmatic, the information
presented is as comprehensive as possible,
yet broadly based.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
The climate of the northeast Florida coastal
region is under a pronounced maritime
inuence. The proximity of the Gulf Stream
moderates seasonal temperatures. Thus, the
area has a humid, warm, temperate to
semitropical climate characterized by long
summers with heavy rainfall and relatively
mild and dry winters. The hottest months
are from June through August (normal daily
maximum temperature - 89F), and the
coolest months are from December through
February (normal daily maximum
temperature - 67F).
The temperate and subtropical zones are
separated by an average annual minimum
temperature line of 28.8F, which intersects
the coast about 10 miles south of New
Smyrna Beach. This line approximates the
northern limit for citrus production. Above
the line near Jacksonville, temperatures fall
to freezing or below about 12 times a year.
Average annual rainfall ranges from 49
inches to about 55 inches, with over 50%
falling between June and September. Most
summer rainfall comes from thunderstorms
of short duration, which can be expected to
occur almost every other day. Ocean breezes
tend to retard the movement of rainstorms
from west to east so that the amount of rain
falling directly along the coast is less than in
the interior regions.
For northeast Florida winds during the fall
and winter months are from the northeast.
Spring and summer winds are predomi
nately from the south and east along the
southern end of the northeast region and
southwesterly at the northern end. Winds
average 8-11 miles per hour (mph) and are
2-3 mph higher during early afternoon than
in early morning. Most hurricanes reaching
these latitudes tend to move parallel to the
coastline, keeping well out to .sea or losing
much of their force before moving over land.
108
Hurricane season is from June 1 through
November 30.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality is a major concern because the
preserve is located in a large and growing
metropolitan area. Mobile and stationary
sources contribute to air quality degradation.
There are 34 major permitted stationary
sources of air pollution in Duval County,
most of which are located in the vicinity of
the preserve, including a kraft pulp mill and
the largest coal-fired power plant in Florida.
There are several other sources in north
eastern Florida as well as along the nearby
Georgia coast.
One present controversy involves the
construction of a new 250 megawatt (MW)
coal-fired power plant (cogeneration station)
near the western boundary of the preserve.
The original owner, AES Power Company,
has sold the project to another power
company, US. Generating. US. Generating
has agreed to mitigate future impacts by
providing funds both initially and over the
long term. These funds would be used to
acquire sensitive areas within Duval County.
Preserve lands are a top priority for
acquisition.
Timucuan has been designated a class II
clean air area under the Clean Air Act.
Moderate, well-planned industrial growth
may be permitted in the vicinity of the
preserve as long as the class II maximum
allowable increases for particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and
nitrogen are not exceeded.
As a national preserve over 10,000 acres in
size, Tmucuan could be redesignated to
class I by the state of Florida following
health, environmental, economic, social, and
energy impact studies and a public hearing.
Class I designation would allow greater

protection of preserve resources from
adverse air pollution impacts through more
stringent increments and other air quality
permit requirements.
Timucuan is located in the Jacksonville,
Florida-Brunswick, Georgia, Interstate Air
Quality Control Region. As of July 1, 1993,
the US. Environmental Protection Agency
classified all Of Duval County as
nonattainment (i.e., does not meet the
primary national ambient air quality
standards) for ozone.
There are 14 air monitoring sites in Duval
County including several near the western
edge of the preserve. Among the pollutants
being monitored are total suspended
particulates, PM-1O, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.
No resource inventory has been conducted
in the preserve to identify air pollution
sensitive resources such as visibility, plants,
animals, soils, water quality, or historic and
cultural Objects and structures. However,
past inventories of plant species at Pelotes
and Fort George Islands have identified
several species that are sensitive to ozone
and / or sulfur dioxide. These include certain
pines and hardwoods, orchids and other air
breathing plants, grapes, and poison ivy.
While odors may not pose a physical health
risk to humans, they unquestionably have an
effect on the human environment.
Objectionable odors have been and continue
to be a problem in the Jacksonville area.
However, the city of Jacksonville has
adopted a comprehensive city ordinance
providing guidelines and enforcement tools
to identify facilities, such as pulp mills, that
emit objectionable odors.
PHYSIOGRAPI-IY
Northeast Florida lies in the lower part of
the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Land forms in the
Coastal Plain include barrier islands,
lagoons, estuaries, coastal ridges, sand dune
109
Natural Environment
ridges, and relict spits and bars with
intervening valleys.
The preserve lies mainly within the St.
Marys Meander Plain, a subdivision of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain, except for the area
immediately south of St. Johns River called
the Eastern Valley. At Jacksonville the St.
Johns River turns eastward to the sea, and
immediately north of the river the terrain
changes. To the south the dominant geomor
phic factors have been marine, but to the
north of this rather sharp boundary, the
dominant factor seems to have been the
meandering of a plexus of muddy, sediment
laden streams.
Within the confines of the Meander Plain are
the Nassau and St. Marys Rivers and their
network of abandoned channels and
tributaries. In a regional way the St. Marys
Meander Plain is the southern end of a large
section of the coast known as the Sea
Islands, which extend from the north bank of
the St. Johns River to the Santee River in
South Carolina. The name Sea Islands
derives from a barrier chain that is separated
from the mainland by meandering tidal
creeks that apparently resulted from a
mixture of uvial and tidal sedimentation in
salt marshes between beach ridges. Fort
George and Big and Little Talbot Islands are
typical Sea Islands, and the meandering tidal
creeks that connect the Nassau and St. Johns
Rivers in a zone immediately landward of
these islands are typical of the sediment
dominated estuaries of the entire Sea Island
coastal section to the north. The islands
absorb much of the energy from tides and
waves and allow sediments from the
mainland rivers to be deposited in the
sheltered areas behind the islands.
Other islands (e.g., Burton Island, Broward
Islands, and Pelotes Island), in addition to
the barrier islands, are scattered throughout
the estuarine systems. These islands are of
various origins. Some of the hammock
(forested) islands are remnants of old barrier
islands formed in the past during periods of
higher sea level. Others may have been
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
separated from larger islands by erosion.
Most of the marsh islands are alluvial
deposits dissected and shaped by estuarine
drainage systems.
The preserve is geologically young and has
been changed by deposition and erosion.
Topographically, northeast Florida is
composed of ancient marine terraces, parallel
to the coast, which were formed during the
Pleistocene Epoch when the sea level rose
and fell several times. The marine terraces
corresponding to these Pleistocene shorelines
are named Wicomico (100 feet above sea
level {asl}), Penholoway (70 feet asl), Talbot
(42 feet asl), and Pamlico (25 feet asl). The
Pamlico terrace water shoreline is the most
extensive plain in Florida. Between these
ridges are poorly drained swales through
which present day rivers and streams course.
One of the causes of sea level oscillations
must have been the alternate withdrawal
from and return to the sea of great quantities
of water during the Pleistocene Epoch or
Great Ice Age. Although the Pleistocene ice
sheets stopped far north of Florida, the
oscillations of sea level induced by their
advances and retreats profoundly inuenced
the topography of Florida, as evidenced by
the marine terraces. Each time the sea level
dropped, a part of the sea oor was left
exposed as a level plain or terrace. Over
time, the level plains of the terraces were
modified or destroyed by stream erosion.
Sand dunes on the barrier islands were
formed by sand deposits and shaped by a
combination of wind, waves, and tidal
currents. As the wind-blown sand was
trapped by vegetation, dune ridges formed.
The dunes eventually became stabilized by
salt-tolerant vegetation.
The preserve is at predominately at sea
level or below 5 feet in elevation and salt
marsh comprises most of the area. The
majority of the uplands are 1020 feet with
30-40 feet elevations on small areas of
Pelotes Island and Fort George Island. St.
Johns Bluff, a relict dune near Fort Caroline,
110
is about 90 feet in elevation and is probably
the highest point in the preserve.
GEOLOGY
Duval County is underlain by Pleistocene
(11,000 to 2,000,000 years old) to recent
undifferentiated sediments comprising
quartz sands and scattered clay lenses
holding shells and soft clay marl. The
Pleistocene sediments of northern Florida are
of marine origin and occur as a series of
terraces (as described above) overlain by
sediments of freshwater. Below these soils,
Pliocene (2 million years to 13 million years
old) and Late Miocene (1325 million years
old) unconsolidated sand shell, clay, and
limestone are present. The limestone at the
base of these deposits is the major water
yielding zone of the surficial aquifer.
Beneath the surficial aquifer, the Hawthorne
Formation, of Middle Miocene age, consists
of gray to olive-green clay, sandy clay, and
sandy limestone containing abundant
interbeded phosphatic sand, limestone, and
dolomites. This formation ranges between
300 and 500 feet in thickness and functions
as an aquatard (confining bed) between the
surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan
aquifer. The Hawthorne Formation is
underlain by Eocene (650 million years old)
limestone.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Ancient beach sands contain commercial
quantities of rutile, ilemite, zircon, and
staurolite. In the past years, strip mining
operations for these heavy minerals occurred
in the south beaches area near the Duval-St.
Johns County boundary and along the
ridgeline generally followed by Southside
Boulevard and Alternate US. Highway 1.
These deposits are no longer worked.
Deposits of fuller's earth are known to exist
in northeast Florida, generally along the
alignment of the St. Johns River. However,

no commercial workings of these deposits
are known in the vicinity of the preserve.
SOILS
Soils of northeast Florida are partly
sedimentary and partly derived from
underlying formations (City of Jacksonville,
Planning Department 1990b). The major
source of Pleistocene sediments is probably
the Piedmont Region of the South
Appalachian Mountains, where materials
were moved southward by streams and
long-shore currents. Little or no silt or clay
have accumulated farther south than the St.
Johns River inlet because Florida upland
rocks do not weather to produce such
materials, and no northeast Florida rivers
drain true interior areas like the Piedmont
Region. The presence of relatively large
quantities of clay, coupled with low to
moderate wave-energy levels may account
for the salt marsh Sea Islands of South
Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida.
Five major soil associations, usually a
composite of specific soils, occur within the
preserve boundary (see Preserve Soil
Associations map). Most of the salt marsh
area of Timucuan is composed of Tisonia
mucky peat soil. The salt marsh is saline in
most places but is brackish where small
feeder streams enter it. This soil is ooded
daily by tides. It has a surface of peat and a
water table from 0.0 to 2.0 feet above ground
surface. Permeability ranges from less than
0.6 to 20 inches per hour. This soil type has
severe limitations for dwellings, commercial
buildings, roads and streets, septic tank
absorption fields, and sewage lagoons.
The Leon-Ridgeland-Wesconnett soil type is
made up of broad areas of atwoods
interspersed with shallow depressions and
large drainageways. The natural vegetation
of the atwoods is slash pine, longleaf pine,
saw palmetto, gallberry, wax myrtle, and
fetterbush. Native grasses include lopsided
Indian grass, pineland threeawn, panicum,
and bluestems. The depressions and
111
Natural Environment
drainageways generally remain in native
vegetation consisting of cypress, bay,
magnolia, sweetgum, blackgum, cabbage
palm, and pond pine. This soil type has a
fine sand surface texture and the water table
is 1.0 to 1.5 feet below the surface. The
permeability rate is 0.6 to 20 inches per hour.
Ridgeland soil has a moderate limitation for
roads and streets, and severe limitations for
dwellings, commercial buildings, septic tank
absorption fields, and sewage lagoons.
Mandarin-Kureb soil is made up of slightly
elevated areas of atwoods surrounded by
or adjacent to broad ridges. In the elevated
atwoods areas, second-growth vegetation
includes slash pine, scrub oak, saw palmetto,
rosemary, and dwarf huckleberry. Native
grasses include various bluestems. The broad
ridges have natural vegetation of scrub oak,
greenbrier, and scattered saw palmetto.
Native grasses include pineland threeawn,
creeping bluestem, lopsided Indian grass,
panicum, and paspalum. This soil type has a
sand surface texture, and the water table is
greater than 1.5 feet from the surface.
Permeability ranges from 0.6 to 20 inches per
hour. Limitations range from slight to
moderate for dwellings, commercial
buildings, and streets and roads. For septic
tank absorption fields the Mandarin soil has
severe limitations, whereas the Kureb soil
has only slight limitations. Both have severe
limitations for sewage lagoons.
The Kershaw-Ortega soil type includes
excessively drained and moderately well
drained soils that are sandy throughout. It is
made up of broad, nearly level to sloping
ridges interspersed with narrow, wet sloughs
that generally parallel the ridges. Natural
vegetation is turkey oak, blackjack oak, and
second-growth slash pine and longleaf pine.
Native grasses include pineland threeawn,
panicum, and grassleaf goldaster. This soil
type is the most suited to development, and
comprises most of the land on Fort George
Island. It has a surface texture of sand and
the water table is greater than 3.5 feet. The
permeability rate is greater than 20 inches
per hour. It has slight to moderate
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
limitations for dwellings, commercial
buildings, roads and streets, and septic tank
absorption fields.
The Aquic Quartizipsammets-Fripp soil type
(not shown on Preserve Soil Classification
map because of limited extent) occurs only
along the Atlantic beaches and contains
excessively drained and moderately well
drained soils that are sandy throughout;
some have been modified by dredging and
earth-moving operations. It is made up of a
series of long ridges and nearly level areas
that have been reworked by man. Natural
vegetation is mostly sea oats, scrub oak, and
cabbage palm on the ridges and side slopes
and wax myrtle in the swales. Vegetation is
mostly sparse. The water table for this soil is
less than 40 inches below the surface. Surface
texture is fine sand to sand, and it has a
permeability of 6.0 to 20.0 inches per hour.
Although this soil type is only slightly
limited for dwellings, roads and streets, and
septic tank absorption fields, there is
minimal development on this soil type
within Duval County.
Through coordination with the US.
Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, it has been determined
that the preserve is located within the
urbanized area of Jacksonville, which does
not satisfy the definition of farmland as
defined in 7 CFR 658; therefore, the
provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy
Act of 1984 relative to prime and unique
farmlands do not apply to this project.
ESTUARIES
[The information presented in this section
and in the subsequent sections on "Water
Resources" and "Water Quality" relied
heavily on the information contained in
Durako et al. (1988)].
Timucuan includes the seaward conuence
of the Nassau and St. Johns Rivers, which
forms an extensive estuarine system of
predominately salt marsh, coastal hammock,
112
and marine and brackish waters. Some of the
salt marsh habitat is among the least
disturbed remaining on the Atlantic Coast.
Estuaries are vital ecological links between
inland freshwater habitats and the oceans.
However, many of these estuaries and
associated habitats (especially salt marshes)
have been poorly studied. Timucuan is no
exception. Available data have not been
widely disseminated nor, in many cases,
synthesized into a coherent body of
knowledge available to other scientists or to
decision makers. This seems counter
productive since about one-half of the
nation's fisheries catch comes from the
southeastern region of the Atlantic Coast.
An estuary may be defined as a semi
enclosed body of water that has a free
connection with the sea, and within which
seawater is measurably diluted by fresh
water from land drainage. The freshwater
inuence differentiates an estuary from a
lagoon, which is simply a coastal zone
depression connected with the sea but
protected by some type of barrier. Estuaries
and lagoons occupy 8090% of the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts of the United States.
Estuaries serve several functions that are
economically and socially important to this
nation.
' They provide important spawning and
nursery habitat for many species of fish
and invertebrates; these species are a
significant portion of the economically
important commercial fishery and coastal
recreational industries.
The majority of sport and commercially
valuable marine fish and shellfish species
are directly dependent on estuarine
wetlands for their survival as a species.
Approximately 72% of the commercial and
74% of the sport species of fish and
shellfish must spend all or part of their
lives in or associated with the estuarine
system.
 Preserve Soil
Downtown
Associations
Jacksonville

Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
006'20015'July 94'DSC

The area of nursery grounds usually
represents only a small portion of the total
estuarine system. For example, of the
approximately 2.3 million acres of
estuaries in North Carolina, only about
75,000 acres have been designated primary
nursery grounds. Also not all primary
nursery areas provide the same levels of
productivity. Major questions still remain
regarding the specific functional aspects of
these shallow zones. Moreover, the
primary nursery areas usually lie at the
downstream end of small tributaries and
are, thus, vulnerable to changes in land
use patterns and water quality
degradation.
From 1987 through 1989 commercial
landings for Duval and Nassau Counties
combined were about 4% of the state of
Florida's Overall commercial landings for
each year. Total landings per year were
approximately 7.47.8 million pounds over
this time period. Whiting, mullet, and
shad ranked highest in finfish landings,
blue crab was most important in
invertebrate landings, and white and rock
shrimp were most in shrimp total
landings. From a different perspective,
over the same time period, Duval County
ranked 4th, 5th, and 6th, respectively, out
of 37 counties for total landings.
Comparing landings of Duval County to
Nassau County, Duval's total landings
were about seven times that of Nassau
over the time period. It is possible that the
greater landings in counties with large
estuarine areas, such as Duval County,
reect to some extent the high
productivity of estuarine environments
there.
They serve as a buffer zone between the
oceans and the land, providing an
important ameliorating zone for storms,
oods, etc. For example, a fringe of salt
marsh only 8 feet wide can reduce wave
energy by over 50%.
They serve as important sinks for
materials, both nutrients and
115
Natural Environment
contaminants, that ow from the land and
human activities, catching these materials
before they reach the ocean.
' They serve as important pathways of
transportation to connect inland commerce
to ocean shipping.
' They are aesthetic mixing pots, attracting
people who support a burgeoning recrea
tional and tourism industry.
Estuarine communities are often
characterized by high productivity, low
species richness and diversity, and high
dominance. It is this productivity, the ability
to capture enough energy to produce a great
volume of living tissue and to pass that
energy along to organisms that humans find
useful, that makes an estuary so
economically valuable. In fact, estuaries are
among the most productive ecosystems on
earth. The high primary production of
estuaries reects their nutrient-rich
conditions and the presence of several
classes of primary producers, including
submerged vascular plants, macro- and
micro-algae and emergent grasses, shrubs,
and trees.
Along the northeast Florida coast most
estuaries are probably well mixed because
average tidal ow exerts a greater force than
does freshwater inow, resulting in a fairly
homogeneous salinity throughout the water
column. However, the St. Johns River
between Jacksonville and the ocean may be
classified as a slightly stratified estuary with
some vertical stratification and some vertical
mixing. Numerous salt springs that drain
into the St. Johns River result in locally
elevated salinities in some upstream areas.
These Springs and the far-reaching tidal
inuence appear to be responsible for the
presence of a number of oceanic fish species
in the river's upper reaches. The St. Johns is
also unusual in that it discharges directly
into the Atlantic Ocean rather than into an
embayment as is typical of most estuaries.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The interaction between tidal and river
ows, which are the dominant physical
processes in an estuary, results not only in
salinity uctuations, but also in water level
uctuations. The latter exposes intertidal
areas to alternating periods of inundation
and drying and to relatively wide
temperature uctuations. Estuarine
organisms have adopted physiological and
behavioral mechanisms to minimize stress
induced by alternate ooding and exposure.
The St. Johns River estuary has a much
greater concentration of nitrate than found in
other East Coast estuaries. This high
concentration is apparently due to a
combination of factors involving prolonged
retention time in the lower river. Some of
this nutrient loading is due to municipal and
industrial input. However, much of the
nitrogen comes from black water drainage.
This swamp drainage is high in organic
nitrogen but relatively low in phosphorus.
Phosphorus appears to be the limiting
nutrient in the St. Johns River estuary. Most
East Coast estuaries studied have been
limited in nitrate.
Salt Marsh Habitat
Estuaries can be considered ecosystems
because they are composed of numerous
subsystems or habitats. The most important
of these habitats is the salt marsh. Salt
marshes are beds of rooted vegetation that
develop along the shorelines of estuaries
where wave energy is low. The vegetation
on higher ground develops a complex
network of branching water channels
through which water, minerals, plankton,
and fishes ow with the tides. This
vegetation consists of a number of species in
the grass (Poaceae), sedge (Cyperaceae), and
rush (Juncaceae) families. Salt marshes are
typically intertidal, occurring from near low
water to mean high water and consequently
can withstand rapid changes in salinity,
drainage, and temperature. This rigorous
environment restricts the number of species
that can inhabit marshes. The plants of a salt
116
marsh must be able to tolerate abrupt
changes in these parameters whereas many
of the animals have evolved mechanisms,
such as burrowing, to avoid them. However,
salt marshes, like the estuaries they
surround, are among the most productive
natural ecosystems in the world.
The optimum development of salt marsh in
the United States is found on the Atlantic
Coast from Cape Lookout, North Carolina,
south to the Jacksonville area, with the most
extensive and well developed from Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina, to Jacksonville. This
latter area includes some of the most
productive salt marshes in the world. These
marshes, often called low marshes, form
behind narrow barrier islands in areas
inuenced by heavy silt deposition from
large rivers. There is a relatively small
amount of open water behind the barrier
islands.
To the casual observer, a salt marsh looks
like a monotonous expanse of grass and
water. However, it is a highly complex and
intricately balanced ecosystem, sometimes
fragile, sometimes very resilient, depending
on which environmental parameter has been
altered and for how long. The complex
pattern of plant and animal distribution
within the salt marsh ecosystem is based on
differences in elevation, depth of tidal
ooding, and salinity. These differences
result in a variety of subhabitats in northeast
Florida salt marshes (see illustration on
Subhabitats of the North Florida Salt March
Ecosystem). All of these subhabitats may be
present at a given site; more frequently,
however, some are missing due to
topographical differences.
The characteristic feature of these marshes is
the vast expanse of smooth cordgrass
(Spartina alterniora), which covers the soft,
grey sediments between mean sea level and
approximately mean high water. These
broad, nearly level expanses of grass and
soft sediment develop, under the inuence of
high tidal amplitudes, dendritic creeks, and
deep tidal channels in vast number, giving

the marshes a dissected pattern when
viewed from the air.
Smooth cordgrass is well adapted to sea
strength salinity and attains its tallest growth
(more than 3 feet) on levees adjacent to creek
bank zones. Inland from this zone, plant
height decreases to a medium size (0.50.6
feet) and then to the inland short form (less
than 0.5 feet). The reduction in plant height
from stream side to inland seems to occur
because of changes in a number of substrate
Embankment
Strand Line
Levee
High Marsh
Creek Side
Creek Bottom
Sub-Habitats of the North Florida
Salt Marsh Ecosystem
[from City of Jacksonville (1984)]
117
Natural Environment
factors such as increased salinity and
decreased nitrogen availability.
The high marsh is dominated by black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), interspersed
at the lower edge with the short form of
smooth cordgrass and at the upper edge or
transition zone with a variety of salt-tolerant
terrestrial plants, such as glasswort
(Salicornia virginica) and Salt grass (Distichlis
spicata). It is generally considered a less
productive zone than the low marsh.
Low Marsh
Mean High Water.
Spring Tide
Tidal Flat
_M_an_ L_ow_Wnter.
Spring Tide
Salt Marsh
Cliff
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Another important feature of the salt marsh
is the intimate relationship that exists
between the marsh and the adjacent waters
of the estuary. Energy fixed in the marsh is
washed out by the tide, in the form of tiny
particles of organic matter called detritus.
These form the food for many animals in the
estuary. The importance of salt marshes to
fisheries production results, for the most
part, from the marshes' high rates of primary
production and their interaction with the
estuary. Other nutrients, such as phosphorus
and nitrogen are exchanged between the
marsh and the estuary.
Habitat loss, especially of wetlands such as
salt marshes, is a national problem. Data
from the National Marine Fisheries Service
indicate that commercial harvests in the
southeastern United States have fallen 42%
since 1982. The decline is largely attributed
to wetland losses, especially in Florida.
Wetland destruction is thought to be the
most significant factor related to catch
declines for this area.
The extent of habitat losses has not been
evaluated for the lower St. Johns
River/Nassau River basins. However, the
Florida Department of Natural Resources has
documented a 36% loss (4,253 acres) of salt
marsh habitat in the Jacksonville/ St. Johns
Inlet area from 1943 to 1984 because of spoil
disposal from channel dredging. Continued
dredging for navigational purposes has
probably contributed to the filling or
siltation of habitats and the alteration of
circulation patterns.
Prior to 1943, extensive losses occurred but
no records are available. In the early 1900s
major impacts resulted from development of
the Intracoastal Waterway and the St. Johns
River navigational channel. Large, once
productive wetlands areas are now filled and
developed or vegetated and are assumed to
be natural by the casual observer.
Rising sea levels will further limit marsh
areas. Along the Atlantic Coast the relative
height of average sea level has increased by
118
about 1 foot in the last 100 years and is
predicted to rise another foot within the next
30 to 40 years. Coastal wetlands hemmed in
by development cannot expand and will
diminish in size due to erosion and ooding.
Other Estuarine Habitats
In northeast Florida, unvegetated subtidal
bottom underlies most open estuarine water
that is too deep for seagrasses but lacking
seagrass cover. Intertidal unvegetated bottom
areas that lie between the extreme spring
high and low tide lines in estuaries are
called intertidal ats or mud ats. Mud ats
have been considered relatively unimportant
because of one structural characteristic: no
macrophytes (rooted vegetation) exist there.
However, mud ats are inhabited by
microscopic, bottom-living algae and green
algae, such as Ulva Iactuca, which may
contribute as much as one-third of the total
estuarine productivity. This environment is a
major site of conversion of plant biomass
into invertebrate animals, which ultimately
serve as prey for larger estuarine predators.
Diurnal uctuations in use of mud ats also
occur with numerous species of birds
feeding there during the day and shrimp,
crabs, and fish becoming major consumers at
night.
Oyster reefs or mounds represent another
community that provides habitat for a wide
variety of organisms. Oysters (Crassostraca
virginica) are filter feeders, taking in
suspended algae, detritus, bacteria, and other
particulate matter. Their feeding behavior
and sedentary nature make them vulnerable
to a variety of man-induced stresses.
Oyster reef communities are composed of a
variety of marine plants and animals. Oyster
and clam shells provide hard substrate for
attachment in otherwise soft-sediment
environments. Oyster reefs also affect the
physiography and hydrology of estuaries by
modifying current velocities, passively
changing sedimentation patterns, and
actually augmenting sedimentation through

biodeposition. Thus oyster reefs have a
stabilizing inuence on erosional processes
while providing a stable island of hard
substrate.
WATER RESOURCES
Groundwater Hydrology
The Floridan Aquifer is the principal
groundwater source in the coastal lowlands
of northeast Florida. This aquifer, one of the
major sources of groundwater supplies in the
US, underlies all of Florida, southeast
Georgia, and small parts of Alabama and
South Carolina. In northeast Florida it
consists of a series of hydrologically
connected, water-bearing zones composed of
soft porous limestone, dolomite, and sand
beds. Aquifer thickness ranges from 490 feet
to more than 9,800 feet with depths of 50
feet below mean sea level to greater than 550
feet below mean sea level in Duval County.
Overlying the water-bearing zones of the
Floridan Aquifer in many areas are relatively
impermeable confining beds of sandy clay
and shell, called aquicludes. Vertical
movement of water is restricted in these
areas. Where aquicludes occur, the water is
under sufficient pressure to rise above the
top of the aquifer through tightly cased
wells, and it often ows freely at the land
surface. These are known as artesian
conditions. The height to which water rises
in wells that penetrate the Floridan Aquifer
is known as the piezometric surface. This
surface uctuates in response to aquifer
recharge and discharge. Cones of depression
have developed in farming and urban
industrial areas of northeast Florida because
discharge has exceeded recharge. Recharge
to the Floridan Aquifer occurs mainly in the
western portions of the coastal counties.
However, increased urban and industrial
development with accompanying
impermeable buildings, streets, and parking
areas reduce the natural recharge area.
119
Natural Environment
In 1980 about 640 million gallons of water
per day, mostly from industrial use, were
withdrawn from the coastal strip of
southeast Georgia/northeast Florida. As a
result, long-term water-level declines of
more than 20 feet occurred from Jacksonville
north to Hilton Head. As artesian pressure
drops in these areas saltwater intrusion
becomes pronounced. Saltwater intrusion is
an ever-increasing problem in areas of
artificial discharge. Of a total discharge of
approximately 70,620 cubic feet per second
(cfs) from the Floridan Aquifer, about 75%
goes to springs and rivers, 0.7% is seepage,
and 18% is pumpage.
Groundwater development has reduced
spring ow and discharge to rivers by
almost 5% and discharge by seepage in
coastal areas by about 30%. Approximately
20% of the groundwater pumped originates
from spring ow and river discharge, 20% is
from seepage in coastal areas, and the
remaining 60% is from additional recharge
that is induced by the lower water levels in
the aquifer.
Recharge to the Floridan Aquifer comes
almost entirely from rainfall within the state.
Most recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in
Duval County comes from the southwestern
part of the county. Additional recharge areas
in Duval County have been identified by the
US. Geological Survey as existing in the
center of the county southeast of the St.
Johns River in the Arlington area, in the Fort
Caroline area, and along the western side of
the Intracoastal Waterway. A downward
hydraulic gradient exists in these areas, but
recharge is limited by the thickness and
permeability of confining beds.
The Floridan Aquifer in Duval County has a
normal seasonal uctuation in water level of
3 to 4 feet from a low in May to a high in
September. However, average water levels
have been steadily declining due to
increasing rates of pump out. Levels
dropped from 10 to 25 feet in northeast
Florida from 1940 to 1962. In Jacksonville
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
levels dropped more than 20 feet from 1948
to 1972.
In addition to tapping into the Floridan
Aquifer, some small municipalities and rural
domestic users obtain groundwater from
shallow sand or sand and shell aquifers that
occur above the Floridan Aquifer. The
thickness of this water table aquifer ranges
from less than 3 feet in the interior to over
396 feet. Shallow aquifers are recharged
directly by local rainfall and percolation
from surface water.
Surface Water Hydrology
The Nassau River originates in Duval
County draining 400 square miles (54.8 river
miles) of Duval and Nassau Counties and
eventually discharging into the Atlantic
Ocean via a 10-square-mile estuary (see
Surface Water map). Average annual runoff
for the Nassau River drainage is 1520
inches. Mean discharge of Thomas Creek, an
upstream tributary near Crawford, is 42.7
cfs. The estimated mean discharge at the
mouth of the Nassau River is 500 cfs. Mean
tidal range at the mouth of the Nassau River
is 5.4 feet. The Nassau River is not
maintained as a navigable river by the US.
Army Corps of Engineers; however, Fort
George River, part of the Nassau River
drainage, is maintained. Both rivers have
been subject to significant shoaling problems
and are navigable only by small craft.
The St. Johns River basin is the largest
watershed entirely within the state of
Florida, the third largest drainage basin in
Florida, and one of the few northward
owing rivers in the western hemisphere.
The drainage area of the St. Johns is 9,430
square miles, nearly one-sixth of the land
area of Florida. The St. Johns River is 318
miles long with a gradient of 0.11 feet/ mile
and an average ow of 5,515 cfs (60,000 cfs
maximum ow at river mouth). It is the
longest river lying completely within the
boundaries of Florida. The gradient equates
to a total drop of the river from source to
120
mouth of less than 30 feet, making it one of
the "attest" rivers in the world.
The St. Johns is the only major river in the
United States that does not freeze over.
Average monthly water temperatures usually
range between lows of 57F and 51F in
January and February and highs to 91F in
June and July.
The average discharge of the St. Johns River
at its mouth is estimated at 8,300 cfs. At the
river's entrance, ood tides (incoming tides)
with average velocities of 1.9 knots and ebb
tides (outgoing tides) with average velocities
of 2.3 knots occur. Mean tidal range at the
river's mouth is 4.9 feet and falls to 1.2 feet
20 miles upstream at the Main Street Bridge.
The river is perennially tidal as far upstream
as 106 miles (Lake George) and under
combined conditions of drought and high
tide, tidal effects (ow reversal) occur farther
upstream. At Jacksonville, 21 miles upstream
from the ocean, average tidal ow volumes
are more than seven times greater than the
average freshwater ow.
The river channel has changed slowly
because of natural erosion and deposition
except in cases where it has been dredged
for navigation and development. Human
dredging activities have accelerated the
movement of sediment, which is carried by
prevailing currents and deposited in
locations with relatively little ow. Dredging
of channels and spoil deposition can cause
radical changes in natural progression of
sediment movement, which can affect water
quality, bottom habitats, and wetlands.
The St. Johns River is dependent on rainfall
for its ow (average annual runoff for the
lower St. Johns River drainage is 1015
inches). It is navigable nearly to its source
except in times of drought when the upper
section often goes nearly dry. Flooding is
rare; low water usually occurs between the
months of March and June, and high water
from October to December.
_ Thomas Creek

|Nassau River

26?
\ , - Uplands
Wetlands
Open Water
i Preserve Boundary
l:lNon-preserve Land

m.
0 2.5 Miles North

Downtown
Surface Water
Jacksonville

. ~ Timucuan
Broward River J Dunn Cl't Historic Preserve

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service
006'20022'Ju1y 94'DSC

The capacity of the main stem of the St.
Johns River to store water is tremendous
owing to (1) the great width of the channel
in the reach between Palatka and
Jacksonville, (2) low hydraulic gradients, (3)
several large lakes upstream from Palatka,
and (4) the low oodplain, which in places is
more than 10 miles wide. Stormwater is held
in storage for long periods before being
discharged to the sea.
It has been recognized that the St. Johns
River is unusual in Florida and possibly in
North America. The St. Johns River is
connected along its length by a series of
lakes, and it could be argued that this
shallow Slow owing watercourse is not a
river at all. The St. Johns River and its long
estuary could be considered an ecological
entity in itself. Additionally, it is a
blackwater river (water stained with tannic
acids created by decaying vegetation) with a
shallow light-penetrating zone but relatively
high productivity. It supplies high
concentrations of nutrients for the
enrichment of adjacent offshore waters.
Most land surface in the coastal zone
segment of this basin has less than 1% slope,
which inhibits drainage and aggravates
localized ooding. Drainage patterns are
generally dendritic except where modified
by man-made construction.
The St. Johns River entrance is a major
navigation channel between the ocean and
port facilities situated along both banks of
the lower 24 miles of the river. The
maintained depth of 40 feet (natural depth of
the river is approximately 15 feet) permits a
variety of deep draft vessels, particularly
associated with petroleum products,
phosphate shipments, and naval activities at
Mayport, to use the river extensively. Two
jetties, 2.7 and 2.1 miles long, north to south,
respectively, were created to stabilize the
inlet. Because of the jetties, Little Talbot
Island is being eroded by the northward
movement of Fort George Inlet.
123
Natural Environment
Generally, the drainage area of the St. Johns
River between Jacksonville and the ocean is
notably deficient of stream gauges. Current
USGS data are available from only two
areas, the Ortega River and the St. Johns
River at Jacksonville. The limited number of
gauging stations, especially in this polluted
urban region, has made water quality and
ow data analysis impossible.
Wetlands
US. Fish and Wildlife Service national
wetlands inventory maps are available for
the preserve. These maps delineate wetlands
based on the publication Classication of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Based on these maps, the majority of the
preserve is classified as an estuarine,
intertidal wetland with persistent, emergent
vegetation. Other less prominent estuarine
wetlands include subtidal open water and
subtidal unconsolidated bottom.
The largest known freshwater wetland in
preserve is Spanish Pond. Freshwater
wetlands are primarily limited to upland
areas on islands and thus represent a Small
percentage of wet areas in the preserve.
Freshwater wetlands include seasonally or
tidally ooded, palustrine areas with
persistent, emergent vegetation; seasonally or
temporarily ooded, palustrine forested
(either broad-leaved deciduous or needle
leaved evergreen) areas; and palustrine open
waters, e.g., Spanish Pond.
Floodplains
The preserve experiences its most severe
ooding when heavy rainfall is accompanied
by a rise in sea level due to a storm surge or
wind and wave setup. Hurricanes and
prolonged or severe northeasters are primary
causes of such ooding that can be greatly
exaggerated when they coincide with one or
more periods of high tide.
AFFECTED ENVIRONM ENT
Extensive oodplain areas exist in the
preserve because of the slight elevations of
land above sea level and the relatively at
topographic relief of the land surface.
Information on 100-year oodplain areas in
the preserve has been obtained from federal
ood insurance rate maps developed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency as
presented in the Comprehensive Plan - 2010:
Conservation/Coastal Management Element (City
of Jacksonville 1990b); see 100-Year Flood
Hazard Areas map. These maps identify
areas that would be inundated by a storm
event of a magnitude that statistically would
be met or exceeded once every 100 years.
Coastal High Hazard Areas
Coastal high hazard areas are defined as
those areas within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (velocity) zones, as
delineated on August 15, 1989, and areas
seaward of the Florida Department of
Natural Resources' coastal construction
control line. For the preserve, areas of high
hazard are depicted on the Coastal High
Hazard Areas map (City of Jacksonville
1990b). Lands within the coastal high hazard
area are subject to storm surge, high winds,
waves, and rain in the event of a severe
storm. Roads are subject to ooding.
WATER QUALITY
Water quality in the St. Johns River varies
greatly; overall, the long-term trend appears
to be towards the general degradation of
water quality despite improvements in
certain segments. The entire river is
designated class III, which means that its
intended use is for recreation, propagation,
and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced
population of fish and wildlife. However,
only 29 of the 52 river segments making up
the St. Johns River meet their intended use
requirements.
The most concentrated area of water quality
problems in the lower St. Johns River is in
124
the Duval County portion of the basin. This
section of the basin is the most industrialized
region in the state and one of the largest
residential centers. Duval County has more
than three times the regulated surface water
discharges (total of 379) of any other county
in Florida and many of the discharges
(approximately 35%) are in violation of
permit criteria (St. Johns River Management
District 1989).
Many factors may contribute to the poor
water quality of the lower river, and may be
related to the kinds and extent of
development in the county (e.g., pulp and
paper production, electric power generation,
chemical production, food processing,
general manufacturing, increased residential
growth, and port and maritime activities).
Pollutants resulting from these activities
include heavy metals, biocides, oils, grease,
PCBs, and other toxic substances. Both
domestic and industrial point sources are
major contributors to the problem.
Contamination of groundwater by failing
septic tank systems has been identified by
the city of Jacksonville as one of the primary
causes of surface water quality standards
violations in Duval County. Recent surveys
found an areawide average septic tank
failure rate of 14% in the county (St. Johns
River Management District 1989). Within the
city, 21 specific septic tank failure areas have
been recommended for priority utility
service connection 14 of these areas
potentially affect the St. Johns River and/or
its tributaries.
Probably the largest pollution source but not
nearly as visible as the discharges is
stormwater runoff. The runoff commonly
contains fertilizers with nitrogen and
phosphorous that can cause algal blooms,
which in turn deplete oxygen levels. It also
carries oils and grease loaded with heavy
metals that are toxic to aquatic organisms, as
well as sediment from erosion that can
increase turbidity levels and literally smother
aquatic insects and fish eggs and/ or interfere
with the functions of fish gills. Stormwater
 Half Moon Island

@100 Year Flood Hazard Areas

l . f m 4}
0 2.5 Miles North

100 Year Flood

Downtown
Jacksonvllle
Hazard Areas
Timucuan
Yellow Bluff Fol Ecological and
Historic Preserve
Unltcd States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
006'20020-July 94-DSC

Environmental Protection 1990a). Threatened
status is assigned to Lofton and Gardner
Creeks and the Nassau River downstream
from these two inows. Problems in these
areas are attributed to construction, urban,
septic tanks, and land disposal pollution
sources associated with the area's rapid
development. Lofton Creek is also threatened
by inadequate silviculture management
practices in its watershed.
The Intracoastal Waterway within the
Nassau River basin is moderately impaired.
It is affected by the same development
activities as in the Lofton/Gardner Creek
area. The Fort George River watershed
remains largely undeveloped and has good
water quality.
The state of Florida has led the nation in
developing environmental programs to
protect surface waters. The landmark
legislation of chapters 403 and 373, Florida
Statutes, provided for the protection of
surface water quality, water supplies, and
wetlands. Yet deterioration of the state's
water resources has continued in spite of
laws and regulations. State recognition of
declining conditions led to the Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act
of 1987. This act provides funds to the state's
water management districts to restore or
preserve some of the critically threatened
water bodies. The lower St. Johns River basin
was identified as threatened and a SWIM
plan submitted to the state (St. Johns River
Water Management District 1989).
Monitoring Activities in the Preserve
Until the SWIM Act, water quality
monitoring, evaluation, and planning for the
lower St. Johns River were conducted by
numerous agencies with little coordination.
At least 10 government agencies have
collected water quality data throughout all
or portions of the river, but it has been
scattered and evaluated piecemeal for
specific purposes. Over the last 20 years the
best attempt to collate and evaluate data has
135
Natural Environment
been the brief summary of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and
USGS data in the biennial water quality
inventory for the state of Florida (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
1990a).
This lack of coordination has resulted in
limited technical information on which to
base management decisions within the
estuarine portion of Duval County. A 1984
water quality assessment of the Port of
Jacksonville area by the city of Jacksonville
was an effort to remedy this (City of
Jacksonville 1984). The city conducted water
quality sampling at sites within and adjacent
to the preserve boundary to obtain
background data while the area remained
basically undeveloped. The data indicated no
existing water quality or sediment problems.
Water in the preserve met Florida
regulations for class III standards with only
a few exceptions, i.e., metals. PCBs were
detected in one sediment sample from
Dunns Creek and St. Johns River sites
showed violations of water quality
standards. Data indicated that the sediment
is not the major source of contaminants.
Contrary to expectations, suspended particles
appear to contain the greatest portion of
contaminants. No organic contaminants for
which analyses were performed were
detected.
In 1985-87 the Northeast District of the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation undertook a two-year study as
part of the Basin Assessment Program
(Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation 1987). The purpose was to
provide background data on the water
quality and biological integrity of water
bodies that make up the northeastern portion
of Florida's Intracoastal Waterway. Only two
of 51 sampling sites were within the
preserve boundary. One site was near the
anticipated southern boundary of the
preserve on the Intracoastal Waterway, and
the other, also on the Intracoastal Waterway,
was at the conuence with Fort George
River. This site was also a biological
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
sampling site having a good macroinverte
brate community.
Bacteriological water monitoring was
performed in 1986-87 at 22 stations
associated with shellfish beds/ class II waters
in the preserve (Florida Department of
Natural Resources 1987). The authors of this
effort subsequently recommended realign
ment of these bacteriological monitoring
stations for future monitoring efforts.
A baseline monitoring plan includes 11
stations (Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation 1991) within the
boundaries of the preserve (see Water
Quality Monitoring Stations map). All of
these stations are on the Intracoastal
Waterway from the Nassau River south to
the conuence of the Intracoastal Waterway
with the Fort George River. At these stations
chemical and microbiological parameters are
measured; aquatic macroinvertebrates are
sampled at two stations.
The Northeast District office is also con
tinuing biological studies in the lower St.
Johns River. Studies of the river and its
tributaries between 1982 and 1985 indicated
low species diversity and a low number of
species per station. Highly stressed macro
invertebrate communities were common in
many of the tributaries.
Currently, the city of Jacksonville's water
quality monitoring program includes 14
stations within the Nassau River drainage, 9
stations within the Fort George River
drainage/Intracoastal Waterway drainage,
and 1 station on the St. Johns River, most
within the preserve boundary (Pers. comm.,
City of Jacksonville 1991); see Water Quality
Monitoring Stations map. From 1985 to 1990,
standards violations occurred sporadically in
the Nassau River for iron, lead, copper,
cadmium, chromium, silver, aluminum,
mercury, nickel, and total and fecal
coliforms. Similar violations also occurred at
the Fort George River stations. The lone St.
Johns River station had the most standards
violations of any station.
136
Hazardous Materials
There are six areas of industrial activity that
could affect the preserve: US. Navy Fuel
Depot, Seminole Kraft Corporation,
Jacksonville's Northside and Girvin Road
Municipal landfills, St. Johns River Power
Park, and Jacksonville Electric Authority.
Currently only the US. Navy Fuel Depot is
confirmed to be a site of contamination. In /..~',~
I;
addition, potential hazardous waste
generators near the preserve may be the
Naval Station Mayport and the Jacksonville '"K.
port facilities at Blount Island. There are no
superfund sites within or adjacent to the
preserve; however, there are 12 petroleum
contaminated sites known to exist along
Heckscher Drive.
VEG ETATION
While humans have greatly altered earlier
patterns of vegetation, the area's climate,
topography, and soils still generally control
the character and distribution of the area's
natural cover. Climatically, the preserve is in
the normal growing range of four econom
ically important species of coniferous trees
found in the southeastern United States.
Northeast Florida represents the mid-range
of longleaf and slash pines and the near
southerly limits of loblolly and pitch pine.
Among the hardwoods, the preserve is near
the southerly limits of the following species:
owering dogwood, water tupelo, winged
elm, black cherry, southern red oak, water
oak, swamp chestnut oak, and post oak.
Several other economically significant
hardwood species have normal ranges
extending further southward to the edge of
the subtropics. The preserve represents the
near northerly limit of live oaks and
southern red cedars. The cabbage palmetto is
the only palm native to the study area. The
predominance of hardwoods typical of the AAA
MA
J--~_._p-
southeastern US. that are found in the
preserve indicates the closer climatic
relationship of Jacksonville with areas to the
north.
 Half Moon Island

"not Preserve Boundary

I Florida Department of
.. Environmental Protection
Northeast District

I City of Jacksonville
monitoring stations

m
0 2.5 Miles
6}
North

Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
Downtown
Jacksonville

Timucuan
Yellow BluffFc Ecological and
~ Historic Preserve
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
006-200l8'July 94-DSC

Thirteen plant communities have been
identified within the preserve boundary. The
delineation of these communities is a
product of a geographic information system
(GIS) database, based on LANDSAT satellite
imagery, and provided by the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Table 5
shows the percent occurrence and acreage
per plant community based on the GIS
database. These acreages are rough estimates
not groundtruthed and should only be
considered approximate. However, the
relative proportions of each plant community
in the preserve should be fairly accurate.
These acreages also do not include the
exclusions as defined by the enabling
legislation. See appendix D for a description
of these plant communities and their
habitats.
The most prevalent plant community is the
coastal salt marsh. Within the preserve, the
vegetation zone nearest the tidal creeks is
typically dominated by smooth cordgrass
forming a nearly pure stand; black needle
rush dominates on land that is slightly
higher and less ooded than that occupied
by smooth cordgrass. These dominants and
associated species are inundated by daily
ooding at high tides.
In the Georgia salt marshes there are
typically three growth forms of smooth
cordgrass: (1) tall (4.28.1 feet) found along
creek banks; (2) medium (2.04.2 feet) found
on the top of natural levees; and (3) short
(1.0 foot) found back from the levees, where
surface is level and grading into the needle
rush zone. There appears to be no tall form
within the preserve.
A study by the city of Jacksonville (1984)
looked at the zoning of salt marsh plants in
the preserve (21 locations) and how it varied
by location. The zones typically seen during
this study are delineated on the General
Zones of Salt Marsh Plants illustration. Salt
meadow hay (Spartina patens) was most
abundant in the marshes along the Nassau
River and its tributaries. Groundsel trees
(Baccharis halimifolia) were the most abundant
139
Natural Environment
transition zone shrub of the preserve,
occurring from Fort George Island to the
northwestern boundary. Black needlerush
occurred in large pure stands in the high
marshes of the central part of the preserve.
In contrast, zone patterns at Inconstantion
Creek and Horseshoe Creek (Black
Hammock Island) show the variability of salt
marsh plant zones within the preserve (see
Salt Marsh Profiles and Plant Zones
illustration). Table 6 lists the most frequently
encountered salt marsh plant species of the -
55 species of vascular plants identified from
the salt marsh system of the preserve. See
appendix E for a complete list of salt marsh
plant species.
The 1984 study further identified four marsh
community associations in the preserve:
(1) Spartina marsh - pure stand of smooth
cordgrass; (2) Spartina/Iimcus marsh - Iuncus
dominant (e.g., Hannah Mills Creek); (3)
short Juncus marsh - Salicornia virginica, the
dominant in density but limited in scope
(e.g., Pelotes Island); and (4) transition zone -
Borrichia frutescens, the dominant with
Salicornia virginia, Spartina alterniom, and
Simedn linearis (e.g., Horseshoe Creek).
After the salt marsh plant community, the
pinelands and hardwood hammock upland
plant communities are the other major
vegetation types (see appendix F for a list of
plant species that occur within these plant
communities). The western portion of the
preserve associated with Browns and
Clapboard Creeks is comprised generally of
pine atwood forests. Hardwood hammocks,
a climax forest dominated by broad-leaved
trees, are prevalent on Fort George Island.
This plant community provides more
suitable habitat for a wide variety of notable
plants than any other plant community. Also
shell deposits within hammocks also provide
special habitat for certain notable plants,
especially those that prefer calcareous soils.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 5: PERCENT OCCURRENCE AND ACREAGE OF PLANT COMMUNITY HABITATS AND

OTHER IDENTIFIABLE HABITATS WITHIN THE PRESERVE

Community Percent Occurrence Acreage

Coastal Strand 0.2 87.0

Dry Prairie 0.4 165.0
Pinelands 5.1 2,278.0
Sandhill <0.1 20.0
Xeric Oak Scrub 2.1 935.0
Mixed Hardwood Pine Forest 2.0 929.0
Hardwood Hammock and Forest 4.7 2,131.0
Coastal Salt Marsh 53.7 24,1740
Freshwater Marsh and Wet Prairie 03 135.0
Cypress Swamp <0.1 0.2
Hardwood Swamp 1.8 829.0
Bay Swamp 0.1 67.0
Scrub and Brushland 2.5 1,104.0
Open Water 23.3 10,4670
Barren i 1,692.0

Total 100.0 45,0132

SOURCE: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1991b)

TABLE 6: TYPICAL SALT MARSH PLANT SPECIES FOUND IN THE PRESERVE

Dominant Species Associated Species Transitional Species

Black needlerush (Juncus Big cordgrass (Spartina Broomsedge (Andropogon elliottix)

roemerianus)
Marsh hay cordgrass (Spartina
pntens)
Saltgrass (Disticlllis spicata)
Saltwort (Balls maritima)
Sea daisy (Borrichia frutescens)
Smooth cordgrass (Spnrtina
alterniom)
cynosuroides) Groundsel tree (Baccnris halimifolia)
Glasswort (Salicornia virginica) Marsh elder (Iva frutescens)
Narrow-Ieaved cattail (Typha Marsh lavender (Limoniom
angustifolia) carolinianum)
Sea blight (Simedn linenris) Saltwort (Balls maritima)
Sea purslane (Sesuvium Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)
porlulacastrum Staggerbush (Lyonin ferruginea)
Wax myrtle (Myricn cerifera)
Cabbage palm (Snbnl palmetto)

SOURCE: City of Jacksonville (1984)

140
 v - Mean High
Sea Oxeye Daisy Smooth Cordgass _\ Wat" Spring Tide
Mesic Hammock
\ fimgog Cirigrisi. _ _ _ - - .1 . .. ' - Mean High Water
. Alma Lettuce
Salt Marsh CH" Horseshoe Creek
Oysters _ - - - - _ Mean Low Water

Profile of Saltmarsh in Horseshoe Creek Area

Live Oak Cabbage Palm

. / Cedar
_. ~ o - Y / Groundsel Tree
/ Marsh Elder
Black Needlebrush

Marsh Hay Cordgrass Smooth cordgrass

Smooth Cordgrass
j; /: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ Bi
_g-ofg_ass-
C d - Mean High
Water Spring Tide
Mesic Hammock
l. ,- ... l ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ , ' --MeanHighWater

__ _ _ _ _ _ - Mean Low Water

High Marsh Salt pan with diatom cover Tidal Creek Levee Low Marsh

Profile of Saltmarsh in lnconstantion Creek Area

Salt Marsh Profiles and Plant Zones

[from City of Jacksonville (1984)]

Marsh Elder
/ Saltwort and Sea Blite
/ Groundsel Tree
Salt Grass
a Sea Daisy Smooth Cordgrass
Black Needlebrush

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ --- MeanHigh
Water Spring Tide

Salt Meadow Hay _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _ Mum High wier

Mean Low Water

General Zones of Salt Marsh Plants

[from City of Jacksonville (1984)]

141
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL AREAS substrata on which much of the forest is

A 1974 survey of the Atlantic Coastal Plain
listed the following natural areas found in
the Timucuan Preserve: Rollins Bird and
Plant Sanctuary (on Fort George Island), the
Theodore Roosevelt area, and the Nassau-St.
Johns Rivers Marshes Aquatic Preserve (NPS
1974). Because a majority of the latter is
contained within the Timucuan Preserve, the
preserve probably would be a significant
natural area if the survey were conducted
today. The Theodore Roosevelt area has an
unusually significant faunistic community
and a ruggedly beautiful expanse of marshes
and bottomland forest along the St. Johns
River. The Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary
contains a mixture of maritime forest and
salt marsh that supports many animal and
plant species. The area is unusual in that the
found is composed of shell or midden
mounds. Shell mounds also are prominent in
the Theodore Roosevelt area. They are the
basis for the presence of several rare plant
species in both areas. The Rollins Bird and
Plant Sanctuary and the Theodore Roosevelt
area represent only a few sites in this part of
Florida where a midden mound and its
associated vegetation remain in public
ownership.
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory has
prioritized natural communities according to
the degree of vulnerability to extinction and
has assigned a global or state rank to each
community. The significant natural
communities in Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve and their ranks are shown
in table 7.

TABLE 7: FLORIDA NATURAL AREAs INVENTORY NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND RANKs

Communig Global Rank State Rank

Shell mound G3 52
Scrub G2 52
Coastal strand G3? 52
Maritime hammock G4 53
Dry prairie G2 52
Beach dune G4? 82

Key: G2 = Important globally because of rarity or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some
biological or man-made factor.
G3 = Either very rare and local.throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or
vulnerable to extinction because of other factors.
Git? = Tentatively ranked at a specific priority.
52 = Important in state because of rarity or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some
biological or man-made factor.
53 = See G3.

Shell mounds are Indian middens with shell Maritime hammocks are stabilized coastal dunes
substrate under xeric-mesic conditions. These are with sand substrate that are xeTic-mesic in nature.
subtropical or temperate climate communities of This community may be found in either temperate
mixed hardwoods. Fires are rare or nonexistent. or subtropical climates. Fires are rare or nonexistent.

Scrub communities are found on old dunes with Dry prairies are atlands with sand substrate and
deep sand substrate. They are xeric and may be mesic-seric conditions. This community is either
found in temperate on subtropical climates. Fires are found in subtropical or temperate climates where
occasional or rare. fires are annual or frequent.

Coastal strand communities are stabilized coastal Beach dunes are identified as active coastal dunes
dunes with sand substrate. This community is xeric with sand substrate. They are xeric communities and
and may be found in subtropical or temperate may be found in temperate or subtropical climates.
climates. Fires are occasional or rare. Fires are occasional or rare.

FISH AND WILDLIFE
According to the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission (1983), there are 55
freshwater and 115 marine and estuarine fish
species in the St. Johns River basin. Several
families of finfish contribute to important
recreational and commercial fisheries in the
lower St. Johns River and in northeast
Florida. The most important of these families
is the Sciaenidae, which includes the whitings
(Menticirrhus sp.), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion
nebulosus), weakfish (C. regalis), croaker
(Micropogon undulatus), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), black drum (Pogoias cromis), and
red drum (Scianeops ocellatus). The young
and juvenile of these species require
estuaries for nursery grounds, and adults are
either permanent residents of estuaries or
inhabitants of shallow coastal waters.
Other important fish include those on lower
trophic levels such as anchovies (Anchoa sp.),
herrings (Clupeidae), which include
menhaden (Brevoortia spp.), and American
shad (Alosa sapidissima), and mullet (Mugil
spp.). Flounders (Paralichthys spp.) also
contribute to catches as do sheepshead
(Archosagus probatocephalus), pinfish (Ingodon
rhomboides), sea catfish (Arius felis), and
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Menhaden
support the largest fishery by weight in the
US. The American shad is the most
important anadromous fish in northeast
Florida, commercially or recreationally.
Appendix G contains a 1984 list of fish
species found within the preserve by the
Marine Biology Group of the University of
North Florida.
Based on limited data, there appears to be a
trend toward decreased numbers of fish
larvae. This downward trend has also been
observed in the numbers of juvenile fish
collected in seines at various locations along
the lower St. Johns from Sisters Creek to
Lake George. Species that seem to be
decreasing the most in terms of juveniles
collected are tarpon, spotted seatrout, red
drum, black drum, and king mackerel.
143
Natural Environment
Mullet, spot, and croaker do not seem to be
decreasing.
Blue crabs are abundant in the lower St.
Johns River and support a large commercial
and recreational fishery in northeast Florida.
Except during female spawning migrations,
blue crabs spend their entire lives within
estuaries. A previous study found that the
Intracoastal Waterway, Nassau River, and
Fort George River were all important habitat
for the St. Johns River population. Crabbers
are complaining that their catches are down,
especially in terms of the larger specimens.
This may be the effect of fishing intensity
rather than lowered total population
densities.
Juvenile penaeid shrimp (white, brown, and
pink shrimp) depend on the estuary as a
nursery ground. As juveniles they reside
several months in estuaries. The St. Johns
River has been characterized as a vital
nursery to the shrimp populations of the
northeast coast of Florida.
Brown shrimp spawn during late winter
with peak inshore recruitment of juveniles in
late February and March; white shrimp
spawn later, and recruitment into estuaries
occurs in May and June. Most brown shrimp
migrate offshore by August or September;
most white shrimp migrate by late fall.
Brown shrimp prefer high salinities and
deeper water; white shrimp prefer areas
adjacent to low-salinity estuaries. Pink
shrimp form only a small part of the
commercial catch in northeast Florida.
The populations of commercial size white
and brown shrimp are decreasing. The
population densities uctuate widely year to
year, but plotted over several years there is a
downward trend in catch per unit of effort.
This might be due to an apparent decrease in
suitable nursery areas for postlarval and
juvenile shrimp within the St. Johns River
system.
Most common salt marsh invertebrates
include the fiddler crab, mud snails,
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
periwinkle snails, and oysters. The largest
oyster reef communities in the Jacksonville
area are found in the preserve. Their
locations correspond to the last available
class II waters in Duval County, along the
Fort George River, Sisters Creek (Intracoastal
Waterway), Sawpit Creek, and the Nassau
River area.
No amphibians and few reptiles are found in
the salt marsh as regular residents; most are
residents of the upland areas. The American
alligator, spotted turtle, and the diamond
back terrapin have all been of considerable
commercial importance in the past, but are
not so today because of scarcity or protection
by law. Appendix H contains a list of
amphibians and reptiles found on Fort
George and Pelotes Islands. These
amphibians and reptiles are sensitive to the
desiccating osmotic conditions of marine or
brackish water environments, and do not
survive well in waters or areas of high
salinity. The diamondback terrapin is one of
the few native reptiles adapted to estuarine
life, although others (glass lizard, anole
lizard, diamondback rattlesnake) are
frequent foragers in the salt marsh. These
species of reptiles have special adaptive
mechanisms which allow them to maintain
the necessary osmotic balance within their
body uids.
Estuaries provide an important food source
for many mammals and birds. The large
majority of mammals observed in the marsh
ats are actually residents of the large
hammocks, islands, and areas surrounding
the salt marsh. Appendix H also contains a
list of mammalian species observed within
the preserve in 1984. A few species are
permanent residents of the at itself, and
during high tide ooding these animals take
refuge in the emergent vegetation, on small
hammocks, or on other patches of dry
ground. Some species, like the round-tailed
muskrat, construct oating mats of
vegetation to den in and to ride out the high
tide ooding. None of the preserve
mammals is of major commercial
importance.
144
Appendix I contains a list of birds commonly
sighted or known to frequent the preserve
during migration, in the winter or for
feeding. The marshes and the coastal
hammocks on the uplands are a part of the
Atlantic yway providing wintering and
stopover areas for many migratory bird
species. North Florida is an especially
important region from an avian habitat
perspective because it has a greater diversity
of bird species than central Florida and is
considered the lower breeding limit of many
northeastern bird species.
The Fort George Critical Wildlife Area is
near the mouth of the St. Johns River at
Huguenot Memorial Park. This wading bird
concentration area is managed by the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
who prohibits human trespass during critical
seasons. The mouth of the river is also a
concentration area for wintering waterfowl,
gulls, terns, and shorebirds. The Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has
a database of species observations and
numbers for this area from 1978 to the
present.
According to the city of Jacksonville and the
Duval Audubon Society there are four
wading bird rookeries within the preserve:
Theodore Roosevelt area, Cedar Point, Big
Talbot Island, and Fort George Island (City
of Jacksonville 1990b). These rookeries are
used by some or all of the following species:
anhinga, black-crowned night-heron, cattle
egret, great blue heron, great egret, little blue
heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, white
ibis, and wood stork. In addition, the Verdie
Forest and San Carlos Creek area, both
adjacent to the preserve, and south of the
Broward Islands and west of Browns Creek,
respectively, have wading bird rookeries.
Wetland areas are important for wading
birds for both nesting and feeding purposes.
Wading birds travel 1015 miles from
rookeries to feeding grounds. Therefore,
wetlands outside the immediate rookery site
are important. In addition, rookeries are
known to thrive in areas where the wading

birds are isolated from external noise and
other disturbances.
SHELLFISH AND SHELLFISH
HARVESTING AREAS
There are two species of shellfish harvested
within the preserve, the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) and the hard clam or
quahog (Mercenaria spp.). Oysters inhabit
both the subtidal and intertidal portions of
the estuarine system. The oysters are
harvested in the intertidal areas by
"hogging, the practice of gathering oyster
clumps from exposed tidal bars during low
tides. The harvesting season for public beds
runs from September 1 through May 31.
Oysters on privately leased bottoms may be
harvested year-round by the lessee. Clams
are found on the shallow subtidal ats with
hard sandy to shallow muddy bottoms.
Quahogs are harvested by digging or
"treading." There is no closed season for
clams. Commercial landings for oysters are
available. Clams are harvested primarily for
recreational use; therefore, commercial
landings are not available.
Shellfish are filter-feeding mollusks found in
coastal areas. While feeding, shellfish may
filter up to 400 gallons of water per day,
retaining much of the suspended and
dissolved material, including micro
organisms and chemical contaminants.
Bacteria and viruses may be bioconcen
trated up to a hundredfold while chemical
bioaccumulation may exceed a thousand
fold. Shellfish are important aquatic species
with high economic value; however, if
contaminated, they present a potential health
hazard to the consumer.
The largest oyster beds in the preserve are
found throughout the salt marsh area
surrounding the Intracoastal Waterway, an
area representing Jacksonville's last available
class II waters. Currently only eight shellfish
leases exist in Duval County. These leases
range from 5 acres to 58 acres and represent
a total of approximately 222 acres.
145
Natural Environment
The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection oversees shellfish harvesting
activities in Duval County. Areas specified
for shellfish harvesting are monitored
regularly to ensure that shellfish are safe for
human consumption. Harvesting areas may
be downgraded or closed on a permanent or
temporary basis when bacteria populations
become elevated or when other water quality
factors make closure necessary.
Shellfish harvesting areas are classified as
approved, conditionally approved, restricted,
conditionally restricted, or prohibited on the
basis of comprehensive shellfish harvesting
area surveys. The last one done for Duval
County was 1987 (see Preserve Shellfish
Harvesting Areas map). This classification is
based on the presence and concentration of
fecal material, pathogenic microorganisms,
and poisonous or deleterious substances in
growing waters. Areas that have not
undergone a comprehensive shellfish
harvesting area survey are unclassified.
Shellfish harvesting for direct market is
permitted only from approved or
conditionally approved areas. Shellfish
harvesting for relaying or controlled
purification is permitted in restricted and
conditionally restricted areas.
EXOTIC SPECIES
Several of the islands are suspected of
having populations of free-ranging hogs. On
many of the islands the hogs probably are in
a semiwild or feral state. Free-ranging hogs
appear to compete for food with many
desirable wildlife species, including deer and
wild turkey. Some may even interfere with
reproduction of ground-nesting birds such as
quail and turkey. Hogs also may be
inuencing small vertebrate populations on
some islands.
Nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus
novemicinctus) are present in several areas of
the preserve. There is considerable dispute
as to how damaging their foraging activities
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
are to native wildlife. They invaded from the
western US. over the past 60 years.
Local residents of Pelotes Island have told of
seeing large catlike animals. These were
most likely wandering domestic dogs and
cats seen in poor light or from odd angles,
but jaguarundis are a distinct possibility.
These secretive, long-tailed, dark cats have
naturalized in many areas of Florida.
At present, little is known about exotic plant
species except on state of Florida owned
(past or present ownership) lands on Fort
George Island or Little Talbot Island. Three
exotic plant species elephant ear, alligator
weed, and water hyacinth grow within
the Nassau River corridor. An extensive
plant survey was conducted for Pelotes
Island; exotic species included coinwort
(Centella asiatica), mimosa (Albizia julibrassia),
chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese tallow
tree (Sapium seviferum), Oleander (Nerium
oleander), English ivy (Hedera helix), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and white
sweet clover (Melilotus alba). At the Kingsley
Plantation, the following species have been
found: air-potato (Dioscorea bulbifera),
bamboo (Bambusa sp.), wild taro (Colocasia
esculenta), lantana (Lantana camara),
Sprenger's asparagus-fem (Asparagus
densiorus), rose (Rosa sp.), tree privet
(Ligustrum lucidum), crepe myrtle
(Iagerstroemia indica), azalea (Rhodendron sp.),
Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), English
ivy (Hedera helix), and Turk's-cap mallow
(Malvaviscus arboreus).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES
The National Marine Fisheries Service
provided a list of species under its
jurisdiction that may occur in the preserve
and /or the marine environment off the
Florida coast near Jacksonville (see table 8
and appendix J). The list includes the
following: five endangered whales - finback
whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), right whale
(Eubaleana glacialis), sei whale (Balaenoptera
borealis), and sperm whale (Physeter catodon);
two threatened turtles green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta); three endangered turtles
hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi),
and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea); and one fish shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Given the location of
the preserve, the National Marine Fisheries
Service suggested that only the shortnose
sturgeon is likely to be affected by preserve
activities.
The shortnose sturgeon is restricted to the
East Coast. It has been recorded from the St.
Johns River, Canada, to the Indian River in
Florida. Throughout its range, the majority
of sturgeon populations have their greatest
abundance in the estuaries of their respective
rivers. The Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery
Team established by the National Marine
Fisheries Service has documented only five
known occurrences of the species in the St.
Johns River of Florida since 1949.
The US. Fish and VVIldlife Service listed the
following species under its jurisdiction that
may be found within the preserve: eastern
indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperr),
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus),
wood stork (Mycteria americana), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) see table 8
and appendix J. There is no record of active
or inactive red-cockaded woodpecker
colonies within the boundary of the
preserve; however, if mature pine stands
occur, there is the potential for this species.
The US. Fish and Wildlife Service also noted
that several species of marine turtles are
observed from time to time in the waters of
the preserve, perhaps using the Intracoastal
Waterway.
Of the protected marine turtles, only the
threatened loggerhead sea turtle is expected
to nest in the vicinity of the preserve. Known
nesting occurs on the Atlantic beaches of
Little Talbot Island, just outside the preserve
 Conditionally Approved

\ Restricted

Unclassified (unapproved)
Including all 0 en water
not designate
Prohibited

Uplands or Non-preserve Land

Not to Scale
4)
North

Preserve Shellfish
Harvesting Areas
Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
006-20019'July 94'DSC

boundary, and on the critical wildlife area
portion of Huguenot Memorial Park, within
the preserve. Another possible nesting area
within the preserve could be on the northern
tip of Big Talbot Island.
Among the most publicized of the protected
species is the manatee. Manatees are known
to occupy large activity ranges in the St.
Johns River, but these are upstream of the
preserve's waters. Manatees occupy the
Intracoastal Waterway during the warm
months, and individuals have been recorded
adjacent to Fort George Island. The manatee
is the only federally listed species that occurs
in the preserve with a critical habitat
designation. All preserve waters are within
the critical habitat for the manatee. The
northeastern stretch of the Intracoastal
Waterway is used primarily by manatees as
a migratory route along the east coast of
Florida and southern Georgia during the late
autumn and early spring. Heavy mortality
occurs from accidental collisions with boats
and barges, and from canal lock operations.
Northeastern Florida has the highest
manatee mortality in the state, including the
highest incidence of deaths due to collisions
with boats, particularly in the St. Johns
River. Another closely related factor in the
decline has been the loss of suitable habitat
through incompatible coast development,
particularly boating facilities. A Recovery Plan
was published in 1989 by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
149
Natural Environment
An active bald eagle nest is present on
Pearson Island, a legislated exclusion not
part of the preserve but within the overall
boundary of the preserve. The Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission monitors
Florida bald eagle nests on an annual basis.
The list of state-protected plant and animal
species contained in table 8 is derived
mainly from the only major ecological
studies done on Pelotes Island and Fort
George Island. The Florida Natural Areas
Inventory responded to our request for
information on listed species in the preserve.
It provided all computerized data on
occurrence of listed species in the preserve
(see table 8 and appendix J). The differences
between the listed species in the studies
versus that in the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory computer files is surprising.
Perhaps the results of these studies have not
been entered into the inventory's computer
database.
One state-listed species of particular
importance is the gopher tortoise. Burrows
of the gopher tortoise provide shelter for
other state-listed species including the
eastern indigo snake, Florida pine snake,
gopher frog, and Florida mouse.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
TABLE 8: LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES THAT MAY
OCCUR WITHIN TIMUCUAN PRESERVE BOUNDARIES
Common Name
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon
Amphibians and Reptiles
American alligator
Alligator snapping turtle
Atlantic green turtle
Atlantic hawksbill turtle
Atlantic leatherback turtle
Atlantic loggerhead turtle
Atlantic ridley turtle
Atlantic salt marsh snake
Eastern indigo snake
Florida pine snake
Gopher frog
Gopher tortoise
Birds
American oystercatcher
Arctic peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Brown pelican
Florida scrub jay
Least tern
Little blue heron
Migrant loggerhead shrike
Piping plover
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Reddish egret
Smyra seaside sparrow
Snowy egret
Southeastern kestrel
Tricolored heron
Wood stork
Worthington's marsh wren
Mammals
Finback whale
Florida black bear
Florida mink
Florida panther
Florida mouse
Humpback whale
Right whale
Round-tailed muskrat
Sei whale
Sherman's fox squirrel
Southeastern weasel
Sperm whale
West Indian manatee
Designated Status
w FGFWFC FDA USFWS NMFS
Acipenser brevirostrum E E
Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/ A)
Macroclemys temminicki SSC C2
Chelonia mydas mydas E E T
Eretmochelys imbrlcata E E E
Dermochelys coriacea E E E
Caretta caretta T T T
Lepidochelys kempi E E E
Nerodia fasciata teaeniata T T
Drymarchon corals couperi T T
Piluophis melanoleuas mugitus SSC C2
Rana areolata SSC C2
Gopherus polyphemus SSC C2
Haematopus palliatus SSC
Falco peregrinus tundrius E T
Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E
Pelecanus occidentalis SSC
Aphelecona coerulescens coerulescens T T
Sterna antillarum T
Egretta caerulea SSC
lanius ludavicianus migrans C2
Charadrius melodus T T
Picoides borealis T E
Egretta refescens SSC C2
Ammodramus maritimus pelonotus C3A
Egretta thula SSC
Falco sparverius paulus T C2
Egretta tricolor SSC
Mycteria americana E E
Cistothorus palustris griseus SSC
Balaenoptera physalus E
Urus americanus oridanus T C2
Mustela vison lutensis C2
Felis concolor corvi E E
Peromyscus oridanus SSC C2
Megaptera novaeangliae E
Eubaleana glacialis E
Neober alleni C2
Balaenoptera borealis E
Sciurus niger shermani SSC
Mustela frenata olivacea C2
Physeter catodon E
Trichechus manatus latirostris E E
150
 Natural Environment

Designated Status
Common Name Scientic Name FGFWFC FDA USFWS NMFS

Plants
IQP-lr l'- !*-lr' -l ' r-ivl' I 1r-l'! i-lheIriPQl mt-ilrIPt-lr iht-l
Abrupt-tip maiden fern Thelypteris augescens
Adder's tongue fern Ophioglossum nudicaule
American holly llex opnca var. opaca
Aspidium fern Thelypteris hispidula
Aspidium fern Thelypteris kunlhii
Aspidium fern Thelypteris ovata
Bartram's moss Tillandsia bartramii
Bartram's ixic Sphenostigma coelesiinum
Bearded marsh pink Calopogum barlmtus
Bulbous adder's tongue Ophioglossum crotalophoroides
Blue palmetto Saba! minor
Blunt-lobed woodsia Woodsia obtusa
Brake fern (unnamed) Pteris vittata
Carolina holly llex ambigua
Catesby lily Lillium cntesbaei
Crested coralroot Hexalectris spicata
Downy shield fern 'l'heoypteris dentata
Dutchman's pipes Arislolochia tomentosa
Eastcoast cootie Zamia umbrosa
Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron
Florida adder's mouth Malaxis spicata
Florida shield fern Dryopteris ludoviciana
Florida ladies-tresses Spiranthes brevilabris. var. oridana
Foxtail clubmoss Lycupidium clopecuroides
Fragrant ladies-tresses Spiranthes cernus var. odomta
Golden polypody Phlebodium aurem
Grass pink Calopugum pulchellus
Grass pink Calopugum tuberosus
Grassleaf ladies-tresses Spiranthes pracox
Green ladies-tresses' Spiranthes polyantha C2
Green cross orchid Habenaria odontopetala
Greeny orchid Epidendrum conopseum
Gulf spikemoss Selaginella Iudoviciana
Hairy maiden fern Thelypteris qundrnngularis var. versicolor
Hooded pitcher plant Sa'ocenia minor
Jackson vine Smilax smallii
Lace-lip ladies-tresses Spiranthes laciniata
Lanceleaf greenbrier Smilax smallii
Little ladies-tresses 5piranthes grayi
Long-lip ladies-tresses Spiranthes longilabris
Many-owered grass pink Calopugum multiorus
Marsh fern Thelypteris palustris
Meadow spikemoss Selaginella apoda
Michaux's orchid Habenaria q. var. quinquieseta
Mixed spleenwort Asplenium heteroresiliens
Mosquito fern Azolla carolinensis
Netted chain fern Woodwardia ureolata
Nodding club moss Lycopodium cernum
Oval ladies-tresses Spiranthes ovalis
Polypody fern (unnamed) Polypodium pIumuIa
Robust spikemoss Selaginella plana
Rosebud Orchid Cleistes divaricata
Royal fern Osmunda regalis

151
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Designated Status
Common Name Scientic Name FG FWFC FDA USFWS NMFS

Plants (cont.)
Rufed spleenwort
Shadow-witch orchid
Shoestring fern
Slender club moss
Slender Iadies-tresses
Southern club moss
Southern grape fern
Southern lady fern
Southern lip fern
Southern twayblade orchid
Southern tubercled orchid
Spring coralroot orchid
Spring ladies-tresses
Terrestrial peperomia
Texas ladies-tresses
Netted chain fern
Virginia chain fern
Water spider orchid
Water fern
Water sundew
Whisk fern
Wild pine
Woods fern
Yellow fringe orchid
Hl Il lm- Il tHl il
Asplenium plenum
Ponthieva r. var. racemosa
Vittaria lineata
Lycopodium cnrolinanum
Spiranthes gracilis
Lycopodium appressum
Botrychium bilernatum
Athyrium asplenioides
Cheilanthes microphylla
Listeria austmlis
Platanthera ava
Corallorhiza wisteriana
Spiranthes vernalis
Peperomia obtusifolia
Spiranthes brevilabris. var. brevilabris
Woodwordia aerolnta
Woodwardia virginica
Habenaria repens
Salvinia rotundifolia
Drusera intermedia
Psilotum nudum
Tillandsia bartmmii
Thelypteris normalis
Platonthera cilinris

Keys:

' = Species that occur within the preserve boundary as provided by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
city of Jacksonville, and Florida Island Navigation District.
E = Endangered
T = Threatened
T(S/ A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance
C2 = A candidate for listing, with some evidence of vulnerability, but for which not enough data exist to
support listing. This designation provides no protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, it is
NPS policy to treat such taxa as threatened or endangered until additional data on their population sizes and
distributions show otherwise.
C3A = Species no longer being considered for listing (probably extinct)
SSC = Species of special concern
CE = Commercially exploited
FGFWFC = Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
USFWS = United States Fish and Mldlife Service

152
 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND
RESOURCES
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve is
composed primarily of salt marsh, a highly
productive environment. As a result, humans
have inhabited the area for at least 6,000
years. A recent survey of the preserve (NPS
1992c) has identified numerous Orange and
Late Archaic sites, as well as an
archeological "transitional" zone reecting
overlapping interregional cultural
occupations and inuence. Placed between
east Florida and Georgia, the region
bounded by the Satilla River in Georgia and
the St. Johns River was considered a
marginal border area. Analysis generated by
the recent survey suggests that the region
may have particular cultural contributions.
In ceramic chronology, subsistence, and
settlement, the "St. Marys Region," which
includes the Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve, has an unusual cultural
history from surrounding regions.
The long ceramic sequence that exists in the
preserve provides an important archeological
tool to study the development of the local
Indian cultures. Recent analysis of ceramics
from the preserve suggests there are valid
reasons to consider the St. Marys region as a
cultural entity separate from the Georgia
coastal area to the north and the central
Florida Alachua cultural area to the south.
Consideration of St. Marys as a distinct
region may provide the basis for better
understanding the dynamics of cultural
growth and elaboration in naturally rich
subsistence environments.
The National Park Service's Southeast
Archeological Center has conducted research
for the preserve since 1987. In 1988 the
Southeast Archeological Center prepared an
"Archeological Overview and Assessment of
Sites Within and Adjacent to the Proposed
Boundaries of the Timucuan Ecologic and
153
Historic Preserve" (NPS 1988). In 1990 an
archeological survey and evaluation project
was begun through a cooperative agreement
between the Southeast Archeological Center
and the Florida Museum of Natural History,
University of Florida at Gainesville (NPS
1992a, 1993c). Although the work beginning
in 1990 was extensive, many areas in the
preserve were not surveyed, and
approximately two-thirds of the preserve
remains to be surveyed.
Searches were made for many of the historic
sites mentioned in the enabling legislation,
but most were not located. The field survey
techniques could not find deeply buried sites
or submerged archeological resources.
Several important historic sites could not be
located even after the historical analysis
report (NPS 1993c). However, based on the
previous work (NPS 1981, 1992a), nearly 200
prehistoric and historic archeological
resources were identified within the
preserve. The preserve contains sites
representing almost every cultural period:
Archaic, Orange, Woodland, Mississippian,
Protohistoric, Mission Period, First Spanish
Period, British Period, Second Spanish
Period, and 19th Century American to the
present. Site types range from artifact
scatters, village sites, shell middens, sand
mounds, earthworks, and tabby ruins.
Known burial mounds within the preserve
are few.
Table 9 shows the number of archeological
components from the nearly 200 sites that
are represented in the preserve. The final
count can be tabulated when the National
Park Service, together with the state of
Florida, makes decisions about combining
some sites and deleting other numbers.
There are currently seven archeological
resources listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (see table 10). One is a
prehistoric site and the others are historic
sites.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 9: NUMBER OF ARCHEOLOGICAL COMPONENTS BY TIME PERIODS

Prehistoric: Number Historic Number

Preceramic Archaic 21 16th century 4

Orange 45 17th century 7
Transitional Refuge 5 18th century 18
Deptford 22 19th century 22
St. Johns I 35 20th century 6
Swift Creek 10 Unknown 2
Savannah 32
St Johns II 51
Protohistoric 14
Unknown _35

Total 270 59

Total All Components 329

SOURCE: National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center.

TABLE 10: ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Site No. Site Name Site Type Time Period

TIMU-OOl Grand Site Sand Mound and Shell Midden St. Johns Il
TIMU-097 San Juan del Puerto Spanish Mission and Associated 16th, 17th, and 18th
Village
TlMU-095 Kingsley Plantation Plantation 18th, 19th
TIMU-120 St. Johns Bluff Work Camp/ Town 18th
TIMU-096 Yellow Bluff Fort Military Fortifications 19th (Civil War)
FOCA-0O1 Fort Caroline Military 16th
FOCA-002 Spanish-American Military Earthworks 19th (Spanish
War Earthworks American War)

SOURCE: National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center.

These sites are administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places, having been determined
eligible for inclusion on the register.

One shell ring midden the Grand Site on
Big Talbot Island is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, as is the San Juan
del Puerto mission site. All sites discussed in
the NPS (1992a) report are considered
significant to understanding the region's
prehistoric and historic record. Even
knowledge of unknown locations, such as
San Estaban and San Gabriel, contributes to
understanding the region's history.
However, for management purposes, over 20
surveyed sites of great significance are
considered eligible for nomination to the
national register, while two surveyed sites of
great regional importance may be eligible.
The numbers of shell middens are significant
because they are direct evidence of human
interaction with the productive wetlands.
Based on the nearly 200 archeological
resources identified in the preserve, the
following themes, subthemes, and facets, as
classified in History and Prehistory in the
National Park System and the National Historic
landmarks Program (NPS 1987), are
represented:

154
 Cultural Environment

Cultural Developments: Indigenous 3. Varieties of Early Conict,

American Populations Conquest, or Accommodation
A. The Earliest Inhabitants b. Forced and Voluntary
13. Archaic Adaptations of the Population Movements
Southeast c. The New Demographics
18. Archaic Adaptations in d. Changing Settlement
Riverine Zones Types

B. Post-Archaic and Pre-Contact II. European Colonial Exploration and

Developments Settlement
9 Post-Archaic Adaptations A. Spanish Exploration and
14. Hunters and Gatherers of the Settlement
Eastern Woodlands 2. Southeast
16. Post-Archaic Adaptations of French Exploration and Settlement
Eastern Coastal Regions 1. Atlantic
20. Post-Archaic Adaptations in
Riverine Zones III. Development of the English
Colonies, 1688-1763
C. Prehistoric Archeology: Topical A. Physical Development
Facets 2. Territorial Expansion
2. Prehistoric Technology C. Military Affairs
3. Prehistoric Social and Political 2. Spanish
Organizations
7 . Prehistoric Diet/ Health The American Revolution
8. Prehistoric Economics / Trade D. War in the South
10 . Prehistoric Religion, Ideology,
and Ceremonialism VI. The Civil War
12. Prehistoric Settlements and B. War in the East
Settlement Patterns
19. Prehistoric Cultural Change VII. Political and Military Affairs, 18651939
23. Paleoecology D. America Becomes a World Power,
18651914
D. Ethnohistory of Indigenous 1. Military Affairs (Spanish
American Populations American War)
1. Native Cultural Adaptations
at Contact XI. Agriculture
j. Native Adaptations to B. Plantation Agriculture, 16071860
Southeastern Environments C. Era of Subsistence Agriculture,
2. Establishing Intercultural 17631820
Relations D. The Plantation Breaks up,
a. Trapping and Fishing for Sharecropping, and Tenant
Newcomers Farming, 1860
g. Introduction to Foreign
Religious Systems XIV. Transportation
i. Trade Relationships C. Canals
Helping Foreigners
Survive: Providing Food, XVI. Architecture
Clothing, and Shelter A. Colonial

XXX. American Ways of Life

A. Slavery and Plantation Life

155
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A combination of test pits, excavation units,
probe, posthole, photogrammetric, and
walkover survey techniques was used to
locate and identify sites. Within the preserve
archeological sites are reasonably well
distributed across all landforms and
microenvironmental zones.
Many of the significant archeological
resources are protected by the preserve's
physical characteristics. Several of the
drowned island sites are isolated,
inaccessible, and discourage pedestrian
visits. Most of the islands are difficult to
reach, even by boat, because of extensive
marsh and lack of adjacent tidal creeks.
Additionally, most of the general public
would not recognize these archeological
sites, and few artifacts are found on the
surface to alert pothunters. However, known
threats include tidal erosion, vandalism,
pothunters, changing water levels, and
dredge spoil deposition.
THE TIMUCUA
The American Indians inhabiting the lower
St. Johns River at the time of European
contact were the Timucua, the name being a
variation of the name of the enemy tribe of
the Saturiwa group. The term "Timucua"
identifies political groups in central and
north Florida and southeast Georgia at
historic contact (defined as the first Spanish
contact in the New World and extending to
the end of the mission system in La Florida
in 1704). These groups had a common
linguistic heritage but were dialectically
distinct. Timucua population estimates at
historic contact range from 100,000 to
300,000.
The Timucua had a political organization
based on a loose affiliation of villages for the
purposes of warfare and tribute. The head of
each village was called a cacique, and the
village was named after him. Each town's
cacique paid allegiance to a regional or
provincial head cacique. These alliances
156
formed confederacies which engaged in
warfare with other confederacies.
The Timucua social organization was of
ranked matrilineal clans. These clans were
identified with totemic names, such as deer,
panther, fish, or buzzard. The head chief or
holata ico always came from the white-tailed
deer clan. The social system was castelike,
nobility was inherited, and the head chief
exacted tribute from his subjects.
Timucuas had four different types of medical
practitioners: medicos (curers), herbolarios
(herbalists), parteras (midwives), and
hechizeros (priest-shaman). Also part of the
community were berdaches, men who
dressed like women, took on women's roles,
and performed special functions such as
carrying war dead.
At historic contact the Timucua lived the
same way as had their prehistoric ancestors.
They inhabited the coastal lagoons and
estuaries and pine atwoods. Their
subsistence was based on fresh and saltwater
shellfish collecting, fishing, hunting,
gathering, and maize agriculture. Corn was
planted twice a year and pumpkins, beans,
cucumbers, citrons, and gourds were also
cultivated. Villages were palisaded with a
round fence which overlapped at the two
ends to form a narrow opening. Inside the
palisade, houses were round with thatched
roofs.
Women wore skirts made of Spanish moss
fibers, and they had long hair which they
wore down. Men wore breechcloths and put
their hair up in topknots, which were
sometimes tied with elaborate headdresses.
Men and women also wore bracelets around
their wrists, necks, and ankles. Noble men
and women were tattooed. Some chiefs were
tattooed over almost every part of their
bodies. All adults were barefoot. Young
children were not clothed.
At the time of European contact, the
Timucua Indians had a complex political and
social organization that had evolved through

1,000 years of a relatively stable subsistence
and settlement pattern. Within 100 years of
Spanish settlement and missionization, the
Timucua culture had been destroyed and its
population decimated. These people were
replaced by the Guale from Georgia, who
lived on the mission sites with the Spanish.
HISTORIC CULTURAL SITES AND
RESOURCES
Fort Caroline
The original site of Fort Caroline is unknown
but may be located in the St. Johns River
channel. Construction of the current fort
model, built in 1964, was based on Jacques
LeMoyne's drawings and colonial
descriptions. The fort model is triangular
with two earthwork sides and one side a
wooden palisade. The 200-foot by 200-foot
by 300-foot structure is surrounded by a
moat on two sides and the river on the third
side. A single entry is built of heavy timbers.
Interpretive signs provide details of
historical occupancy. The fort model is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
The fort model has been managed as a
cultural resource since its construction. It is
currently being managed as an exhibit to
commemorate the French settlement at de la
Caroline.
Spanish Pond
Spanish Pond off Fort Caroline Road is a
freshwater pond. Existing documentation
and evidence cannot determine conclusively
that the site was the Spanish campsite before
the attack on Fort Caroline; thus, the pond is
being managed to allow natural processes to
occur. The pond is gaining a reputation
locally as an excellent birding site. The site is
listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
157
Cultural Environment
Ribault Column
The Ribault Column site on St. Johns Bluff is
owned by the National Park Service and
open for day use. The monument is a replica
of the original placed at the mouth of the St.
Johns River by the French in 1562. The
replica was first placed in Naval Station
Mayport by the Daughters of the American
Revolution, and moved to its current
location in 1957. Visitors take an elevated
boardwalk to the column, which
commemorates French exploration in the
region. The column is on a 90-foot-high
point on the bluff, and visitors have a wide,
open view of the preserve, St. Johns River,
and an adjacent spoil deposition site.
Current interpretive signs address visitor
safety and cultural history. The site is gated
at night to reduce vandalism. Adjacent to the
site is a Confederate defensive earthwork
battery, which was built in September 1862.
Ribault Column is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Theodore Roosevelt Area
The Theodore Roosevelt area was acquired
from the Nature Conservancy in 1990. This
approximately 600-acre tract is relatively
undeveloped and offers visitors the chance
to experience both wetlands and uplands
habitat. A series of hiking trails wind
through the property and connect with a
trail leading to the Spanish Pond and the
Fort Caroline visitor center. The Willie
Browne trail accommodates bicycles, while
the other trails are for foot traffic only. NPS
interpreters offer both cultural and natural
history programs, as well as environmental
education for school groups. Cultural
resources include archeological sites and a
private cemetery. The Wil-le-ma Lodge,
recently rehabilitated for administrative
purposes, also offers opportunities for group
activities, interpretive programs, and public
outreach efforts.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
The Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation on
Palmetto Avenue, Fort George Island, was
donated to the National Park Service on
October 1, 1991, by the Florida Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation
and Parks. The 23-acre site is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and is
one of the most intact remaining examples of
the plantation system in Florida. The
plantation ourished under Zephaniah
Kingsley (leased 1813-1817, owned
18171839) who used slave labor to raise
cotton, corn, black-eyed peas, sugar cane,
and sweet potatoes. Since October 1991 the
National Park Service has acquired
approximately 15 additional acres
surrounding the site.
The plantation contains 27 historic structures,
including the main plantation house, the
Anna Madgigine Jai house, a carriage
house/barn, a resort lodge, and the remains
of 23 of the original 32 slave cabins. The
buildings are in good physical condition
with few exceptions. General areas of
concern are the instability of the slave
cabins' tabby walls, rain damage, and
encroaching vegetation, as well as the
historical integrity of several of the buildings
that have been architecturally modified over
the years. One slave cabin has been roofed,
but all the walls of the others are exposed to
weather and are deteriorating. The
plantation house and resort lodge are
currently being subjected to some water
damage. Insect and pest problems are also a
concern. Modifications, including but not
limited to room additions, replacement of
wood ooring and saveboards, adaptive
reuse of rooms, introduction of electrical and
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
systems, and reconfiguration of doors and
openings, have been made to the plantation
house, Anna Jai house, carriage house/barn,
resort lodge, and one slave cabin.
The slave quarters and carriage house/barn
do not have furnishings. The main plantation
house has selected furnishings, and the Anna
158
Jai house has both selected furnishings and
artifacts. Until recently, approximately 900
objects and artifacts were in both houses.
The furnishings and artifacts represented a
wide range of periods and styles, but few
were directly associated with the Kingsley
period. Most of the household contents
dated to the late 19th and early 20th century
era. All of the objects were owned by four
Florida state agencies, with the majority
being owned by the state of Florida. The
objects were on temporary loan until
March 31, 1993. Since that date, the National
Park Service has returned most of these
items to the state agencies, while keeping
20%, or approximately 180 objects.
Dos Hermanas
Dos Hermanas was a fort built by Spanish
forces during the second Spanish Period
(17841821) in Florida as protection against
enemy ships entering the St. Johns River
from the north via Two Sisters Creek. Recent
archeological attempts to find this fort at or
near Sisters Island were unsuccessful.
Fort St. George
Built during the 1730s by Georgia Governor
James Oglethorpe, Fort St. George's primary
use was as a watch for Spanish activities. It
also served as a visible claim for Great
Britain's assertion that its southern boundary
was the St. Johns River. Thought to be on
Fort George Island, recent archeological
attempts to locate the site were unsuccessful.
St. Johns Town
A British town built on St. Johns Bluff and
known as St. Johns Town existed from 1765
to 1783. During the American Revolution,
the town was occupied by many Loyalists
who ed the colonies. A British fort (Fort St.
George) was built on top of St. Johns Bluff to
protect the town, which was of commercial,
rather than military, orientation. The town's

precise location is not known, although
archeologists have uncovered sherds, bottle
glass, axes, weapon parts, fish hooks and
sinkers, knives, and other artifacts from sites
believed to be manufacturing locations. The
site is administratively listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
San Estaban
The Spanish-built San Estaban, a small
blockhouse, is on the south bank of the St.
Johns River at or near its mouth. The
blockhouse served as a guard post for Fort
San Mateo (Caroline) several miles upriver.
It was captured and destroyed by Dominic
de Gourges' French forces in April 1568.
Recent archeological attempts to find the
blockhouse site were unsuccessful and it is
doubtful that remains still exist.
San Gabriel
The Spanish-built San Gabriel, a small
blockhouse, is on the north bank of the St.
Johns River, at or near its mouth. The
blockhouse served as a guard post for Fort
San Mateo (Caroline) several miles upriver.
It was captured and destroyed by Dominic
de Gourges' French forces in April 1568.
Recent archeological attempts to find the
blockhouse site were unsuccessful and it is
doubtful that remains still exist.
San Juan Del Puerto
The known site of the San Juan Del Puerto
mission is not marked or interpreted. On
Fort George Island and owned by the state
of Florida, the site is currently in heavily
wooded live oak hammock and planted
pines. Palmetto Avenue bisects the site,
roughly following original roads. At the time
of the mission (ca. 15781763) the site
probably held a church, a priest's house, a
kitchen, and a cemetery enclosed by a wattle
and daub palisade. A palisaded Indian
village with garden plots, com-houses, and a
159
Cultural Environment
war-house, would have been nearby.
Archeological excavations were conducted in
1955, 1961, and early 1980s. There are
extensive cultural deposits, including
Spanish and Indian material, faunal remains,
and human remains. The presence of pre
historic ceramic types indicates that San Juan
del Puerto is a multicomponent site. It is
listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is significant to the under
standing of acculturative processes at historic
contact. The site is threatened by road and
drainage maintenance.
Spanish-American War Battery
The Spanish-American War Battery, on Fort
Caroline Road, is in private ownership and
is not identified or accessible for visitor
appreciation. Remnants include the concrete
gun emplacement, which is overgrown with
underbrush and trees. The view of the river
is obscured. An observed threat is vanda
lism. The site is administratively listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Thomas Creek Battlefield
Thomas Creek Battlefield was the scene of a
revolutionary war clash in Duval County.
The skirmish occurred on May 17, 1777,
between American colonial soldiers and a
mixed force of British and loyalist soldiers.
The battlefield site is believed to be northeast
of the intersection of Thomas Creek and
Kings Road, but recent archeological
attempts to find a portion of the site within
the boundaries of the preserve were
unsuccessful.
Yellow Bluff Fort
Yellow Bluff Fort, a Florida state historic site,
is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Confederates built the fort in 1862 on
high land rising steeply from the St. Johns
River, where guns could command control of
the waterway. Fortifications consisted of
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
earthworks roughly in the shape of a "T"
covering approximately 1.25 acres. The view
of the river is obscured by underbrush,
palmetto scrub, and spoil deposition material
that lays between the site and the St. Johns
River to the south. Large live oaks intrude
on the historic scene. Other visual intrusions
and resource protection concerns include
development on private property
immediately adjacent to the east, light
industrial operations to the west, vandalism,
littering, and bicycle and /or ATV abuse of
the earthworks. Despite these resource
concerns, a 1992 University of Georgia
analysis described the site as possessing
integrity of location, setting, materials, and
association. The site "has partial integrity of
design . . . and feeling' in that it is possible
to visualize the original fortification."
Several informational/ interpretive signs
mark the site. No personal services, maps, or
brochures are available to interpret the earth
works or meaning of the fortifications.
Visitors can stroll the park grounds freely
and picnic tables are available for use.
160
Fish Camps
There are 13 fish camps within the preserve
boundary. They are remnants of recreational
use dating to the 1920s. Fish camps provide
access to good "fishing holes" and usually
consist of a grocery store, bait and tackle
shop, and occasionally, lodging (either cabins
or camping). Fish camps at Dunns Creek,
Sisters Creek, Brown's Creek, Barz, Oyster
Shell, Palms, Pirates Cove, Alamacani, White
Shell, Clapboard Creek, and Drummond
Point are all in private ownership._Fish
camps are an integral part of the local
economy and provide a place for locals and
visitors to enjoy traditional customs of
northeast Florida. Even though the camps
contribute to the cultural avor of the
preserve and northeast Florida, their
preservation is not as high a priority for the
National Park Service as are the legislated
historic sites.
 VISITOR USE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

VISITOR USE DATA
Limited visitor use data is available for
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
because it is a new unit of the national park
system. Statistics concerning numbers of
visitors are available for Fort Caroline
National Memorial (see table 11). The
average annual visitation at Fort Caroline
over the 198593 period was approximately
122,000. A 10-year average of visitation
through the Fort Caroline visitor center
(hand count) yielded 30,000 to 35,000. Recent
numbers of visitors for the Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve (specifically,
Theodore Roosevelt area and Kingsley
Plantation) are shown in table 11.
Monthly public use report figures are based
on traffic counter records.
Beginning January 1, 1987, a different
counting system was implemented, which
resulted in lower traffic counts. Visitation
totals in the Fort Caroline visitor center (by
hand counter) remained about the same. In
1990-91, figures for the Theodore Roosevelt
area, and in 1991, figures for Kingsley
Plantation were reported to the National
Park Service's Denver Service Center as a
part of Fort Caroline (however, these figures
are shown separately in table 11). Beginning
in January 1992, statistics for these
operational areas of the Timucuan Preserve
were reported separately to the Denver
Service Center.

TABLE 11: VISITOR UsE DATA

Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve

Fort Caroline National Memorial Kingsley Plantation Theodore Roosevelt Area

Period Visitors Period Visitors Period Visitors

1980 128,619 (Florida state historic site)

1981 110,844
1982 151,607 1982 11,062
1983 140,461 1983 8,688
1984 145,137 1984 9,636
1985 164,145 1985 16,258
1986 135,883 1986 16,662
1987 84,457 1987 16529
1988 82,960 1988 15,822
1989 91,675 1989 17,485
1990 100,897 1990 19,243 1990 256
1991 132,438 1991 22,647 1991 3,977
1992 130,028 1992 30,823 1992 19,038
"1993 129,646 "1993 35,491 "1993 17,454

SOURCES: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve and Denver Service Center.
" Visitation counts began in October 1990.
'" Transferred to NPS ownership 10/ 1/91.
' Visitation through December 1993.

161
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Some information about the national origin
of people who visited the preserve in 1992
and 1993 was gathered from the guest
registers at the Fort Caroline visitor center
and at the Kingsley Plantation. In 1992, of
the 3,474 people who signed the register at
Fort Caroline, 230 were from other countries,
1,254 were from states other than Florida,
622 were from Florida outside Duval
County, and 1,368 were from Duval County.
A total of 11,203 people signed the guest
register at Kingsley Plantation in 1992. Of
these, 868 were from other countries, 4,858
were from states other than Florida, 2,226
were from Florida outside Duval County,
and 3,233 were from Duval County.
In 1993, of the 5,634 people who signed the
guest register at Fort Caroline, 364 were
from other countries, 1,915 were from states
other than Florida, 941 were from Florida
outside Duval County, and 2,414 were from
Duval County.
A total of 13,849 people signed the guest
register at Kingsley Plantation in 1993. Of
these, 878 were from other countries, 5,531
were from states other than Florida, 2,990
were from Florida outside Duval County,
and 4,435 were from Duval County.
No other data concerning visitors to the
preserve is available regarding length of
stay, age, makeup of groups, interests, or
activities. However, of those visitors who
signed the guest registers in 1992 and 1993 at
Fort Caroline and Kingsley Plantation, the
majority were female.
An increase in visitation occurred in 1990 in
part due to the opening of the Napoleon B.
Broward Bridge across the St. Johns River.
This bridge is part of an interstate beltway
planned for Jacksonville. Directional signs to
the preserve were posted at exits to direct
visitors to Fort Caroline. Similar increases in
opposite direction travel to Fort George
Island from Jacksonville's Arlington and
Southside areas have resulted from the
bridge's completion.
162
SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Provisions have been made to accommodate
the needs of special populations, identified
as those with sight, hearing, mental, and
mobility impairments; non-English speaking
visitors; children; and the elderly.
Information relating to the la Caroline story
are currently available in French, Spanish,
and German.
Mobility impaired visitors are offered a tour
of Fort Caroline via an electric cart. A
wheelchair is also available. The Ribault
Column is accessible, as is the visitor center.
In the preserve, visitors with disabilities
need to make arrangements with park staff,
and accommodations are made for access
within the Theodore Roosevelt area. An
electric cart is available for use at Kingsley
Plantation.
A disability access survey was done in the
spring of 1988 to bring Fort Caroline into
compliance with requirements of Section 502
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A similar
survey of Kingsley Plantation was conducted
in spring 1992. All NPS facilities need to be
evaluated for compliance with the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act.
EXISTING VISITOR USE
There are many opportunities for visitors to
enjoy the Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve through a variety of interpretive
programs, cultural activities, and recreational
use. These opportunities are currently
offered by the National Park Service, as well
as by other federal, state, city, and private
interests in and adjacent to the preserve.
Orientation and Interpretation
Interstate 95, a major cross-country route,
parallels Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve to the west. There are no signs
identifying the preserve as visitors cross it
north of the Jacksonville airport. There are

highway/directional signs on FL 9A and on
major arterial roads near Fort Caroline and
the Kingsley Plantation, in addition to
site/ area identification signs. The Fort
Caroline visitor center, 15 miles east of
downtown Jacksonville, is the primary place
where visitors receive information about the
preserve.
Orientation, information, and interpretation
are lacking throughout the Timucuan
Preserve, with the exception of services
offered at sites under NPS management.
When visitors arrive they are often unaware
they have entered the preserve, and do not
know what to see or how to get around.
Fort Caroline. Directional signs currently
lead visitors to Fort Caroline where a variety
of visitor services are in place, including
restrooms, drinking water, and visitor center.
Visitor activities are available at the visitor
center, Fort Caroline model, Spanish Pond,
and the 1.25-mile self-guided walking trail
looping through the site. An informal picnic
area is available for use. The visitor center
interior was remodeled in spring 1993; it has
an information desk, a sales area, an
audiovisual room, and exhibits mentioning
the Timucuan people and describing the
colony of la Caroline. An orientation exhibit
on the Timucuan Preserve is in place. A
variety of publications are also available.
Personal services at Fort Caroline include a
0.25-mile ranger-guided walk to the fort
model. Special programs include living
history weekends, demonstrating the
clothing, weapons, cooking, and culture of
lower St. Johns River residents in 156465,
and holiday programs at the end of the
calendar year.
Teachers are provided instructional guides
before Fort Caroline site visits and are
encouraged to lead their groups on walks to
the fort model or on the trails.
The visitor center at Fort Caroline does not
meet the short- or long-range needs for
orientation/ information to the preserve. It
has no auditorium. The recent remodeling of
163
Visitor Use and Recreational Opportunities
the visitor center has provided some interior
open space for special events, large groups,
and temporary exhibits. However, there is
no room for additional interpretive media
focusing on themes and resources of the
preserve. The visitor center is currently open
9:00 AM. to 5:00 PM. daily except Christmas.
Ribault Column and Spanish Pond. The
Ribault Column, commemorating French
exploration, is a five-minute drive (0.5-mile)
to the east on Fort Caroline Road. Visitors
may walk on a boardwalk to the column,
high on St. Johns Bluff, and see an open
vista of the preserve and St. Johns River. The
Spanish Pond, across Fort Caroline Road
from the visitor center, is a freshwater pond.
Visitors may walk on a trail to view wildlife
and read interpretive signs. This trail, when
not ooded, provides access to the Theodore
Roosevelt area.
Theodore Roosevelt Area. From the Fort
Caroline visitor center, people interested in
spending a few hours in the preserve are
directed to the Theodore Roosevelt area,
where the National Park Service offers
guided tours on weekends. These tours
originate at the existing trailhead parking
area. Visitors may also take self-guided hikes
or ride bicycles on designated trails, view
wildlife, fish, visit a private cemetery, and
enjoy the sights and sounds of a natural
area. Rangers also offer environmental
education programs on weekdays during the
school year for local school groups. Onsite
visits include both teacher-guided fieldwork
and ranger-led discussions. Park staff offer
several teacher workshops each year to
prepare teachers planning to have their
students participate in the education
program. Picnic tables are available, in
addition to restroom facilities. The lodge is
available for meetings, special presentations,
and school group use.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation. Current
visitor activities at the Zephaniah Kingsley
Plantation include tours provided by NPS
staff. These tours, offered on a scheduled
basis, focus on the plantation's historical
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
occupation, structures, plantation life, and
other subjects. A self-guided grounds tour is
provided using wayside exhibits. In addition
to these tours, personal services include
roving interpretation on the plantation
grounds, interpretive programs at the slave
cabins and on the grounds, and school
programs during the school year. Publi
cations about the plantation and the slave
community are available. Visitors are free to
walk through the grounds, carriage house,
and slave cabins at any time during regular
visiting hours, 9:00 AM. to 5:00 PM. daily
except Christmas.
The main plantation house includes an
information desk, a sales area, exhibits, and
furnishings. Current exhibits on the first
oor of the house focus on the plantation's
historical occupancy. Additional exhibits
focusing on slavery are in the Anna Jai
house.
Except for NPS programs at the Kingsley
Plantation, Fort Caroline, and the Theodore
Roosevelt area, onsite NPS interpretation in
the preserve is limited to a few directional
signs, brochures, or wayside exhibits to
inform visitors about the resources. All NPS
bulletin boards contain information on
visitor safety and activities that may or may
not be within the abilities of most visitors.
This information is currently limited to NPS
sites. Other agencies provide information at
their sites.
Interpretive media within the preserve are
currently available at the following areas:
Fort Caroline visitor center/ museum
museum exhibits (temporary and
permanent), publications, sales Outlet,
information/orientation, personal services,
audiovisual, wayside exhibits, hiking
trails, fort model, interpretive signs
Spanish Pond
wayside exhibit
hiking trail
164
Ribault Monument
wayside exhibits
Theodore Roosevelt Area
bulletin boards, personal services
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
interpretive exhibits and furnishings,
publications, personal services, wayside
exhibits, bulletin boards, sales outlet
Legislation establishing Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve stated that the
principal interpretive center in the preserve
would be at Fort Caroline.
Recreation Within Preserve
Prior to the designation of Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve, local
residents and visitors alike pursued many
recreational activities, including boating,
fishing, swimming, hiking, bird-watching,
nature appreciation, driving, and visiting
cultural sites. These activities have continued
since the preserve's establishment.
In planning for the recreational needs of its
residents, the city of Jacksonville conducted
a recreation needs survey. Its purpose was to
determine the demand for particular
recreation facilities and opportunities. The
results showed that bicycle riding, walking,
swimming, fishing, picnicking, and nature
study were among the most popular forms
of recreation in the city.
Additional surveys, e.g., highway exit
surveys of tourists and visitors, were
conducted by the state's Chamber of
Commerce. The results indicate visitors to
Jacksonville come to enjoy camping,
swimming, and fishing.
An inventory of recreation facilities and
open spaces of over 100 acres defined as
"undeveloped land suitable for passive
recreational and / or conservation use" was
conducted by the city. Open spaces are
especially attractive when water resources

such as springs, streams, rivers, and lakes
are present. These water features often afford
recreational opportunities such as swimming,
boating, canoeing, and fishing. Water
resources also serve other functions,
including oodplain management and
provision of visually appealing aesthetic
amenities. For these reasons the city
determined it is important that these
resources be protected and considered as
prospective sites for future recreation.
From the survey information and an analysis
of existing recreational opportunities and
open spaces, the city has developed
recreation goals, objectives, and policies for
recreation and open space (City of
Jacksonville 1990h). Those that specifically
address issues or opportunities within the
Timucuan Preserve boundary are listed in
Appendix K.
REGIONAL RECREATION
OPPORTUNITIES
The following is a selected list and brief
description of the major open space and
large parks in the city of Jacksonville, and
federal and state parks within a two-hour
drive of the Timucuan Preserve. These parks
offer visitors recreational activities comple
menting those offered at Timucuan, or in
several instances, activities not available at
Timucuan. In addition, many of these parks
offer stories thematically related to the
Timucuan Preserve. Visitors to these areas
would be able to learn more about northeast
Florida/southeast Georgia history and
ecology and use a variety of recreational
facilities.
Recreation Areas, Parks, and Facilities in
and Adjacent to the Preserve
The following areas are either partially or
entirely within the preserve boundary:
Little Talbot/Big Talbot Island State Park
Complex is a 2,500-acre park serving all of
165
Visitor Use and Recreational Opportunities
Jacksonville. These islands provide beach
oriented active/passive recreation that
includes camping, picnicking, boat launching
facilities, ocean beach, nature trails, and an
expanse of open space.
Fort George Island is a 563-acre open space
purchased by the Florida Department of
Natural Resources in 1989. The site contains
wetlands, historic and archeological sites.
Huguenot Memorial Park, on SR A1A at
Fort George Inlet, offers camping, fishing,
beach driving, beach walking, swimming,
and windsurng.
E. Dale Joyner Nature Preserve at Pelotes
Island contains 350 acres of maritime
hammocks. The Jacksonville Electric
Authority and the Florida Power and Light
Company acquired the preserve property as
a buffer zone for a coal-fired generating
plant. The preserve offers hiking trails and
environmental education programs and
activities for schoolchildren and adults.
Reservations are required for the programs.
Mayport Ferry, on north SR A1A from
Atlantic Boulevard, is an automobile ferry
connecting Mayport with Fanning Island.
The ferry operates daily.
Naval Station Mayport, on north SR A1A
from Atlantic Blvd, is a naval base for
support vessels, destroyer escorts and
frigates, and home base of the 11.5.5.
Saratoga. Free tours are available on
weekends.
Little Jetties Park, on north SR A1A, is a city
recreation area offering informal picnicking
and beach walking.
The areas listed below are outside the
preserve boundary:
Amelia Island State Recreation Area, on SR
AlA, is a unit of the Talbot Island State
Parks. The recreation area contains 215 acres
of uplands and 500 acres of salt marsh
wetlands. The southern tip of the area is the
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
protected home for several species of special
concern, such as American oystercatchers,
least tern, and marine turtles.
Cary State Forest is a 3,411-acre forest
preserve located in western Jacksonville and
Nassau County. A total of 1,140 acres lie in
Jacksonville, of which 100 acres are open for
environmental education, camping, hiking,
and other outdoor recreation pursuits.
University of North Florida is a four-year,
upper-level institution. The university is
constructed on a 1,000-acre site in
southeastern Jacksonville and contains a
system of nature trails (some specifically
designed for use by visitors with disabilities)
12 miles in length, which has been desig
nated as a national recreation trail. The
campus is also dedicated as a bird sanctuary
and wildlife refuge. The university's campus
and trail system are open to the public,
providing a major recreational opportunity
for Jacksonville.
Tree Hill Nature Center, operated by a
nonprofit organization, has received
assistance from the state and city to provide
environmental education to schoolchildren
and the public on a 40-acre pristine site in
the Arlington area of the city. This site
provides an extensive elevated nature trail,
exhibits, and demonstration facilities.
Fort Clinch State Park, in Fernandina Beach
off SR A1A, features a restored Civil War
fort. A small garrison of "soldiers" give tours
of the fort. Also available are over 1,000
acres of beach, campsites, picnic grounds,
nature trails, and pier fishing.
Kathryn Abbey Hanna Park, south of
Mayport off SR A1A, is a 450-acre ocean
front city park with 1.5 miles of beach,
nature trails, and picnic areas. The park also
has 60 acres of freshwater fishing lakes and
300 campsites with facilities.
166
Jacksonville Beach Fishing Pier, at South
6th Street, is a long pier with shaded rest
areas, an observation deck, and a bait and
tackle shop. The pier is open daily.
Other State and Federal Park Areas within
Two Hours of Jacksonville
Florida State Parks
Anastasia Recreation Area, St. Augustine
Beach
Bulow Plantation Ruins Historical Site,
Interpretive Center, Bunnell
Flagler Beach Recreation Area, Flagler Beach
Gold Head Branch Park, Keystone Heights
Ichetucknee Springs Park, Fort White
Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Historical Site,
Interpretive Center, Cross Creek
Paynes Prairie Preserve, Interpretive Center,
Micanopy
Stephen Foster State Folk Culture Center
Historical Site, Interpretive Center, White
Springs
Suwannee River Park, Live Oak
Tomoka Park, Interpretive Center, Ormond
Beach
Florida National Parks
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,
St. Augustine
Fort Matanzas National Monument, St.
Augustine
Canaveral National Seashore, Ttusville
Georgia State Parks
Crooked River State Park, Kingsland
Stephen C. Foster State Park, Fargo
Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation State Historic
Site, Brunswick
Laura S. Walker State Park, Waycross
Georgia National Parks
Cumberland Island National Seashore,
St. Mary's
Fort Frederica National Monument,
St. Simons Island
 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
Approximately 673,000 people reside within
the city of Jacksonville and Duval County
and have access to Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve. The primary systems that
link the public with the preserve are the
interstate highways, regional and local roads,
and the waterways.
The principal interstate highways are I-95
and I-75, which run north and south through
the state. Interstate 10, which runs east and
west ends, at I-95. Interstate 75 primarily
serves the west coast of Florida. Interstate 95
is the major expressway connecting
Jacksonville with other coastal cities and
national park units.
The regional and local roads, including a
proposed major arterial route, the
Wonderwood Expressway, augment the
interstate system. US. 17 is the principal
north-south highway and parallels I-95 in the
west section of the preserve. State Route
A1A runs north and south on the eastern
boundary of the preserve. It is one of the
primary routes connecting commuters from
Atlantic coastal barrier islands to
Jacksonville.
The Wonderwood Expressway, when
completed, will provide a more direct east
west connection between the Arlington and
Mayport areas and the beaches. The
southern boundary of the preserve will be
revised to follow the final alignment of the
Wonderwood Expressway.
The Mayport Ferry is an automobile ferry
connecting Mayport with Fanning Island.
The ferry departs from SR A1A north of
Atlantic Boulevard. It provides the link to
connect and make continuous SR A1A.
Pedestrians and vehicles pay for the use of
the ferry.
167
The other primary commuter route is
Heckscher Drive (SR 105), which follows an
east-west alignment along the north shore of
the St. Johns River. The route then turns
northward and parallels the Atlantic Ocean
coast. This section of the roadway is part of
the A1A coastal highway route. Heckscher
Drive is an important arterial route within
the Jacksonville metropolitan area. It serves
as an intercity connection between Jackson
ville and Fernandina Beach and as an access
route to Little Talbot Island State Park.
In general access into the preserve by
roadway is limited. Among the local routes
that provide access to Fort Caroline National
Memorial and the Theodore Roosevelt area
are Fort Caroline Road and Mount Pleasant
Road. Access to Kingsley Plantation is by
Palmetto Avenue, the primary collector road
on Fort George Island. Cedar Point Road is
an east-west route that serves residents on
Black Hammock Island and provides access
to recreational sites along the western
boundary of Timucuan.
Water access is the key to discovering
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.
There are three major waterways that
provide access to the preserve. The St. Johns
River on the southern end of the preserve
provides deepwater access from the Atlantic
Ocean to ports in Jacksonville. The Nassau
River is the northern boundary of the
preserve. Deep water access via the Nassau
River is limited due to tidal uctuations
from the Atlantic Ocean. Connecting these
two major rivers is Sisters Creek, which
constitutes the Intracoastal Waterway in this
area. Sisters Creek serves as the primary
water connection between Fort Caroline and
Kingsley Plantation.
Boat launch facilities on these waterways are
limited. The city-owned Sisters Creek Park
and boat ramp and the privately owned fish
camps currently provide the only public
boating access.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
JURISDICTION
At present, jurisdiction on NPS lands is split
in the preserve. Fort Caroline National
Memorial, including Spanish Pond and
Ribault Column, are under concurrent
jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction, granted
by the state of Florida in 1986, allows for
joint enforcement within these areas of all
applicable federal and state/ local laws by
the federal and state/ local governments.
The remainder of Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve (including the Theodore
Roosevelt area) is under proprietary
jurisdiction because it was established after
1986. The National Park Service must apply
to the state of Florida for any change of this
jurisdiction. Proprietary jurisdiction allows
for federal government enforcement of
applicable federal laws within the preserve,
but major crimes (i.e., felonies) are under the
jurisdiction of and enforcement by the
state/ local authority.
EXISTING LANDOWNERSHIP
Lands within the preserve are owned by the
federal government (including the US.
Navy, the US. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the National Park Service), the state, the
Jacksonville Electric Authority, the~county,
the city, private conservation organizations,
private corporations, and individuals (see the
Landownership map). Landownership
continues to change; however, at the time of
the adoption of this plan, only 20%30% of
the total preserve lands and waters were in
NPS ownership.
EXISTING LAND USE
City of Jacksonville
Duval County has a total area of 850 square
miles. It is composed of the city of
Jacksonville, 836 square miles in area, and
four other smaller incorporated areas:
168
Atlantic Beach, Neptune Beach, Jacksonville
Beach, and Baldwin.
Within the city of Jacksonville, 30% of the
land area is developed in urban and
suburban uses (as calculated from maps of
City of Jacksonville, Department of Planning
and Development). Several major arterial
highways radiate from the central business
district connecting circumferential routes (see
"Access and Transportation" section). Retail,
office, industrial, and high density residential
uses are concentrated in strips and centers
along these corridors and inside the urban
core. Heavy industrial uses are concentrated
west of the preserve and west of the city.
Much of the outlying development patterns
were established prior to formal land use
planning for the area. The nonurban
residential uses are spread out in lower
density subdivisions and outlying rural
tracts. The area has also experienced "leap
frog" development resulting in scattered
pockets of growth. Low density sprawl has
resulted in the following: (1) increased costs
for roads and utilities, (2) conversion of
agricultural and timber acreage for
development, without comprehensive impact
analysis, (3) loss of other natural resources
and open space, (4) proliferation of package
sewage treatment plants, (5) air and water
pollution, and (6) lack of community and
recreational facilities.
Primary demands for retail, office, and light
industrial businesses for the North and
Arlington subareas of Jacksonville, of which
the preserve is a part, is met by development
along the Atlantic Boulevard and Monument
Road corridors, and by the core city, all
south of the St. Johns River.
Within the Preserve
Land uses within the preserve are greatly
inuenced by the fact that approximately
35,672 acres (see table 12) are marshland and
open water, which not only limits acceptable
building areas, but also restricts access.
 Half Moon Island

Landownership Categories
- Federal
State/City/County
E Private
U Excluded Land
Preserve Boundary

m
0 2.5 Miles North 6

Landownership*
*Based upon best available information in May
of I994. Sources: City oflacksonville, NPS -
Land Resources Division, Timucuan Park Staff.
Map scale does not allow for illustration of
individual tracts ofland.

Downtown
J acksonville
Timucu an
Ecological and
Yellow BluffFort
Historic Preserve
United States Department ofthe Interior
National Park Service
Pelotes Island Area J 006- 20021-J uly 94' DSC

Current uses are predominately agricultural
and conservation and are zoned as such.
TABLE 12: EXISTING LAND UsES WITHIN THE PRESERVE
Categog
Urban
Military
Pastures
Vacant Uplands
Tree plantations
Open Water
Reservoirs/other water
Wetlands/ Marshes /Swamps
Sand / beaches
Spoil areas
Roads
Port facilities
Power transmission lines
Total
SOURCE: City of Jacksonville, Special Management Areas Plan
(1993) and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (1991b).
The agricultural zone district in Jacksonville
allows some decidedly nonagricultural uses.
Many of these, if developed, could have very
dramatic impacts on preserve resources.
They include forestry; logging; storage,
processing, and wholesale distribution of
farm supplies and products; land application
of grades I and II domestic sludge; and other
resource-dependent uses such as mining,
game preserves, agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, marinas, and recreational facilities.
Nonresource-based uses that may be allowed
if they meet certain criteria include
racetracks, solid waste management facilities,
power plants, major utility lines, airports,
prisons, slaughter houses, radio and
television station antennas, railroad
switching yards, etc.
New regulations to be adopted by the city
for the preserve as part of their special
management area requirements (see the
"Management Alternatives" chapter,
"Elements Common to All Alternatives, Land
Use and Protection" section) are expected to
eliminate many of the uses that would
constitute new construction. Allowed uses
expected to remain include marinas, riding
academies, dude ranches, essential services,
Socioeconomic Environment
and all resource-based uses. Uses to be
allowed by exception include radio and
television transmission towers, churches, bed
and breakfast establishments, bait and tackle
shops, and commercial hunting and fishing
Acres
camps.
696.6
1,212.7 This zone district may also be used for
67.2 residential units at the rate of up to one unit
6545.0
416.3
per 2.5 acres, varying with the size of the lot.
10,4670 Larger lots in single ownership would have
81.6 more stringent subdivision restrictions.
25,2052 Nonconforming lots of less than 2.5 acres
371.2
438.0
would still be eligible for a single family
47.1 home if certain conditions are met.
4.1
22.2 Given anticipated residential zoning within
45,0763
the preserve's special management area and
respective maximum densities an additional
270 acres would be eligible for densities of
1.5 dwelling units per acre.
Approximately 22,030 acres have agricultural
zoning within the preserve boundary. If
developed exclusively for residential
purposes and added to the units allowed
under the residential zoning, over 1,000 new
houses could result under the new
regulations. All homes would be dependent
on individual wells and septic systems.
Generally, the northern portion of the
preserve is zoned agricultural and is
currently undeveloped. There is a solid
waste landfill outside the preserve boundary.
The landfill has been closed, but
contamination from the facility may be of
concern as it predated the requirement for
lining dump sites. The facility also had a
history of dumping violations.
The southern portion of the preserve has
experienced some development, including
almost 700 acres of rural and low density
residential. The 350-acre Jacksonville Electric
Authority power plant complex on Pelotes
Island and 1,213 acres of Naval Station
Mayport lie within the southern portion.
Outside the southern boundary of the
preserve is a closed landfill.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
NPS uses within the preserve include the
Fort Caroline visitor center and maintenance
area, the Theodore Roosevelt area with park
headquarters, and Kingsley Plantation. Other
state and city parks in the preserve are Big
Talbot Island State Park, Little Jetties Park,
Huguenot Memorial Park, and the Sisters
Creek Park and boat ramp. Jacksonville
Electric Authority operates the E. Dale
Joyner Nature Preserve at Pelotes Island.
FUTURE LAND USE
Land use plans, zoning and other forms of
regulation, and fee simple or limited
acquisition are the legal techniques for
intervening on the control and management
of land uses.
It is the role of land use plans to state
development policies for the community,
and not to regulate. A land use plan is made
legally effective through local regulations
such as zoning adopted by the local
legislative body to bring regulations into
conformance with plan policies. This may be
done parcel by parcel at the initiative of
individual land owners, or uniformly by the
local government. At any time, a landowner
may petition the local governing authority to
change zoning. That body may grant or deny
changes based upon the current land use
plan, subsequent revised plans, prevailing
trends, and/or changed conditions. Because
zoning decisions are not permanent, this
control technique requires vigilance by those
who seek protection of the land from
development impacts. Because the law
requires "reasonable use" of private property
be allowed no matter what the zoning,
impacts even from controlled development
may be a resource protection issue.
The city of Jacksonville has jurisdiction over
zoning and land use decisions within the
preserve. Changes in zoning and land use
must comply with the city's land use plan in
place at the time of the decision.
172
Land use planning in the state of Florida is
subject to a statewide comprehensive
framework. The Florida State and Regional
Planning Act of 1984 requires that the state
adopt land use goals and policies, that the
state's eleven regions write policy plans that
conform to those goals and policies, and that
the cities/ counties adopt plans whose
elements reect the state and regional goals
and policies. The state of Florida must
review local plans for conformance and
accept them or require modification.
The following plans, written to fulfill this
state mandate, are germane to the Timucuan
Preserve:
Chapter 187, State Comprehensive Plan,
Florida Statutes, which provides policy
guidance for the orderly social, economic,
and physical growth of the state. It also
provides specific policy direction to state
and regional agencies.
Northeast Florida Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan (July 1, 1987),
which translates state policy to regional
planning issues. Excerpts from this plan
especially important to resource
protection in the preserve are found in
appendix B.
Comprehensive Plan - 2010, City of
Jacksonville (1990), which applies state
and regional policies to actual land use
decisions in the city.
As part of the city's effort to comply with
state land use policies, Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve has been designated as
a special management area for the
Comprehensive Plan - 2010 (City of
Jacksonville 1990a-h). This designation grants
the preserve special status in land use
decision making. However, policies and
regulations governing uses in the preserve
have not been adopted at the time of this
printing.
Decisions for the interim period are being
made by the city based on current zoning

and a preliminary future land use map.
These decisions may be challenged and
reversed by the state if they violate adopted
state or regional policies.
POPULATION TRENDS AND
PROJECTIONS
The city of Jacksonville and Duval County
had a combined 1990 population of 672,971
residents. Of these, 635,230 people live in
Jacksonville, with the remainder living in
other municipalities within the county. Since
1980 the population of Duval County has
increased by 101,968 residents or 17.8%. In
contrast, the preceding decade saw a
cumulative increase in population for Duval
County of only 42,138 persons, or an 8%
increase. During the 1980s, Duval County
gained population over two times as fast as
it did during the 1970s. The population of
Duval County is projected to be 847,104 by
the year 2015, an increase of 25.9%.
Population projections for the Jacksonville
area are presented in table 13.
As of 1990 the US. Navy has a group
quarters population (enlisted barracks and
on-base housing) in Jacksonville of 10,662
residents, an increase of 110% from 1980.
ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
Jacksonville has a diversified and relatively
stable economy that is not heavily dependent
on tourism or other cyclical industries. The
city's economy has a history related closely
to water activities because of its geographical
location on the east coast of Florida along
the St. Johns River with easy access both to
the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal
Waterway. The US. Navy and the Port of
Jacksonville provide two major centers of
such activity.
The US. Navy has three major bases in
Jacksonville the Jacksonville naval air
station; Cecil Field naval air station,
scheduled for closure; and the Naval Station
173
Socioeconomic Environment
Mayport complex. With 1990 total
employment of 46,764 military and civilian
personnel, and a payroll of $1.3 billion, the
US. Navy is the largest single employer in
the city. Of these facilities, only the Naval
Station Mayport is in the immediate area of
the preserve. Its 1990 total employment was
19,500 military and civilian personnel.
Jacksonville is also a major hub of
transportation and distribution, most of
which is directly related to the Port of
Jacksonville and three railroads serving the
region: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida
East Coast railroads. A major deepwater port
along the southern US. coast, the port
facilities extend along a 10- to 12-mile stretch
of the St. Johns River along its western and
northern shoreline from the Mathews Bridge
in the downtown area to Blount Island,
immediately east of SR 9A at Dames Point,
in northeast Jacksonville.
Major economic base activities include the
government, services, transportation,
wholesale and retail sales, distribution,
finance, insurance, real estate, and
manufacturing. Jacksonville is a major center
of banking and insurance in the southeastern
United States. Several large banks and
insurance companies have either home
offices or regional offices in the city. These
include Independent Life, Barnett Bank, and
Prudential Insurance. Jacksonville is the
second largest center of banking and finance
in the state. The area east and south of the
St. Johns River (Greater Arlington and
Southeast Planning Districts) is the fastest
growing section of the city in terms of
commercial and residential development.
Table 14 presents statistical information on
employment. Services and trade are the most
dominant sectors of employment, accounting
for almost 50% in the city, followed by
nonmilitary government, the military,
manufacturing, and transportation.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Agriculture and similar activities account for 5.1%. According to the 1990 census, the
just under 1% of the total employment in the median personal income for Duval County
city; the April 1994 unemployment rate was was $16,074.

TABLE 13: REsIDENT POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, 19811-2010

% Increase % Increase
1990 2000 1990 2000 2015 1990 2015

Duval County 672,971 764,366 13.6% 847,104 25.9%

Jacksonville 635,230 721,499 13.6% 799,597 25.8%

SOURCE: Jacksonville Planning Department, 1992 Annual Statistical Package, October 15, 1992.

TABLE 14: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS - DUvAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

1989 2000 2010

Employment Employment % Increase Employment % Increase
Estimate Projection 1989 - 2000 Projection 1989 2010

Duval County 439,469 469,702 7% 526,323 19.8%

SOURCE: Jacksonville Planning Department, 1992 Annual Statistical Package, October 15, 1992.

174
 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ON NPS-OWNED LANDS
FORT CAROLINE NATIONAL
MEMORIAL
Roads, Trails, and Parking
The Fort Caroline National Memorial area
(including Spanish Pond and Ribault
Column) is approximately 138 acres (about
25 acres of past disturbance) and is accessed
from Fort Caroline Road, a primarily
residential collector road.
The existing asphalt entrance road to the
Fort Caroline visitor parking area is 450 feet
long. The existing parking area is an asphalt,
looped area for approximately 16 cars and
two head-in bus stalls. Overow parking can
extend onto the entrance road causing
congestion, passing problems, and resource
impacts. The Spanish Pond parking area
accommodates only six to eight cars and has
no existing provisions for bus parking. Both
parking areas are used by visitors and local
residents interested in the educational and
recreational opportunities at the sites. Ribault
Column, located approximately 0.5 mile east
of Fort Caroline, has parking for six cars.
The parking areas at Fort Caroline and
Spanish Pond serve as a departure point for
the visitor. From the parking areas the
visitor can access the visitor center, Fort
Caroline model, or walk the trail into the
Spanish Pond area, which when open, would
continue on to the Theodore Roosevelt area
as the Two-Ponds trail.
Buildings
The primary structure at Fort Caroline is the
existing visitor center. It is a one-story brick
building that is laid out in a two-wing
footprint. Each wing is approximately 1,200
square feet and is connected in the middle
with a covered breezeway. The east wing is
the visitor center, and the west wing is the
interpretation and resource management
175
offices and restrooms. The visitor center is
accessible from the parking area by a formal
walk and entry steps. Barrier-free access is
provided. The visitor center is small and
does not provide the necessary interpretive
media to feature the preserve adequately.
The Existing Development Fort Caroline
and Theodore Roosevelt area map shows the
general location of facilities.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT AREA
Roads, Trails, and Parking
The Theodore Roosevelt area, adjacent to
Fort Caroline, is approximately 600 acres
(about 10 acres of past disturbance) and is
accessed from Mount Pleasant Road. From
Mount Pleasant Road a narrow one-way,
1,600-foot-long looped entry road leads to
Wil-le-ma Lodge. The parking area at the
lodge is composed of a porous material and
provides space for approximately seven cars.
Currently, the area is used by preserve staff
and visitors. Overow parking can extend
down the narrow entry road toward Mt.
Pleasant Road and creates safety and
congestion problems.
The other parking area at Theodore
Roosevelt area is at the trailhead. This
parking is accessed by a 600-foot-long dirt
road that parallels a portion of the entry
road leading to the lodge. The parking area
is used by visitors and local residents
interested in using the area for picnicking,
passive recreation, and cultural /natural
history interpretation.
Trails lead from the lodge and the trailhead
to key interpretive areas within the Theodore
Roosevelt area. The Willie Browne trail is
approximately 4,000 feet long and connects
the existing parking area with the wooden
overlook platform at Colorinda Creek. The
overlook platform is elevated 6 feet above
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
grade and is accessed by a wooden ladder.
Two-Ponds trail intersects the Willie Browne
trail near the overlook and connects to the
Spanish Pond and Fort Caroline areas. All
trails are unimproved dirt trails and in some
areas provide barrier-free access.
Buildings
Wil-le-ma Lodge is the principal structure at
the Theodore Roosevelt area. The 6,000
square-foot, one-story wood frame building
serves interpretive/ educational needs and
provides administrative office space.
ZEPHANIAH KINGSLEY PLANTATION
Roads, Trails, and Parking
The Kingsley Plantation, located on the north
end of Fort George Island, encompasses
approximately 40 acres (about 15 acres of
past disturbance). Vehicle access is by
Palmetto Avenue, the primary collector road
on the island. Palmetto Avenue is an
unimproved two-lane road that forms part of
a loop around Fort George Island.
The main entry drive is a 1,000-foot-long,
unimproved dirt road that bisects the
plantation's slave quarters and ends in a 20
car parking area. Currently there is no
provision for designated bus parking. The
primary service access to the maintenance
area is from this main entry road. This
situation creates confusion for the visitor
when the day-to-day park operation
activities are mixed with visitor use
activities.
176
A pedestrian trail parallels the main entry
road to the parking area. It is the only
pedestrian trail to the slave quarters. This
entrance road / trail system contributes to
congestion and confusion caused by vehicle,
pedestrian, and park operations traffic.
No other trails exist at Kingsley; access to
structures is over the open yard.
Buildings
There are a number of structures on the site,
but the three principal buildings are the
main house, Anna Jai house, and the
carriage house. The main house is a two
story wood frame structure with a tabby
foundation. The first oor is approximately
1,400 square feet, and the second oor is 800
square feet. The Anna Jai house is connected
to the main house by a covered breezeway.
It is a two-story poured tabby, tabby brick,
and wood frame structure. Each level is
approximately 750 square feet. The carriage
house is a 2,000-square-foot, two-story
building constructed of poured tabby and
tabby brick.
The Existing Development Kingsley
Plantation map shows the general location of
facilities for this area.
 Fort Carolii
National
Memorial

i
l
l
l
_ Visitor cl
and offid

Fort Caroline
Visitor Center 50~

Development

Existing Development
Fort Caroline and
Theodore Roosevelt Area

Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve

National Park Service

United States Department of the Interior
006-20010'July 94'DSC
~ Maintenance Area

Army / Navy Lodge

Anna Jai House

Main House

Bulkhead
Parking Area

Carriage House

|__.l_|
0 60' 120' North$

Existing Development
Kingsley Plantation

Timucuan
Ecological and
Historic Preserve
National Park Service
United States Department of the Interior
006'20012'July 94'DSC
 TIMUGUAN
E( It )L( )( |l( LAL AND HIST( )Rl( PRESERVE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
 INTRODUCTION
The alternatives presented in this document
establish broad, overarching management
guidelines. The general nature of the
alternatives, along with the high level of
uncertainty about what actions would be
taken by other agencies, requires that the
analysis of impacts also be general. This
means that the National Park Service can
make some reasonable projections of likely
impacts, but these are based on assumptions
that may not prove to be accurate in the
future.
183
Thus, this environmental impact statement is
programmatic and presents an overview of
potential impacts relating to the proposed
program for each alternative. However, for
the development concept plans more specific
information is given that allows for a more
detailed impact analysis. Any NEPA
documents prepared to assess potential
impacts associated with future NPS
development or management actions would
be tiered to this programmatic
environmental impact statement.
 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
General
It is reasonable to assume that all
alternatives would result in minor increases
in visitation to and recreational use of the
preserve, even though levels of visitation
may vary between alternatives. Thus, air
quality would be affected by increased
motorized vehicle/boat use. However, none
of the alternatives would significantly affect
air quality in the preserve. Continued NPS
participation in reviewing regional air
quality permits would assist in preventing
deterioration of preserve air quality from
pollution sources outside the preserve.
Most pollutants affecting the quality of
waters in the preserve would continue to
come from sources outside the preserve. NPS
cooperation with regulatory agencies might
reduce outside pollution threats, although
increasing urban and industrial growth in
Duval County could increase the amount of
contaminants entering the preserve with a
chance of exceeding water quality standards.
The effects of the present annual harvest of
fish and shellfish from the preserve's waters
are unknown. Commercial fishing operations
are probably small-scale; sportfishing and
shellfishing are unrestricted in the preserve.
There would be no effects on prime or
unique farmland soils as a result of actions
under any of the alternatives.
The presence of the preserve and the
additional education of visitors about natural
resources could have positive effects on
threatened and endangered species. For
example, better education of visitors with
boats could result in a decrease in impacts
on manatees from motorboat operations. In
the long term, this could result in a decrease
in the mortality rate of manatees.
184
The exact nature, extent, and intensity of
impacts, primarily around recreational
facilities, cannot be predicted until the
details of such development and use are
proposed on a case-by-case basis.
The National Park Service would continue to
work with the US. Army Corps of
Engineers, US. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the state of Florida to work toward
channel dredging and spoil deposition
locations and techniques that do not have a
detrimental effect on preserve resources.
In accordance with the Endangered Species
Act, endangered and threatened species
would continue to be protected within all
areas under NPS jurisdiction. The
alternatives are designed to avoid adverse
impacts on listed species and to maintain
their habitats within the preserve. The
National Park Service has consulted with the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the state of
Florida, and would continue to consult with
them on the management of listed species.
There would be no new negative effect on
threatened or endangered species or critical
habitat from any of the alternatives.
Natural resource management consistent
with NPS policies and guidelines would
continue to guide management of the three
primary areas in response to visitor use
impacts and natural change.
Fort Caroline National Memorial and
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
Construction of an elevated boardwalk at
Spanish Pond would minimize impacts on
oodplains and adjacent wetlands. Impacts
would also be minimized by incrementally
constructing sections of the boardwalk from
one end only. There would be no new
disturbance because the boardwalk would
follow the existing trail. The total

disturbance from the boardwalk construction
would be about 0.2 acre. The proximity to
adjacent wetlands would require an
application for a 404 permit.
Boat dock/landing facilities for public use
would be at least partially sited in areas that
are within the 100-year oodplain. The
National Park Service has determined that
activities of this type are acceptable uses of
oodplains. These facilities must be in
proximity to the water in order to provide
access to water recreation activities. These
actions are excepted from compliance with
E0 11988 ("Floodplain Management"). These
docks are not excepted actions under EO
11990 ("Protection of Wetlands"). A
statement of findings, pursuant to NPS
regulations for compliance with this
executive order, would be attached to the
final general management plan/environ
mental impact statement.
At each area, the boat dock facility would
disturb about 0.17 acre of riverine bottom.
This figure includes potential dredging to
accommodate larger boats. Wetland disturb
ance should be minimal and limited to direct
impacts associated with connecting the dock
to the shoreline.
Consultation with the state and US. Army
Corps of Engineers regarding sections 401
and 404 of the Clean Water Act would result
in the need for permits for construction of
the NPS docks at Fort Caroline and Kingsley
Plantation.
Other NPS Development
The general impacts of the proposed NPS
development are outlined below. At this
time, it is not possible to identify the specific
sites for NPS development other than for
Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation; thus, the impacts
are not site specific. Actual site layouts and
subsequent impacts would be determined by
site characteristics such as slope, soils,
vegetation cover, and proximity to wetlands,
185
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
oodplains, and endangered species. All
possible sites for the placement of these
facilities have been previously impacted by
human use, and with the exception of
facilities providing for water-based
recreation, all are on upland areas within the
preserve. To determine the net impact of
each proposed action, it would be necessary
to subtract existing development disturbance
from the total amount of disturbance.
NPS development activities would result in
temporary elevated levels of particulate
matter and other pollutants. Appropriate
control measures would be used to ensure
minimal impacts from air pollution. Section
118 of the Clean Air Act requires federal
agencies to meet all federal, state, and local
air pollution control requirements. No air
quality standards would be exceeded.
Most of the NPS construction activities
would be located adjacent to estuarine
waters. The potential impacts of these
activities on water quality is high, especially
in terms of accelerated erosion, increased
delivery of sediment and silt, and increased
turbidity. Strict erosion and sediment
controls would be instituted as part of any
NPS construction activity in accordance with
both federal and state laws. No water quality
standards would be exceeded.
Most of the NPS facilities proposed would
be placed in previously disturbed areas.
Thus, impacts on rare, threatened, and
endangered species would be minimal.
However, a site-specific survey would be
required at each site as part of the
development concept plan/ environmental
assessment process to further define impacts
on threatened and endangered species.
Animals in construction areas would be
temporarily disturbed by equipment and
personnel. Migration and use patterns would
be expected to reestablish following
development. Some mortality of resident
individuals could occur during construction,
although this should not adversely affect
populations.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Potential impacts on soils as a result of NPS
development would be minimal, especially
in relation to existing disturbance. If
construction at any of the sites extends into
less-disturbed areas, impacts would include
reduction of direct ow of water to soil.
Compaction of soils would occur as
necessary to develop access roads or as a
result of settling due to the weight of
structures. Site preparation would result in
either removal or addition of earth,
destroying the soil structure. Rehabilitation
of severely impacted areas would be
attempted where possible.
When specific NPS development sites are
selected, a wetland determination would be
done. If necessary, further analysis of
potential impacts on wetlands would be
provided in the development concept
plan/environmental assessment done for
each site.
Impacts on vegetation would include
clearing vegetation to construct NPS
facilities. Until exact locations are
determined for facilities, it is difficult to
quantify accurately impacts on vegetation.
This would be done in future site-specific
development concept plans/environmental
assessments.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
General
The cleanup/fixup and subsequent
maintenance of extant historic sites
(regardless of ownership) would result in a
visual improvement, which might attract
more visitors as well as allow the sites to
function better. These actions should also
lead to better preservation of structures.
However, increased visitation could put
increased pressure on the preserve's cultural
resources, possibly resulting in wear and tear
on historic structures or possible overuse of
grounds. Higher levels of visitation could
result in increased management of the visitor
experience.
186
Increased visitation to the preserve and
increased knowledge of the preserve's
archeological resources could lead to willful
or inadvertent disturbance and/or
destruction of both submerged and above
ground archeological resources.
There may be known or unknown
archeological resources that may be affected
by new construction anywhere within the
preserve.
Determining the carrying capacity for all
historic structures open to the public
(regardless of ownership) would result in
visitation levels that would not adversely
affect the stability or integrity of the cultural
resources.
The various studies conducted on historic
sites and structures (regardless of ownership)
would provide data to be used to ensure
resource preservation.
Making all structures (regardless of
ownership) accessible to visitors and
employees with disabilities would result in
some adverse visual impact on the historic
structures. Efforts would be made to design
such access with as little physical and visual
impact on historic fabric as possible.
Adaptive use of any historic structures in the
.preserve (regardless of ownership) could
result in the loss of historic fabric that is too
deteriorated to be rescued and that must be
replaced to preserve the structure or to allow
the structures to serve a public function.
However, prior historic structure reports
would document the history, the historic
appearance of, and the changes of the
buildings through time. Materials that were
removed would be evaluated to determine
their value to the preserve's museum
collections and /or for their comparative use
in future preservation work. However, the
overall impact would be continued
preservation of the structures.
The disturbance of resources for needed
archeological investigations/ studies destroys

the site as data is retrieved, and there is the
risk that significant information would be
overlooked or lost during the investigation
process. Archeological resources would be
left undisturbed unless removal of artifacts
or intervention into fabric is justified by
resource preservation, research, or
development requirements.
Overall, no alternative is expected to have an
adverse effect on the cultural resources of
the preserve (in NPS ownership) as outlined
in the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's "Regulations for the Protection
of Historic and Cultural Properties." All
impacts can be mitigated to some degree by
archeological, historical, and architectural
investigations.
Archeological resources in the preserve
would be of increased educational and
scientific value as similar resources outside
preserve boundaries are destroyed by
continuing development.
Cultural resource sites on or eligible for the
national register within the preserve would
be protected from vandalism through
inspections and patrols only if NPS staffing
is increased. Current staffing is not adequate
to provide this level of protection.
Impacts on ethnographic resources cannot be
assessed until ethnographic studies and
consultation with traditionally associated
groups identify ethnographic resources.
Fort Caroline National Memorial and
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
Archeological testing would help identify
and document any extant resources prior to
construction of the docks at Fort Caroline
and Kingsley Plantation. The docks at
Kingsley Plantation would be designed to
maintain the visual integrity of the historic
landscape and environment.
187
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
AND PUBLIC USE
There would be increased visitation to the
preserve because of the establishment of an
NPS area, accompanied by increased
demands on support services, infrastructure,
and transportation. The degree of impact
would vary with each alternative.
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
As information about the preserve is
publicized, more visitors are expected to stop
in Jacksonville en route to other Florida
attractions, or extend their visits thereby
supporting local businesses. The direct
beneficial impacts on the local economy
brought about by having a national historic
and ecological preserve in the community
can be estimated using the Money Genera
tion Model (MGM), developed in December
1990 by the National Park Service's Office of
Social Science, Socioeconomic Studies
Division, in Denver. The MGM enables the
National Park Service to estimate benefits to
the local area economy through (1) new
sales, as measured by increased purchases of
goods and services, (2) increased sales tax
revenues, and (3) number of new jobs
created in the retail and service sector (see
table 15). The MGM applies only to impacts
on the local area around the preserve, and is
not designed to be used on a regional basis.
The MGM is driven by the current and
projected number of visitors, visitor
expenditure data based on American
Automobile Association research, and park
expenditure data. Changes in the MGM
figures and degree of beneficial impact
would be based on the level of visitation
anticipated. Differences in growth in visitor
days among the four alternatives would be
below a level of detection.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 15: ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM Timucuan and the other protected lands in
TIMUCUAN PRESERVE VISITORS - ALL ALTERNATIVES
the area.
Annual Retail Sales
Recreation visitor days 14,489 Indirect beneficial impacts on the residents
Spending/ person $74.00 in the local area would occur under all
Direct sales $675,477 alternatives due to improved recreational
1 6: I multiplier 2
Vlsitor sales $1,350,954
and cultural opportunities.

Annual Tax Benets The concession-operated tour boats would

Vrsitor sales $1,350,954 provide some additional income within the
Sales tax rate 0.065
area. Boats would be brought in and a crew
Total Tax Benefit $87,812
hired to operate the tour boats.
Jobs Created in Retail 8: Service Sector
VIsitor sales/ million $ 1.35 Improvements would accommodate
Job rate 20
increased visitors to the area, which could
Jobs created 27
mean additional revenue for local businesses.
In addition, approximately $900,000 in goods
and services is spent locally by the preserve.
IMPACTS OF MINOR BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS
Work in cooperation with federal, state and
local regulatory agencies to manage
Both the Sherman Creek and Little Marsh
development of private land in and around
Island adjustments would exclude uplands
the preserve may restrict the intensity of use
that do not possess significant natural or
and economic benefits to individual land
cultural resources. These adjustments would
owners, but is not expected to have any net
reduce upland acreage in the preserve by
long-term impact on the local economy.
about 260 acres. This acreage loss would
Development that does not occur in or
have no impact on important terrestrial plant
adjacent to the preserve due to environ
communities, threatened and endangered
mental concerns would take place elsewhere
species, or wetland communities. In
in the Jacksonville area, provided there is
addition, the deletion of Little Marsh Island
market demand for such uses.
from the boundary would remove over 20
private residences from the preserve.
Depending on the location of future
acquisitions, the city may experience
The drainage headwater adjustments would
negative impacts due to removal of lands
incorporate significant wetland resources
from private, taxable status to public
into the preserve. It is not possible to
ownership. These may be offset somewhat
estimate the increase in wetland acreage
by beneficial impacts through savings
to the preserve from this adjustment without
experienced by removing the preserve from
adequate surveys, although it is probably
current and future city services
low. This increase in wetland acreage would
requirements; e.g., no students would be
include more of those wetlands that are
generated, no city roads built, no water and
transitional between saltwater and
sanitation services required on preserve
freshwater systems. This would have an
lands. Additionally, the city may be eligible
effect on the total amount of individual
to collect payments-in-lieu-of-taxes from the
wetland types, but could also provide
federal government.
protection for significant plant communities
and threatened and endangered species.
Indirect beneficial impacts on landowners
should be expected due to increased values
The Wonderwood Expressway adjustment
on the property that remains in private
would primarily increase upland acreage to
ownership because of preservation in

188

the preserve by about 300 acres. This
increase is for lands with the potential for
significant natural and cultural resource
values. This increase in upland acreage
effectively compensates for the acreage loss
from the Sherman Creek and Little Marsh
Island adjustments.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
There are no anticipated adverse cumulative
impacts when the alternative plans are
assessed as an addition to other existing
plans that include the preserve or portions
thereof. The cumulative effects on preserve
resources that result from many small
189
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
projects would continue over time but would
be minimized.
An increase in visitation to Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve would have
a positive cumulative effect on the local
economy through the expenditure of visitor
dollars.
There would be a cumulative impact of 40
additional acres of uplands from the minor
boundary adjustments.
Although efforts to restore disturbed lands
would be implemented, where possible, an
acre of reclaimed land would not equal the
natural diversity or productivity of an acre
of previously undisturbed land.
 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONTINUATION OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 1 would be expected to result in
the continuation of current private
development trends within and adjacent to
the preserve, with some marginal
improvements in controls on density and
performance standards. If current trends
continue, this development would be
expected to result in continued degradation
of water quality and attendant impacts on
biota.
The process of private development in
estuarine areas involves a complex of
ecological disturbances, both from
construction activity and from human
Occupancy and activity. The degree of
disturbance is increased by (1) increased
density of development, (2) closer proximity
to water, (3) intensive alteration of the
shoreline, and (4) the ecological sensitivity of
the estuarine ecosystem.
The major sources of disturbance for
residential development to estuarine
ecosystems are pollution of coastal waters,
interference with water ows in the estuary
or watershed, and preemptive or
degradation of ecologically important areas.
Residential construction pollutes estuarine
waters largely through the erosion that
results from land clearing and site
preparation. These activities cause discharge
into estuarine waters or sediment and
nutrients. Residential occupancy pollutes
estuarine waters through sewage discharge
and urban runoff by sediment, nutrient, and
toxic substances.
Development of the shoreline would have
adverse effects on the estuarine ecosystem by
modifying runoff patterns and thereby
reduces the capability of the land to both
store and regulate the release of freshwater
from the watershed and to cleanse it en
route to estuarine waters. Clearing the land
of vegetation has many effects, including a
190
decreased ability to hold back stormwater
and an increase in the total volume of
freshwater delivered to the estuary. This
could result in mass death of shellfish as
well as localized reduction in plankton,
especially fish larvae of commercially
important species.
Covering the land with impervious surfaces
and installation of stormwater systems
imbalances ow patterns and delivery
schedules and prevents recharge of
groundwater aquifers.
Clearing and surfacing the land may result
in reductions of sources of dissolved
nutrients to estuarine waters or cause the
inow to move so quickly to sea that the
ecosystem is deprived of needed nutrients.
Construction activities increase the amount
of sediments, nutrients, and other
substances, including a wide variety of
contaminants carried down to estuaries with
the freshwater runoff.
Dredge and fill activities associated with
continued development, including private
boat docks, could create short and long-term
changes in water currents, circulation,
mixing, ushing, and salinity. These
activities also add turbidity, siltation, and
pollution and lower dissolved oxygen. The
most obvious effect of these activities is the
direct destruction of habitat. Submerged
bottoms or wetlands and their associated
organisms are directly destroyed by these
processes. Dredging also produces spoils,
which must be disposed of, and filling
requires some areas to be dredged for a
source of fill material.
In addition to direct loss of habitat, the
removal, transportation, and deposition of
sediment creates and dispenses large
quantities of silt and debris into estuarine
waters. Suspended silt in high concentration
creates a number of adverse impacts,
 Impacts of Alternative 1: Existing Management (No Action)
including reduced plant growth and
impairing the ability of visual predators, e.g.,
fish, to obtain prey. Additions of nutrients
would stimulate excess plant growth and
lead to the same impairment of visual
predators.
Coarse sediments that promote interstitial
water circulation also aid aeration of the
subsurface layers. The aerobic state is
necessary for the development of a healthy,
productive bottom community. Fine
sediments created by dredging can seal the
bottom, reducing interstitial circulation.
Estuarine sediments act as a pollutant trap.
Many kinds of pollutants are absorbed into
sediments. Dredging resuspends them in the
water column, increasing hazardous
exposure to plants and animals.
As silt deposits from dredging accumulate in
the estuary, they form shifting, unstable
sediments. Larvae of bottom-dwelling
animals such as oysters and clams would not
settle on soft sediments.
If one portion of the estuary is isolated from
another by spoil banks, portions of the
estuary can be degraded or removed as a
production unit from the total system.
As habitat, especially wetlands, is lost from
continued development activities, the food
supply and thus the carrying capacity of the
estuary would be reduced. Research has
shown a direct relationship between acres of
marsh and abundance of fish.
Tidal ats are often rich sources of basic
nutrients for the ecosystem and are feeding
areas for shore and water birds when
exposed at low tide or for fish and
crustaceans when covered by high tide.
Recent research has shown that tidal ats are
an important means for storing energy in the
estuarine ecosystem. If ats and their biota
are affected by development activities, then
essential nutrients to the food chain would
not be captured and would be swept out of
the marsh zone with the ebb tide.
191
After development is complete, continuous
water quality problems may result from
fertilizing and biocides applied to the
landscape and from discharge. Water runoff
transports these substances to estuarine
waters either by natural runoff or by
community drainage systems. Biocides may
be directly toxic to plants and animals or
they may enter food chains and gradually
build up to critical levels in many species.
Fertilizers cause nutrient enrichment of the
water, which leads to overfertilization and
oxygen reduction from pollution by
nutrients.
Septic tanks/leachfields, if installed along
the shores of estuaries, could be major
sources of pollution of estuarine waters. In
low-lying areas, the efuent often leaches
through the soil too rapidly. It is
inadequately treated when it reaches the
water and arrives in a contaminated
condition, polluting the water and edible
shellfish with bacteria and nutrients.
Where soil absorption is poor, septic tanks
do not drain properly. The liquid waste
saturates the soil and then rises to ow over
the surface. This pollution potential is
exacerbated in estuarine areas when high
tides and storms raise the water table and
saturate the soil.
Participation in regulatory proceedings on a
case-by-case basis would be expensive and
time-consuming. The National Park Service
cannot ensure that, in each case, every
regulatory agency would be fully informed
about potential impacts on the preserve. The
National Park Service is not now assured of
receiving timely notice of all pending
regulatory actions that might affect preserve
resources.
The National Park Service would have
minimal control over natural resource
management in the preserve. Reliance on
other regulatory/ management agencies with
jurisdiction in the preserve for direct natural
resource management would be problematic.
For example, current state and county/city
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
regulations appear to have the potential to
provide a strong level of protection against
major disruption of land and water in and
adjacent to the preserve. However, recent
experience in enforcement and administra
tion suggests deficiencies in the ability of
current regulations to ensure long-term
protection of the preserve's resources. For
example, regulatory authorities are often
designed for specific objectives and not
always corresponding to NPS management
objectives and regulatory agencies at all
levels of government do not have adequate
staff and funds to carry out responsibilities
to the maximum extent possible. Water
quality regulations include provisions for a
variety of exceptions and variances that
could allow industrial or residential
dischargers that would adversely affect
preserve resources.
If used to the maximum extent possible
under law, regulatory authorities can
provide a substantial level of protection
against immediate damage to preserve
resources. The ability of regulations to stop,
delay, or modify major development
proposals would not, however, achieve NPS
management objectives of ensuring long
term protection of the resources or making
areas available for public use. Political
pressures and funding shortages are the
most significant obstacles to use of current
regulatory authorities to the maximum
extent possible under law.
Under alternative 1, natural resource
management would continue to be on a
piecemeal basis, lacking coordination and
leadership. As a result, natural resources
may be protected from short-term
disturbances; however, long-term protection
might not be adequate, resulting in negative
impacts. These negative impacts would
primarily result from the lack of a consistent
and implementable preservewide manage
ment plan. For example, lack of a formal air
quality management plan would result in the
preserve failing to detect threats to preserve
resources and to protect resources and
visitor safety; lack of a program on exotic
species control would have detrimental
effects on federal and state listed species and
their habitats and unique plant community
types within the preserve; and lack of a
comprehensive and regionally oriented water
management plan would result in failure to
maintain currently good water quality.
Under this alternative, actions that are
initiated to maintain or enhance wildlife
species and habitats would be handled on a
case-by-case basis. Generally, there have
been few special programs to maintain or
enhance wildlife resources. As such, wildlife
management uctuates and is dependent on
decisions of managers from various agencies.
In spite of some positive efforts, this
alternative would have an overall negative
impact on wildlife resources. The absence of
a preservewide plan, small staff size, lack of
funding, and limited authority would result
in continued declines in habitat condition,
and in population stability and range size,
leading to losses of critical habitat, severe
population fragmentation, and local
extirpations.
The research program would have direct
positive impacts on management of natural
resources at NPS-owned areas. In addition,
information on species obtained from these
areas could be used to aid species
management by other agencies in other parts
of the preserve. However, because this
research program would be limited to
obtaining baseline data on NPS-owned areas,
the lack of useful, preservewide baseline
data would continue. What baseline data
exist or that would be collected in the future
would continue to aid natural resources
preservewide on a limited basis. The
continued lack of adequate, preservewide
data would have a long-term, potentially
adverse impact on natural resources.
Management programs, either by the
National Park Service or other
agencies/ organizations, would not be
adequately grounded with basic and
important data. As a result, any management
actions implemented without adequate
knowledge about the particular resource(s)
 Impacts of Alternative 1: Existing Management (No Action)
could often have detrimental effects on those
targeted for protection. Additionally, while
short-term protection of threatened and
endangered species would continue, lack of
baseline data and coordinated management
would not allow a high probability for long
term protection.
The wetlands in the preserve would continue
to be protected under existing federal and
state regulations. Some areas without the
extra emphasis that a preservewide plan
would provide might be lost by draining or
filling for development activities. The
survival of some wetlands, such as those that
function as nursery areas, could be
jeopardized.
Perhaps more of a concern than the total
amount of habitat lost each year in the
preserve would be the loss of habitat
diversity, or the number of different habitats
and their relative abundance in a
community. Lack of a preservewide plan and
a small NPS staff would continue the loss of
habitat diversity.
Growth in commercial, industrial, and / or
recreational activity could affect sensitive
species in two ways. First, resources might
be directly affected by development activities
such as facility construction. Second, the
additional related traffic in the preserve
could affect threatened and endangered
species and their habitats. Increased boating
would insignificantly add to the recognizable
negative effects of boat wake erosion, noise,
and physical disturbances.
Certain types and densities of recreational
boating activities would continue to degrade
water quality, increase erosion along
shorelines, resuspend sediments, degrade
wildlife and fisheries habitat, and cause
other impacts on the estuarine environment.
However, these impacts would be minimal
compared to other existing nonpoint source
pollution, industrial discharges, and other
land use activities that degrade water quality
in the rivers and estuary.
193
Specific impacts for development at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation would be the same as
those presented under alternative 3.
General impacts of other NPS development
are discussed under the "Impacts Common
to All Alternatives" section. The small
storage facility in the Thomas Creek area
and the satellite facility at Cedar Point
would involve minimal disturbance of
approximately 34 acres to land and water
resources. These developments would mostly
involve no new disturbance because old
disturbance, such as existing roads, would be
used. Impacts would be more clearly defined
in future development concept
plans/ environmental assessments for these
sites.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources in the preserve under
NPS management would receive the same
protection as under current conditions,
depending on funding. To assist NPS
managers in making decisions about the
treatment and use of cultural resources, all
resources would be evaluated and
categorized according to criteria of
significance. Significance is established and
documented through eligibility and listing
on the National Register of Historic Places,
as well as through consultation and
documentation of ethnographic resources.
Protection priorities would be based on the
significance of the resource, its condition, its
interpretive value, its research potential, and
the availability of data would all be
weighted in determining the appropriate
treatment.
Cultural resources throughout the preserve
not under NPS management may suffer from
lack of identification and preservation
because of the ad hoc approach (NPS
cooperation with other agencies, organi
zations, and individuals) to resource
protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
AND PUBLIC USE
Under this alternative the amount and
diversity of visitor use opportunities
throughout the rest of the preserve would
not change from present conditions.
Preserve visitors would be provided with
NPS-sponsored interpretive and recreational
opportunities at Fort Caroline, the Theodore
Roosevelt area, and Kingsley Plantation only.
The interpretive program in these visitor use
areas would be primarily limited to organi
zed or self-guided activities. Currently, these
three sites do not meet minimum NPS
standards for interpretation in media and
personal services. The present interpretive
program does not adequately address the
preserve's primary interpretive themes.
Under this alternative the present visitor
center at Fort Caroline would be expanded
to provide orientation and interpretation for
the preserve. Visitors would learn about
interpretive and recreational opportunities
throughout the preserve and would be able
to plan their visits accordingly. If
accompanied by an integrated sign program
throughout the preserve, visitor center
expansion would provide visitors with
adequate orientation and would acknow
ledge the preserve's status as an NPS area.
IMPACTS ON ACCESS AND
TRANSPORTATION
Under this alternative there would be a
direct, moderate, negative impact on access,
both from the perspective of providing
enhanced access and precluding
inappropriate access. Transportation likewise
would suffer direct, moderate, negative
impacts due to lack of coordination and
planning among the affected entities. The
National Park would continue to consult
with other entities on access/ transportation
proposals that would affect preserve
resources.
194
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
Under this alternative future land acquisition
would be minor and subject to NPS funding;
therefore, impacts on the tax base due to lost
property tax revenue would be negligible.
Because of the conicting jurisdictions
(proprietary and concurrent) within the
preserve, long-term enforcement would
continue to be complicated. This
complication (and/ or confusion) by
state/ local and NPS enforcement officials
might result in slower response times to
major crimes as well as inappropriate
responses to jurisdictional areas. This
situation would require state/ local and NPS
enforcement officials to be knowledgeable of
the situation and fully apprised of the
consequences of this dual jurisdiction.
NPS construction activities would benefit
local / regional contractors and their
employees. Local businesses would benefit
from the presence of these construction
areas.
Under alternative 1 the increase in staffing
and annual operating expenses within the
preserve would result in only minor positive
impacts on the area's economy.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The impacts that result from additional
private development when added to those
from existing private development would
result in significant cumulative impacts.
These include a continued loss of upland
and wetland habitat , the potential for a
concomitant decrease in the preserve of rare,
threatened, and endangered species, and
continued degradation of water quality,
which would directly affect the health of the
ecosystem and indirectly affect important
species of shellfish and commercially
important fish. The continued loss of habitat
would in general reduce the amount of
 Impacts of Alternative 1: Existing Management (No Action)
habitat and perhaps habitat diversity,
thereby reducing biodiversity.
Cumulative impacts from development at
Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation would be the same
as those under alternative 3.
The additional NPS development would
result in cumulative impacts ranging from
none to minor because of the limited amount
of additional development and the use of
existing disturbed land for development.
195
Continued residential and commercial
development in and adjacent to the preserve
would result in a loss of cultural and
archeological resources associated with the
Timucua. Because this development is taking
place throughout southern Georgia and
northeast Florida, this impact would extend
beyond the preserve's boundaries, resulting
in the accumulation of significant and
negative, long-term impacts on the
preservation, study, and understanding of
Timucuan culture.
 ALTERNATIVE 2: THE PRESERVE AS A LABORATORY AND CLASSROOM
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Under alternative 2 the continuation of
current private development trends would
probably follow the build-out scenario
presented in alternative 1. However, impacts
of alternative 2 would be different than those
of alternative 1, as individuals make
decisions that could help protect preserve
resources and encourage action from local
governments. A minimal reduction in
adverse impacts of existing land uses as well
as new ones would be expected. Emphasis
on public education as the resource pro
tection strategy would be expected to
(1) reduce the use of fertilizers and biocides
in landscaping; (2) reduce the accidental
injury or death of manatees; (3) avoid
development on or near and intense use of
areas known to be important to rare,
threatened, and endangered species as
ecologically sensitive areas; (4) reduce the
loss of important habitat such as salt
marshes; (5) reduce the use of exotic species
in landscaping; (6) aid in better siting of
septic tank/leachfields and private boat
docks; (7) reduce the rate of stormwater
runoff to estuarine waters; and (8) reduce
water quality impacts on shellfish
populations.
Although private development in and
around the preserve would continue, an
increase in suitable design features could be
expected to mitigate adverse impacts on
natural values such as reduction of
impervious surfaces, reduction in local
clearing and maintenance of natural
vegetation, and decrease in the diversity of
development thereby lessening the quantity
of impacts.
Specific impacts from development at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation would be the same as
those presented under alternative 3. General
impacts of other NPS development are
discussed under the "Impacts Common to
196
All Alternatives" section. Additional
development to that described in alternative
1 includes adding interpretive kiosks in the
preserve and providing assistance to the
Jacksonville Electric Authority on expanding
its public education program at Pelotes
Island. This would involve minimal distur
bance to land and water resources. These
developments should involve no new
disturbance, and access would be on existing
roads. Impacts would be more clearly
defined in future development concept
plans/ environmental assessments for these
sites.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
As in alternative 1, protection priorities for
cultural resources in the preserve would be
based on the significance of the resource, its
condition, its interpretive value, its research
potential, and the availability of data.
However, cultural resources that best
illustrate the heritage education and environ
mental themes of the preserve would receive
high protection priorities. Other resources
that do not illustrate these themes would
receive protection as funding allows.
The degree of protection provided for
significant cultural resources in the preserve
that illustrate environmental themes would
depend on the scope and success of public
education programs. A heightened aware
ness of resource significance may result in
landowners, preserve neighbors, and visitors
adopting proactive protection measures. The
degree of impact would be the same as
alternative 1.
The Park Service cannot provide funding or
staff for property it does not own. Because
active NPS cooperation with the owners/
managers of the known cultural resources
identified in the preserve's legislation is
limited to technical assistance, protection of
these properties may be inadequate.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
AND PUBLIC USE
Under this alternative the emphasis of the
NPS interpretive program would be limited
to illustrating the primary interpretive
themes involving environment, ecology, and
human use. Other themes and resources
would receive limited interpretation.
Visitors to the preserve would have access to
NPS media and personal services that focus
on environmental and heritage education
appreciation and responsibility; other visitor
interests may be addressed to a limited
degree or not at all.
Individuals and agencies owning or
managing land within the preserve, who
otherwise might not be involved in any NPS
activities, would be encouraged to be active
participants in a diversity of public
education programs. This could have a
moderate, beneficial impact on the
community. However, the overall impact of
pursuing this alternative would be the same.
The scale of visitor use opportunities
throughout the rest of the preserve would
not change from current conditions, and the
type of opportunities would be different.
Expanding the Fort Caroline visitor center,
developing an interpretive canoe trail at
Pelotes Island, and adding information/
education kiosks in the north, central, and
south areas of the preserve would increase
interpretive opportunities, and would
support and enhance visitor understanding
of the preserve's environmental and heritage
education themes. No significant increase in
visitation would be expected.
IMPACTS ON ACCESS AND
TRANSPORTATION
Under this alternative, the impacts would be
the same as alternative 1.
197
Impacts of Alternative 2: laboratory and Classroom
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
Under this alternative, the impacts would be
the same as alternative 1.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The National Park Service would aggres
sively promote understanding, appreciation,
and protection of preserve resources,
especially estuarine and wetland ecology and
threatened and endangered species. Because
of this heightened emphasis on resource
protection among neighbors, local
schoolchildren, and landowners, as well as
preserve visitors, it is reasonable to assume
that individual efforts to protect and
preserve resources inside and outside the
preserve would increase, resulting in a
minor, positive cumulative impact on natural
resources. For example, fewer amounts of
wetland and upland habitat could be lost;
rare, threatened, and endangered species
might be affected less by human disturbance;
and some water quality improvements might
be realized, i.e., reduction in the use of
fertilizers/biocides and improvement in
placement/ design of septic tank/leachfields.
Under alternative 2, cumulative impacts on
natural resources would be less than those
under alternative 1; however, the cumulative
impacts of alternative 2 would still be
significant because of continued private
development in and adjacent to the preserve.
Cumulative impacts from development at
Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation would be the same
as those under alternative 3.
The additional NPS development under
alternative 2 represents a minor increase in
over development presented in alternative 1.
This increase also involves minor types of
development. Thus, cumulative impacts
would range from none to minor, and would
be the same as those for alternative 1.
 ALTERNATIVE 3: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION
(PROPOSED ACTION)
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
General
Alternative 3 would be expected to result in
the highest level of resource protection
possible by combining the use of available
regulatory authorities with acquisition of
land by the National Park Service or other
agencies. This acquisition would be subject
to the availability of funds. Private
development on preserve land and on
environmentally sensitive adjacent land
would continue, but the amount of
development would be reduced over that
estimated in alternatives 1 and 2. The use of
available regulatory authority and
performance standards and controls,
combined with the reduction in private
development, would result in moderate
impacts on the natural resources of the
preserve.
There would be less shoreline development,
bulkheading, and private docks. Therefore,
there would be a reduction in the probable
loss of wetland and upland habitat.
Preservation of more upland and wetland
habitat would have beneficial impacts on the
plants and animals of the preserve,
especially rare, threatened, and endangered
species. For example, the existing wading
bird rookeries could be buffered by the
additional preserved habitat. Besides the
obvious benefit of no direct loss of habitat,
these rookeries would indirectly benefit from
a reduction in disturbance from human
activities, especially during critical periods of
the life cycle. Additionally, reduction in salt
marsh should preserve valuable habitat used
as a nursery or for breeding (e.g., shrimp
and many commercially important fish
species).
Water quality would benefit in the short
term from less construction activities,
therefore less runoff, sediments, and
198
turbidity effects. In the long term, water
quality should benefit from a reduction in
the number of septic tanks/leachfields and
from a reduction in use of fertilizers and
biocides. These reductions should allow
maintenance of existing class II waters and
perhaps an increase in the amount of class H
waters. Shellfish populations would directly
benefit because of a reduction in the amount
of bacteria and oxygen-reducing chemicals.
A reduction in the use of fertilizers and
biocides should improve aspects of the
estuary such that there is an improvement in
overall health or function. As an example,
there would be less chance of observing the
phenomenon of bioaccumulation in the food
chain.
A reduction in private development also
means a reduction in the need for
groundwater wells. This should result in a
reduction of saltwater intrusion and better
recharge of freshwater resources.
Visitor education and better protection
through the addition of a cooperative
management structure, could benefit
threatened and endangered species,
especially manatees, by reducing mortality
rates.
Of importance to alternative 3 are the
positive benefits provided by cooperatively
managing the preserve as an ecological unit,
with a goal of eliminating the problem of
habitat fragmentation. This would be
especially positive for water quality, fish and
wildlife, and threatened and endangered
species. The beneficial impacts would be
slightly offset by the potential for increased
visitor use and the need to develop various
facilities. However, these impacts would be
localized and concentrated, and would be
discussed in individual development concept
plans/environmental assessments.

The preserve is a microcosm that reects
changes throughout much of the northeast
Florida region. Land use developments that
affect the amount and quality of surface
water necessary to maintain the complex
ecosystems of the preserve require
cooperative planning between the preserve
and other federal, state, and local agencies.
Cooperative planning and management
regarding air and water quality, fish and
wildlife, listed species, vegetation, and
zoning in harmony with maintaining
ecological productivity and diversity;
increased patrols in the area; and education
programs would reduce overall physical
disturbance of estuarine resources and
ensure that the high ecological productivity
of the preserve's waters is maintained. If the
aforementioned are implemented, the
likelihood of adverse impacts on the
preserve's biota would be minimized.
Establishment of a preserve research
program more expansive than gathering
baseline data would have significant long
term impacts on the preserve's natural
resources. This research program gives
highest priority to supporting ecological
research for monitoring the physical,
chemical, and biological environments, to
evaluating the status of plant and animal
populations, and to helping determine
needed management actions.
The most significant impact of the research
program would be the proliferation of
knowledge that would serve as a basis for
the continuing long-range management
program. Ramifications of the research
program, essential to effective management
and operation, would extend beyond
preserve boundaries. Because the effects of
research projects, studies, and environmental
education programs are only speculative, it
is difficult to quantify the impacts this
alternative would have on the fauna and
ora.
Cooperative planning would have an
indirect impact on preserve research efforts.
199
Impacts of Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
Interagency research would produce
increasing amounts of data regarding
specific planning and research projects. This
would have a long-term beneficial impact on
preserve research.
Several areas of study designed to gather
relevant ecological, management, and
planning data are proposed by the plan.
Conducting these studies would foster
optimal use of the preserve's resources by
promoting effective management decisions.
The data gathered would contribute heavily
toward ensuring the best blend of preser
vation and use. In general, these studies
would benefit future development projects
by examining the real need for each project,
guarantee the effective allocation of time,
effort, and money for its implementation,
and ensure maximum visitor benefit.
Federal, state and local permitting authorities
are frequently duplicative and could be
better coordinated. No single agency has
broad responsibilities for protecting the
preserve ecosystem. Under the cooperative
management alternative, the collation of
these permitting authorities would improve
coordination. The ultimate effect would be
better protection of the preserve ecosystem.
However, the same rationale used in alter
native 1 to demonstrate that reliance on the
existing regulatory framework may be less
than acceptable can be used to show the
problems inherent within a cooperative
management framework; that is, a difference
in agency agendas can have an overall
negative impact on natural resource
protection and management.
Under this alternative there would be less
rapid encroachment on wetlands, but long
term potential for significant loss in natural
function. Protection of adjacent land and
waters may be adequate to avoid serious
damage to park resources depending on
future regulations adopted by the city.
Development of upland areas could still
occur with degradation of scenic and wildlife
values.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The cooperative water management plan for
the preserve would minimize threats to the
preserve's ecosystem from disruptive factors
caused by human activities outside the
preserve. This cooperative effort, for
example, could create an ecological
protection area along the west boundary of
the preserve to minimize adverse effects on
water and scenic values.
Most pollutants affecting water quality
would continue to come from sources
outside the preserve. The National Park
Service in coordination with regulatory
agencies could reduce outside pollution
threats. Under this alternative, regulatory
requirements would be attained and polluted
runoff would be reduced, resulting in
improved water quality, a healthier aquatic
community, and improved fishing
conditions.
Actions under alternative 3 would not be
expected to result in significant long- or
short-term adverse effects associated with
occupancy or modification of oodplains or
wetlands. Rather, oodplain and wetland
values would be enhanced by cooperative
efforts with other agencies and landowners
to protect salt marshes, by interpretive
programs and recreational activities to
further the public's appreciation of
oodplains and wetlands, and by continued
ecological research in wetland processes.
The cooperative planning effort under this
alternative could determine that commercial
and/ or sport fishing, in some areas, is not in
harmony with maintenance of ecological
productivity and diversity. This could cause
changes in location and/ or management of
sport and commercial fishing areas. Simi
larly, proposed research projects to describe
the patterns and extent of the use of the
preserve's estuarine waters by boaters and
fishermen would enable the identification of
areas where further restrictions of access and
methods of fishing may be desirable.
Cooperators could control water pollution
from recreational and commercial boat use
200
by educating boaters about proper waste
disposal, boating ethics, and potential for
damage to benthic resources, and by
enforcing, through concurrent jurisdiction,
federal, state, and local boating regulations.
Specific impacts from development at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation are discussed below.
General impacts of NPS developments other
than Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt
Area, and Kingsley are discussed in the
"Impacts Common to All Alternatives"
section. Additional development in alter
native 3 over that presented in alternatives 1
and 2 includes potential NPS participation in
redevelopment of visitor facilities at
Huguenot Memorial Park. Impacts would be
more clearly defined in a future
development concept plan/ environmental
assessment for this site. This development
should involve no new disturbance, and
access would be on existing roads. Because
this development would probably be limited,
the impacts of NPS development under
alternative 3 would be similar to those under
alternative 2.
Fort Caroline National Memorial
There would be a minor, localized, and
short-term decrease in air quality caused by
dust, particulates, fumes, and noise
produced by construction equipment. This
impact would be minor because the
disturbed area would be relatively small.
Volatile hydrocarbons and other organic
compounds in road asphalt would enter the
air for a short time after completion of
construction.
Improvements would likely lead to increased
visitor use and thus increased motor vehicle
emissions. Hauling trucks associated with
new construction activity would also
contribute to increased emissions. However,
it is expected that state and federal air
quality standards would not be exceeded.

The soil profile within the limits of
construction would be permanently
destroyed; large cuts might be necessary in
some places. Soils in the construction zone
would be trampled and compacted by
construction equipment and personnel. Rock
material and soil might be redistributed,
compacted, and covered with asphalt or
other coverings. Nonnative plants would
have the opportunity to become established
in the disturbed soil.
Construction of the parking area would
require grading and leveling and possibly
fill. Borrow material sources and fill material
disposal would be approved by NPS staff.
Erosion and subsequent runoff of disturbed
soils would increase until natural and
assisted revegetation occurred. Erosion,
coupled with increased soil compaction,
would lead to effects on vegetation,
including potential root damage, tree loss,
and exposure of bare ground.
The primary water quality concerns
associated with road and parking area
construction are erosion and increased
sedimentation into streams and rivers.
Minor, temporary decreases in water quality
would be caused by runoff from bare soils
into the St. Johns River. Such impacts on
water quality would generally be short term.
No long-term impacts on water quality
would be anticipated under this alternative.
Road and parking area surfacing would not
increase the amount of stormwater runoff
because of the use of porous materials.
However, even if an impervious surface
were used, compared to the size of the
drainage basin the amount of impervious
surface would be small, as would the
increase in runoff.
The operation of heavy equipment in
proximity to and upslope from the river
would increase the potential for toxic organic
compounds to enter the river. Accidental
spills of diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic uid,
or other petroleum-based products could
Impacts of Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
result in elevated but temporary
concentrations of these substances for short
distances downstream. Post-construction
water quality changes would be small.
State water quality standards would be met.
The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection would be consulted, and that
department's nonpoint source coordinator
might be needed to determine whether a
sediment and erosion control plan would be
required.
Construction at the site would result in
minor habitat loss (total disturbance of 1.46
acres) and alteration of remaining habitat.
Only about 0.42 acre of the 1.46 acres would
be new disturbance to vegetation. Almost all
of the new disturbance would be hardwood
hammock and forest, except for wetland
grasses along the riverbank where the dock
is proposed. This new disturbance involves
primarily the overow parking area, its
entrance road, and the various trails to and
from the parking area. All other develop
ment would occur on previously disturbed
ground. Although vegetation removal and
reduction in oral species diversity would
occur, the hardwood hammock and forest
system would not be destroyed or
significantly altered.
Revegetation would be enhanced by
conserving and using existing topsoil. There
would be an increased potential for
introduction of exotic plant species on, for
example, road shoulders and road banks
because of a lack of competition with native
species in disturbed areas.
There would be a minor, indirect effect on
overall habitat capacity with a new loss of
approximately 0.42 acre of forest vegetation
and food source plants, but this effect would
be negligible in terms of the larger amount
of habitat available in the area. Forage
would be lost during clearing for road and
parking area construction. Areas that are
disturbed but unobstructed would revegetate
eventually and be used by wildlife. Some
habitat for ground- and tree-dwelling small
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
mammals and birds would be permanently
eliminated, causing a decrease in Size of the
local wildlife population that would be
proportional to the habitat lost. Long-term
impacts would include habitat fragmentation
and increasing development on and human
use of habitats, especially in previously
undeveloped areas.
Theodore Roosevelt Area
The impacts on natural resources at the
Theodore Roosevelt area would be similar to
those described for Fort Caroline, with the
following exceptions.
Minor, temporary decreases in water quality
during construction activities would be
caused by runoff from bare soils into local
tributaries and the water adjacent to the
marsh overlook. Such impacts on water
quality would generally be short term and
possibly occur at the marsh overlook. No
long-term impacts on water quality would
be anticipated under this alternative.
The operation of any heavy equipment at the
marsh overlook would increase the potential
for toxic organic compounds to enter the
river. Accidental spills of diesel fuel,
gasoline, hydraulic uid, or other petroleum
based products could result in elevated but
temporary concentrations of these substances
for short distances downstream. Post
construction water quality changes would be
small.
Construction activities at the Theodore
Roosevelt area would result in minor habitat
loss (total disturbance of 0.96 acre) and
alteration of remaining habitat. Only about
0.16 acre would be new disturbance to soils
and vegetation. Approximately 0.16 acre
would be rehabilitated, thereby mitigating
the loss by new disturbance.
There would be no effect on overall habitat
capacity because there would be no effective
new habitat disturbance.
202
Actions under this alternative would not
modify or encourage, directly or indirectly,
permanent occupation in the oodplain or
coastal high hazard area. No new
development would be in the 100-year
oodplain of either the St. Johns River or
Nassau River or their tributaries.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
Impacts on natural resources resulting from
construction activities would be similar to
those described for Fort Caroline, with the
following exceptions.
Construction activities under this alternative
would result in a minor habitat loss (total
disturbance would be about 2.36 acres) and
alteration of remaining habitat. About 1.46
acres would be new disturbance to the
hardwood hammock. This new disturbance
includes construction of the parking and
picnic areas and a portion of the walkways.
Although vegetation removal and reduction
in oral species diversity would occur, this
option would not destroy or significantly
alter the hardwood hammock and forest
system. Approximately 0.5 acre of land
would be rehabilitated causing an effective
new disturbance of 0.96 acre instead of 1.46
acres.
There would be a moderate, indirect effect
on overall habitat capacity with a new loss
of approximately 0.96 acre of forest
vegetation and food source plants, but this
effect should be negligible in terms of the
larger amount of habitat available in the
surrounding area. Forage would be lost
during clearing for road and parking area
construction; areas disturbed but
unobstructed would eventually revegetate
and be used by wildlife. Some habitat for
ground- and tree-dwelling small mammals
and birds would be permanently eliminated,
causing a decrease in size of the local
wildlife population that would be pro
portional to the habitat lost. Long-term
impacts would include habitat fragmentation
and increasing development on and human

use of habitats, especially in previously
undeveloped areas.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
General
Compared to alternatives 1 and 2, cultural
resources throughout the preserve would
receive increased protection under this
alternative. Cooperative efforts would
enhance identification and protection efforts
for cultural resources throughout the
preserve, regardless of ownership. The level
of protection would depend on funding, and
cooperative efforts may raise the possibility
of increased funding. Protection priorities
would be established by the National Park
Service based on the significance of the
resource and the potential threats to it.
Under alternative 3 the National Park
Service would work cooperatively with other
federal, state, local, and individual interested
agencies and groups to preserve cultural
resources preservewide. A heightened
awareness among Jacksonville citizens may
result in a positive cumulative impact on
these resources, but it may also lead to
willful or inadvertent damage, especially to
archeological resources. In addition, resource
protection would be affected, positively or
negatively, by the amount of available
funding, and by the level and type of
agreements between cooperating agencies or
individuals and the National Park Service.
Fort Caroline National Memorial
The construction of proposed trails, picnic
areas, roads, and parking areas would affect
any extant archeological resources.
Archeological testing would help identify
and document any extant resources along
the road, in the parking area, and at the
expanded visitor center and guide
construction site selection.
203
Impacts of Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
Theodore Roosevelt Area
Proposed road and parking construction
would affect any extant archeological
resources. Archeological testing would help
identify, document, and possibly interpret
any extant resources along the roads, in the
parking areas, at the camping area, and at
the viewing platform.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
The visitor parking area and road also
would be designed to maintain the visual
integrity of the historic landscape and
environment. Parking and walkway surfaces
would complement the historic setting.
Natural/cultural elements associated with
the historic site would not be compromised
when the parking area and road were
constructed.
Archeological testing would help identify,
document, and possibly interpret any extant
resources along the road and parking area.
Rehabilitation work in the carriage house
and Anna Jai house would be completed
according to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and would
help with protection of the structures.
Cooperative agreements with non-NPS
individuals or agencies on Fort George
Island would result in increased protection
of identified cultural resources.
IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
AND PUBLIC USE
General
Under this alternative the visitor experience
within the preserve would be significantly
enhanced over alternative 1, and it would
have a different emphasis than alternative 2.
Cooperative efforts would increase the
number of visitor experiences, offer a wider
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
range of activities and resource-based
opportunities, and increase the amount of
orientation and interpretation provided
throughout the preserve. Thus, there would
be a direct, significant, beneficial impact on
the visitor experience.
If cooperators and /or potential partners do
not base interpretive programming on the
NPS primary interpretive themes, region
wide interpretation may duplicate
interpretive programming offered at NPS
owned sites. Visitors may experience a
repetition of themes, programs, or activities.
Fort Caroline National Memorial
In compliance with the enabling legislation,
the visitor center at Fort Caroline would
provide additional visitor use and
interpretive opportunities than under present
conditions. The visitor center would be the
primary focus for interpretive activities in
the preserve, and would provide a quality of
orientation, information, and interpretation
matching similar presentations in other units
of the national park system. After their visit
to the preserve, people would have the
opportunity to leave the preserve with an
understanding of its significance and history.
The visitor center would provide a local and
regional information function, orienting
visitors to attractions and recreational
opportunities within the preserve as well as
travel opportunities in the region and those
related to the preserve's themes.
The new visitor parking area and road
would alleviate traffic congestion and
provide visually pleasing access to the Fort
Caroline area. The use of native plant
material for revegetation along the new road
and parking area would help preserve the
visual quality of the area for visitors.
Visitor safety would be upgraded because of
the proposed pedestrian crossing at Fort
Caroline Road.
204
Theodore Roosevelt Area
The diversity of interpretive programming
offered to visitors at Theodore Roosevelt
Area would be different under this
alternative than existing conditions. Visitors
would have increased opportunities to learn
of the preserve's estuarine ecology and
human use and to participate in
environmental and heritage education
programs. This activity would be supported
by the new screened-in deck.
The new visitor parking areas and roads
would reduce traffic congestion and provide
visually pleasing access to the Theodore
Roosevelt area. The visual quality of the area
would be enhanced by using native plant
material for revegetation along the new
parking areas and roads.
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
Under this alternative the visitor experience
would be expanded from existing conditions.
Development of a visitor contact facility in
the carriage house and exhibits in the Anna
Jai house and the main plantation house
would enhance visitor orientation and
interpretation. The removal of traffic through
the slave quarters area would provide a
quiet environment for visitor enjoyment,
learning, and reection.
Interpretation of the history and resources of
Fort George Island would be added through
the cooperation of non-NPS individuals or
agencies. The addition of a boat ride to the
plantation would offer visitors both a
sensory and cultural water-based experience.
The new visitor parking area and road
options would have the most significant
potential for reducing traffic congestion and
providing visually pleasing access to the
plantation. However, the existing roadway
from the main house to the slave quarters is
an open right-of-way used by adjacent
landowners. These people would be affected
by any change in traffic patterns.

The visual quality of the area would be
enhanced by using native plant material for
revegetation along the new parking area and
road options.
IMPACTS ON ACCESS AND
TRANSPORTATION
Under this alternative there would be an
increase of water access due to the
cooperative participation of the various
entities. The cooperative management plan
for the preserve would minimize the adverse
effects on the water resource and scenic
values from these impacts.
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
In this alternative the cooperators would
seek to acquire any property in the preserve
important to resource protection, especially
lands under imminent threat of develop
ment. Compensation to private landowners
would be fair market value, which takes into
account possible future uses of the land
under state, regional, and local policy plans
and local land development regulations, as
well as market conditions. Losses to the local
economy would be through lost property tax
revenue. The acreage acquired and removed
for tax rolls in this alternative would have a
negligible impact on revenues. The city may
be eligible to collect payments-in-lieu-of
taxes from the federal government.
Impacts from NPS construction activities
would be the same as those for alternative 1.
Increases in NPS staffing and annual
operating expenses under alternative 3 over
that in alternatives 1 and 2 would result in
moderate positive impacts on the area's
economy.
A cession in concurrent jurisdiction would
allow NPS enforcement officials to respond
to all crimes and enforce all applicable
federal, state, and local laws on NPS-owned
205
Impacts of Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
lands. Concurrent jurisdiction would
simplify long-term enforcement. As a result,
response times to all crimes would be faster,
and there would be little to no risk of
inappropriate responses to jurisdictional
areas. Local / state and NPS enforcement
officials would not have to be know
ledgeable of several jurisdictions in the
preserve and their locations.
IMPACTS OF MAJOR BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS
It is not possible to estimate the additional
wetland acreage from the Nassau County
adjustment without adequate surveys of the
mean high water. However, this adjustment
would have the potential for the greatest
positive impacts on natural resources.
Foremost would be the increase in wetland
acreage from an area included in the Nassau
River drainage. With the potential nonpoint
source pollution impacts from this area, this
adjustment would facilitate active manage
ment and discussion on improving nonpoint
source pollution impacts into the preserve.
This adjustment also would move the
preserve boundary out of the middle of the
Nassau River a move that makes sense
from the standpoint of ecosystem protection
and conservation.
The Pumpkin Hill adjustment would add
about 4,000 acres of uplands to the preserve.
This acreage would add uplands significant
in natural and cultural resources. In
addition, this adjustment would add uplands
with the greatest potential for development
that could damage or destroy resources
within the current boundary.
Both adjustments, large in nature, would
significantly affect the ability of natural
resource management to manage/ protect
these additional resources.
The major boundary adjustments listed in
this alternative could result in the acquisition
of up to three private homes. The residents
affected would be reimbursed for the value
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
of their property and relocation costs.
Estimates of these costs would be
determined at a later date.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Under this alternative, there would be a
positive cumulative impact from potential
activities of cooperative management the
combination over time of funds, staff, and
operations/ services on water quality;
wetlands and estuarine ecology; rare,
threatened, and endangered species; and
other important species (e.g., shellfish).
Adverse impacts on the preserve from
private development possibly could continue
within and adjacent to the preserve, but
these impacts would be fewer than the
private development estimated under
alternatives 1 and 2. Cooperative manage
ment should forestall the extent and
magnitude of these impacts in the long term,
especially the accumulation of upstream
pollutants. The end result would be
moderate cumulative impacts on natural
resources under alternative 3.
There would be a positive cumulative impact
on the visitor experience from cooperative
management. Coordinated planning, staffing,
funding, and programming would offer
visitors a variety of recreational and
interpretive opportunities appealing to a
wide range of interests. Intricate and
complex aspects of wetlands ecology,
together with human use, would be offered
to visitors through formal and informal
experiences, self-discovery, and other
techniques to support understanding and
appreciation.
Only approximately 1.54 acres of new
disturbance would occur from development
at Fort Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt
area, and Kingsley Plantation. However,
about 50 acres have been previously
disturbed by development in these areas.
Any unforeseen new disturbance at these
areas would add to this cumulative impact.
206
The additional NPS development under
alternative 3 (over that common with
alternative 1) would have minor cumulative
impacts on natural resources. Any
cumulative impacts from NPS development
under alternative 3 would be more than
offset by the reduction in private
development. NPS development would
follow the physical development/ location
criteria in table 1, thereby avoiding or
mitigating potential impacts.
There would be a positive cumulative impact
of greater than 4,000 acres of uplands from
both minor and major boundary adjust
ments. There would also be a positive
cumulative impact on wetland acreage, but
due to the nature of the adjustments, the
acreage is not known.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
At Fort Caroline National Memorial, the
Theodore Roosevelt area, and Kingsley
Plantation, development would result in a
new loss of about 2 acres of forest, primarily
hardwood hammock. However, 0.7 acre of
previously disturbed ground would be
rehabilitated, resulting in an effective new
loss of only 1.3 acres of forest.
Even though the proposed action is expected
to improve overall conditions for rare,
threatened, and endangered species, human
activity in known or potentially critical
habitat would continue. Some risk of adverse
impact is unavoidable if the recreational
purposes of the preserve are to be met and
the right of access to non-NPS lands upheld.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
At Fort Caroline, Theodore Roosevelt area,
and Kingsley Plantation, approximately 4.8
acres of vegetation and soil would be

removed from natural productivity for NPS
development projects for public education
and enjoyment. About 0.7 acre of existing
roads and parking would no longer be
needed and would be replaced with grass or
appropriate native plants, thus contributing
to the long-term enhancement of biological
resources.
Proposed actions to improve management of
water quality, fire, and exotic species and to
enhance research within the preserve would
contribute to the long-term production of all
biological resources considered in this
document. Proposed actions are intended to
support regionwide, multiagency actions to
maintain and enhance the long-term
productivity of the lower St. Johns River and
Nassau River systems.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Proposed developments at Fort Caroline, the
Theodore Roosevelt area, and Kingsley
Plantation would result in an irretrievable
commitment of about $5.1 million.
Excavating at the above three sites would
result in an irreversible loss of the
archeological resource because excavation
destroys the resource as data are recovered
from the site. Because new archeological
techniques are constantly being developed, it
is likely that better future excavation
methods would recover significant
archeological data. Once a site has been
excavated, it is unlikely that further research
would be profitable because of the strati
graphy of the site and the site's context and
makeup have been altered.
207
Impacts of Alternative 3: Interagency Cooperation
Adaptive rehabilitation, such as at Kingsley
Plantation, nearly always requires removal of
deteriorated historic fabric and replacement
with newer materials of like quality,
appearance, and workmanship. Often it is
necessary to remove historic fabric and
replace it with modern materials to meet
new requirements brought about by the
building's proposed use. For example, a
building could require a new heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning system that
could result in a loss of historic fabric. This
would be an irreversible and irretrievable
impact on the structure.
Under the proposed action, the National
Park Service would protect all archeological
resources to the extent practicable. Some
sites could be subjected to damage from
vandalism or inappropriate activity resulting
in irreversible and irretrievable losses of
artifacts and cultural information of regional
or local significance.
Many rare, threatened, and endangered
species apparently use the preserve and its
resources. Any action that led to losses of
individuals, the prey base, or the quality of
habitat would contribute to the loss of a
species as an ecological and genetic resource.
The proposed action is designed to protect
rare, threatened, and endangered species.
However, human activity and continued
development of private lands could occur.
Although unlikely, it is conceivable that the
proposed actions would be inadequate for
protecting these species and would
inadvertently contribute to their decline. It is
expected that proposed, cooperatively based
research and monitoring would avoid this
situation.
 ALTERNATIVE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT, AND
RESTORATION THROUGH NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Under alternative 4, there would be no
private development on environmentally
sensitive uplands and shoreline wetlands if
the National Park Service is able to acquire
all lands. In addition, those many disturbed
areas of the preserve would be restored as
part of an ambitious goal of active resource
manipulation to achieve an increase in
quality and quantity of preserve resources
and not just maintenance of existing
conditions or perpetuation of marginal
improvements. However, considering current
and probable future constraints on funding
for acquisition and management, this
alternative might result in some adverse
impacts on natural resources, at least in the
next 1015 years.
If the National Park Service is not able to
acquire all lands within the preserve,
including uplands, in a timely manner,
private development as presented under
alternative 1 would continue. State and local
regulatory agencies would have less of an
inclination to apply and enforce their
authorities, waiting for the National Park
Service to acquire lands. Landowners might
be encouraged to submit and pursue
development plans prior to federal
acquisition. The resulting changes in land
use could be expected to result in further
degradation of water quality, loss of habitat,
etc., as presented in alternative 1. In
addition, federal ownership suggests that
most of the land would be open to public
use. Federal ownership and NPS
management are usually considered to
provide a high level of resource protection;
however, if the National Park Service does
not have adequate operational funding,
increased public access and use would be
expected to result in damage or loss of
fragile preserve resources.
208
Without constraints on funding, for
acquisition and management, this alternative
would have the potential to be more
effective than any other alternative. Absence
of any further residential development
would alleviate most of the impacts
associated with private development, as
outlined under the impacts of alternative 1.
Some of these impacts would continue to be
a result of existing private development;
these would persist in the short term until
acquisition and restoration efforts were
implemented. In the long term, total
preservation of upland and wetland habitat
could benefit rare, threatened, and
endangered species, including some species
as yet undiscovered within the preserve.
This preservation might allow sustained
population growth by many species and/ or
attract new species (especially migratory
ones) to the preserve.
Preservation of wetland habitat would allow
for the continuation, with minimal
impairment, of breeding, nursery, and
feeding functions for those estuarine
dependent species. The overall health of the
estuarine ecosystem would be enhanced by
wetland preservation.
No further saltwater intrusion of
groundwater would occur. Groundwater
recharge would benefit and the overall
groundwater and surface water hydrology
should benefit from reduced groundwater
withdrawals.
This alternative, combining preservation
with restoration, should allow for continued
water quality improvement (especially from
persistent problems with septic tank/
leachfields and release of chemicals) such
that there would be an increase of class II
waters in the preserve in the future. This
implies the possibility of more shellfish
habitat and more shellfish production from
the preserve.

Restoration efforts should result in an
increase of acreage of wetland and upland
habitat. This increase in habitat would allow
ora and fauna to expand their ranges and
hence population numbers. Population
increases, especially of rare plants and
animals, would better allow them to
withstand the vicissitudes of the estuarine
environment. Restoration efforts could also
effect a change in habitat diversity, resulting
in an increase of biodiversity. This increase
could come from extirpated species making a
return to the preserve. In addition, increase
in wetland acreage should affect somewhat
those wetland losses that occurred as a result
of 20th century resource manipulation,
especially channel dredging and spoil
disposals.
To fully achieve NPS management objectives
within the preserve, virtually all interests in
land need to be in public ownership. An
active land acquisition program would
increase protection of threatened resources,
views, and sites, benefiting fish and wildlife
and their habitats.
Prevention of undesirable private
construction, formulation of stricter
development criteria, control of water use
activities, and limited visitor recreational
activities would provide added protection to
natural resources, potentially resulting in
further increases in the abundance and
diversity of fish and wildlife.
The National Park Service, under this
alternative, would have broad responsibili
ties for protecting the preserve ecosystem. A
single agency with broad responsibilities for
resource management (including research)
and protection would overcome the inherent
difficulties of cooperative management under
alternative 3. There would be the assurance
of long-term management of preserve lands
and waters in accordance with NPS
objectives and restoration of currently
disturbed areas to enhance natural functions
and wildlife habitat. The end result would be
an increased level of resource protection
over that considered under alternative 3.
209
Impacts of Alternative 4: NPS Management
Conversely, direct responsibility for
management by one agency would not
always be beneficial. In this alternative the
increased level of protection could be
compromised because of a lack of funds,
staff, and operations/ services to address
several problems at one time. As was stated
under alternative 3, a positive impact of a
cooperative effort would be the combination
of funds, staff, and operations.
This alternative provides positive assurance
of long-term management of the preserve in
accordance with NPS objectives. For
example, all wetlands in the preserve would
be more likely to be preserved. Areas that
were historic wetlands would be restored to
the greatest extent possible, resulting in the
greatest level of wetland area of all the
alternatives. The extent of wetland protection
under this alternative cannot be quantified at
this time. Additional wetland protection
would assist in improving water quality by
providing a greater natural filtration system
of water.
Attempts to redesignate the preserve to a
class I airshed would involve public hearings
and studies on health, environmental,
economic, social, and energy impacts.
Designation of the preserve as a class I
airshed would allow greater protection of
preserve resources and resources of the
surrounding community through more
stringent air quality permit requirements.
The habitat for fish and wildlife would be
analyzed and monitored more rigorously
than in the other alternatives to determine
the quality of habitat in the preserve. Once
habitat quality is determined, more intensive
programs would be developed to ensure
maintenance of habitat at the highest
attainable level. Threatened and endangered
species would be more extensively inven
toried and monitored in cooperation with the
state and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine the extent of critical habitat in
the preserve. Access to critical habitat areas
would be limited, which would preserve the
areas for wildlife habitat.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Under this alternative the overall impacts on
preserve natural resources would be minor.
Long-term protection of the environment
would continue to have a beneficial effect on
native wildlife. Elimination of the adverse
effects of potential future development and
other uses incompatible with protection of
wildlife is a significant beneficial long-term
effect of this alternative.
Specific impacts from development at Fort
Caroline, the Theodore Roosevelt area, and
Kingsley Plantation would be the same as
those presented under alternative 3. General
impacts of other NPS development are
discussed under the "Impacts Common to
All Alternatives" section. Additional NPS
developments under alternative 4 over those
presented in alternative 3 include visitor
centers in the Thomas Creek (total
disturbance approximately 23 acres), Cedar
Point (total disturbance approximately 45
acres), and Fort George Island (total
disturbance approximately 0.50.7 acre) area,
satellite facilities on Big Talbot Island (about
23 acres) and Pelotes Island (about 0.10.2
acre), and redevelopment of Huguenot
Memorial Park (about 120 acres) and Sisters
Creek Marina (about 5 acres). Moderate
impacts on land and water resources would
result from these developments, mainly
because of their magnitude. These
developments would involve new
disturbance, where feasible, and access
would be via existing roads, where possible.
Impacts would be more clearly defined in
future development concept plans/
environmental assessments for these sites.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources throughout the preserve
would receive increased protection under
this alternative only if there is a
corresponding increase in NPS staff and
operational funding to administer the
additional lands. If this is achieved, there
would be direct, significant, long-term,
beneficial impacts under this alternative.
210
Scattered archeological resources throughout
the preserve would receive increased
protection under this alternative. Any future
alteration of a site or construction of a
facility by the National Park Service would
be analyzed to ensure that cultural resources
(including archeological) would not be
adversely affected.
IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
AND PUBLIC USE
In alternative 4 the visitor experience would
be significantly enhanced over alternative 1,
and would have a different emphasis than
alternative 2. Unlike alternative 3, wherein
cooperative efforts would provide increased
visitor experiences and activities, this
alternative would provide an enhanced
visitor experience throughout the preserve,
but only if an increase in staff and
operational funding accompanies the
expanded land base in NPS ownership.
As in alternative 3, the diversity and number
of visitor opportunities available would lead
to increased visitor understanding of the
preserve's interpretive themes and enjoy
ment and appreciation of the preserve's
resources.
Under this alternative people would have
access to visitor centers and satellite facilities
throughout the preserve. This access would
not only increase visitor opportunities to
learn about and understand the preserve's
interpretive themes, but also would heighten
the physical link among themes and
representative resources throughout the
preserve.
IMPACTS ON ACCESS AND
TRANSPORTATION
The impacts on access and transportation
under this alternative would be
comprehensive in scale. It would be the
direct responsibility of the National Park
Service to mitigate those impacts. The end

result would be an increased level of
resource protection over the other three
alternatives.
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
In this alternative the National Park Service
would seek the authority and the means to
acquire all property deemed important to
resource protection in the preserve.
Compensation to landowners would be fair
market value, which takes into account
possible future uses of the land under the
state, regional, and local policy plans and
local land development regulations, as well
as market conditions. The indirect, negative
impacts on the local economy would minor
due to lost property tax revenue from
removing approximately 8,000 additional
acres from very low density residential
development potential, or agricultural
activities. The city may be eligible to collect
payments-in-lieu-of-taxes from the federal
government.
Because of the estimated cost of NPS
development, construction activities would
have a moderate to significant benefit to
local/ regional contractors and their
employees. Local businesses also would
experience moderate to significant benefits
from the presence of construction crews.
Impacts that would result from increases in
preserve staffing and annual operating
211
Impacts of Alternative 4: NPS Management
expenses would be the same as those under
alternative 3.
Impacts from a jurisdictional change would
be the same as in alternative 3.
IMPACTS OF MAJOR BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS
Impacts from the major boundary
adjustments would be the same as those
discussed under alternative 3.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Alternative 4 would have positive
cumulative impacts on natural resources.
Because further private development would
be limited by NPS acquisition, there would
be no negative impacts as there would with
the other alternatives. In fact, restoration of
previous development disturbance would
result in positive cumulative impacts for
natural resources of the preserve e.g.,
increased in water quality, wetlands
preservation, increased in upland habitat,
increases in rare, threatened, and endangered
species habitat, overall improvements in the
general health of the estuarine ecosystem.
One major cumulative impact would be the
potential increase of class II waters in the
preserve, which implies increases in shellfish
and commercially important fish production.
 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS,
EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS
In implementing the General Management
Plan for Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve, the National Park Service would
comply with all applicable laws and
executive orders, including those listed
below. Informal consultation with
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies
has been conducted in the preparation of this
document.
The draft environmental impact statement
for the general management plan will be on
public review for 60 days. A final environ
mental impact statement (or abbreviated one
if comments are not substantive) will be
prepared that will respond to or incorporate
the public comments on the draft document.
After a 30-day no-action period, a record of
decision will be prepared to document the
selected alternative and set forth any
stipulations for implementation of the
general management plan, thus completing
the NEPA process.
This environmental impact statement is
essentially a programmatic statement,
presenting an overview of potential impacts
relating to the proposed program for each
alternative. A more detailed development
concept plan/ environmental assessment will
be done for each NPS-owned site at which
future development would occur. These
documents would be tiered to this
programmatic statement.
NATURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE
Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique
Agricultural Lands in Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (45 FR
59189)
Federal agencies are required to analyze the
impacts of federal actions on agricultural
lands, in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. This policy was
212
developed to minimize the effect of federal
programs in converting prime, unique, or
locally important farmland to
nonagricultural uses. There are no prime or
unique farmlands within the preserve.
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 7401 et
seq.)
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve is
designated as a class II clean air area.
Maximum allowable increases of sulfur
dioxide, particular matter, and nitrogen
oxides beyond baseline concentrations
established for class II areas cannot be
exceeded. These class II increments would
allow modest industrial activities in the
vicinity of the preserve. Section 118 of the
Clean Air Act requires all federal facilities to
comply with existing federal, state, and local
air pollution control laws and regulations.
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
would work with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to ensure that all
activities within the preserve meet the
requirements of the state air quality
implementation plan.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.)
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
requires all federal agencies to consult with
the US. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency does not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or critical habitat. Consultations with
the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Florida
Natural Areas Inventory has revealed that
there are numerous federally and state listed
plant and animal species either within or
believed to live in the preserve.

Most of the development proposed under
each alternative would be primarily in
previously disturbed areas. Thus, potential
impacts on federally listed threatened and
endangered species would be minimal.
However, a site-specific survey would be
done at each site as part of the development
concept plan/environmental assessment
process to further define the impacts on
endangered and threatened species. This
would include further consultation with the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state
of Florida.
As required by NPS management policies,
the National Park Service would cooperate
with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission and the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services to
ensure protection of state-listed species
within the preserve.
Executive Order 11988 ("Floodplain
Management")
This order requires all federal agencies to
avoid construction within the 100-year
oodplain unless no other practical
alternative exists. Development of some of
the facilities described in the alternatives
may be at least partially sited in areas that
are within the 100-year oodplain. The
National Park Service has determined that
activities of this type are compatible uses of
oodplains. The intent of these facilities is to
provide access to recreational activities that
cannot be accomplished without being in
close proximity to the water. These actions
are excepted from compliance with this
executive order.
Executive Order 11990 ("Protection of
Wetlands")
This order requires that all federal agencies
must avoid, where possible, impacts on
wetlands. Over three-quarters of the preserve
is classified as wetland. When specific
development sites are selected, a wetland
Compliance
determination would be done and further
analysis of potential impacts on wetlands
would be provided in the development
concept plan/environmental assessment
done for each site. The proposed boat docks
at Fort Caroline and Kingsley Plantation
probably would involve wetland impacts. A
statement of findings, pursuant to NPS
regulations for compliance with this
executive order, would be attached to the
final general management
plan/environmental impact statement.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended
Proposed construction and NPS operations
would have little effect on water quality.
Federal construction would comply with the
requirements of sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act and other applicable
federal, state, and local regulations. The
development proposed under alternative 3
may require a permit from the US. Army
Corps of Engineers (404 permit), and
approval from the Division of State Lands,
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, the state agency that has
jurisdiction over sovereign state lands. In
addition, all developments other than single
family construction must now have
stormwater management permits to ensure
that stormwater runoff will be properly
handled.
Florida Coastal Management Program
The National Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 authorizes a state-federal partnership
to ensure the wise use and protection of the
nation's coastal resources. Under the federal
act, eligible states receive federal funding
assistance to implement approved programs
and to review federal activities for
consistency with those programs. The
Florida Coastal Management Act of 1978
provides the legal basis for the Florida
Coastal Management Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Federal agency activities in or affecting
Florida's coastal zone or activities requiring
federal permits must comply with section
307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
and implementing regulations, which require
that such federal activities be conducted
consistently with Florida's Coastal
Management Program. Review of this draft
general management plan /environmental
impact statement by the state of Florida
constitutes a review of consistency
determination. When the state of Florida
concurs with a consistency determination,
the state transmits a formal state consistency
response to the federal agency.
Outstanding Florida Waters
The Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve was recently added to the list of
Outstanding Florida Waters. Section
403.061(27), Florida statutes, grants the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection the power to establish rules which
provide a special category of water bodies
within the state, to be referred to as
Outstanding Florida Waters, which will be
worthy of special protection because of their
natural attributes. The waters are to be
preserved in a nondegraded state and
protected in perpetuity for the benefit of the
public. Industrial, commercial, and
residential wastewater discharge (treated or
untreated) and dredge and fill operations are
prohibited except where clearly in the public
interest. Stormwater discharge is permitted
only if it has been treated according to strict
state standards.
CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE
The National Park Service is mandated to
preserve and protect its cultural resources
through the Organic Act of August 25, 1916,
wherein the National Park Service was
established. Further mandates are provided
through specific legislation such as the
Antiquities Act of 1906 providing for
protection of historic, prehistoric, and
214
scientific features on federal lands; the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
declaring a federal policy to preserve
important historic and cultural aspects of
national heritage; and the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, which is described
below. Additionally, mandates for protecting
American Indian religious freedoms,
assigning ownership of Native American
human remains and funerary and sacred
objects found on federal lands, and the
conservation of folklife are described below.
As part of its cultural resource management
responsibilities, the National Park Service
surveys and evaluates all cultural resources
on lands under its jurisdiction. Resources are
evaluated by applying the criteria for the
National Register of Historic Places. In
addition, the National Park Service maintains
an inventory of all above-grade historic and
prehistoric structures within the national
park system, which is called the List of
Classified Structures. All cultural resources
eligible for the national register would be
recorded and / or measured, according to the
highest professional standards.
American Folklife Preservation Act, 1976
(EL. 94-201)
This act offered a definition of American
folklife and established the American Folklife
Center in the Library of Congress,
Washington, DC. Congress declared that it
is appropriate for the federal government to
support research and scholarship in
American folklife, and to encourage and
support American folklife; and that it is in
the interest of the general welfare of the
Nation to preserve, support, revitalize, and
disseminate American folklife traditions and
arts.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act,
August 11, 1978 (PL. 95-341; 92 Stat. 469)
It is United States policy to protect and
preserve American Indians in their right of

freedom to believe, express, and exercise
traditional religions. This policy includes the
right to access sites, use and possession of
sacred objects, and the freedom to worship
through ceremonial and traditional rites.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 (42 USC
4151 et seq.); Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
USC 701 et seq.); and as appropriate,
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327)
All facilities and programs developed would
be accessible to visitors with disabilities.
Public Law 90-480 established standards for
physical access. Any new facilities would be
designed for accessibility by visitors and
staff with disabilities. Historic structures
require special treatment, and any
modifications must be done with the
participation of a historic architect and with
the appropriate clearances. Alternative
methods of accessibility must be considered,
and the alternative providing the most
accessibility should be the preferred.
Inaccessible areas should be made available
through other means.
Interpretive media must be accessible. All
video and films should be close-captioned.
Basic information brochures should be 'taped
for the visually impaired. Major exhibit areas
should contain touchable items, with taped
descriptions of exhibits. Wayside exhibits
should be designed with special populations
in mind, regarding type size, angle, contrast,
etc. Aspects of the visitor experience may be
affected by compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act (PL. 101-601; 104 Stat.
3049)
Ownership or control of Native American
human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony
that are excavated or discovered on federal
215
Compliance
or tribal lands would be assigned to lineal
descendants of cultural affiliated Native
American groups. Criminal penalties were
established for trafficking in remains or
objects obtained in violation of the act.
Federal agencies, and museums receiving
federal funding, would inventory Native
American human remains and associated
funerary objects they hold; identify their
cultural and geographical affiliations within
five years; and prepare summaries of
information about Native American
unassociated objects.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16
USC 470, et. seq.)
Section 106 required that federal agencies
having direct or indirect jurisdiction over
undertakings take into account the effect of
those undertakings on national register
properties and allow the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to
comment. Toward that end, the National
Park Service would work with the Florida
state historic preservation officer (SHPO) and
the advisory council to meet the require
ments of the August 1990 programmatic
agreement among the National Conference
of State Historic Preservation Officers, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and National Park Service. This agreement
requires the Park Service to work closely
with the SHPO and the advisory council in
planning for new and existing NPS areas.
Also, this agreement provides for a number
of "programmatic exclusions" or actions that
are not likely to have an adverse effect on
cultural resources. These actions may be
implemented without further review by the
SHPO or the advisory council, reducing
required consultations with the state historic
preservation officers. Actions not specifically
excluded in the programmatic agreement
must be reviewed by the SHPO and the
Advisory Council during the planning and
design stages, prior to implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Florida SHPO has reviewed the Draft
General Management Plan / Development
Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement
and has determined that all alternatives, as
they relate to cultural resources, meet the
historic preservation goals of the state (see
appendix L).
Internally, the National Park Service would
complete an "Assessment of Effect on
Cultural Resources" form prior to implemen
tation of any proposed actions. This form is
necessary to document any project effects,
outline actions proposed to mitigate any
effects, and document that the proposed
action ows from the general management
plan. All implementing actions for cultural
resources would be reviewed, using the
"Assessment of Effect" form, and certified by
regional office cultural resource specialists
specified in NPS-28.
Prior to any ground-disturbing by the
National Park Service, a professional
archeologist would determine the need for
archeological inventory or testing evaluation.
Any such studies should be carried out in
time so that measures to avoid sites can still
be considered and would meet the needs of
the SHPO as well as the Park Service. Any
large-scale archeological investigations
would be undertaken in consultation with
the SHPO.
Listed below are actions that are either
programmatic exclusions under the
programmatic agreement between the
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, and the National
Park Service or are subject to further
consultation with the Florida SHPO and the
Advisory Council to ensure adequate
mitigation of any effects. Should the Park
Service, the SHPO, and the advisory council
so decide, other actions not meeting the
programmatic exclusion definition may be
determined to need no further review under
section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Any such agreement,
however, must be determined mutually and
must be fully documented.
Fort Caroline National Memorial
Visitor Center Area. The following actions
require further SHPO/ACHP review:
Enlarging visitor center
Site landscaping and walkways
Construction of picnic area
Enlarging/ moving parking area
Dock / deck construction
New trail development
The following actions are programmatic
exclusions:
Rehabilitation or widening of paths/
trails within previously disturbed areas
Historical, archeological, and
architectural investigations to document
structures and grounds
Archeological investigations to document
grounds at Spanish Pond; includes
boardwalk disturbance
Erection of signs and wayside exhibits
at Ribault Column
Theodore Roosevelt Area
The following actions require further
SHPO/ACHP review:
Site landscaping
Construction of parking areas and roads
Construction of primitive camping area
Construction of viewing platform
The following actions are programmatic
exclusions:
Rehabilitation or widening of paths/
trails within previously disturbed areas

Jill). and
Historical, archeological and
architectural investigations to document
structures and grounds
ittions
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation
The following actions require further
SHPO/ACHP review:
Modification of structures to allow access
to visitors and staff with disabilities
Construction of parking area and road
Adaptive use of historic structures
Construction of dock and boardwalk
Site landscaping and paths
The following actions are programmatic
exclusions:
Historical, archeological and
architectural investigations to document
structures and grounds
217
Compliance
Rehabilitation of carriage house, limited
to actions consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Archeology and
Historic Preservation
Erection of signs and wayside exhibits
Rehabilitation or widening of paths/
trails within previously disturbed areas
The National Park Service does not currently
possess rights to any in-ground artifacts at
Kingsley Plantation that may be uncovered
during any construction or other ground
disturbing activities. The National Park
Service is negotiating with the state of
Florida to transfer title to in-ground cultural
resources at Kingsley.
 TIMUGUAN
E( ..t )L( )( il( AL AND HIST( )Rl(. PRESERVE

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION / PREPARERS

 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
SCOPING PROCESS
During the development of this Draft General
Management Plan / Development Concept
Plans / Environmental Impact Statement for
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve,
newsletters were written and public
workshops/ meetings were held as part of
the scoping process.
Newsletter
In December 1990, approximately 10,000
copies of a newsletter/ questionnaire were
distributed by mail or made available at
various public facilities throughout
Jacksonville. The newsletter gave a brief
description of the vision for Timucuan, the
history, an overview of resource preservation
and visitor use, and the NPS planning
process.
The questionnaire portion asked the public
to comment on a variety of questions about
the preserve, including what preserve
resources were important to them and were
there any concerns about the future of
Timucuan. The National Park Service
received 399 completed responses. Although
a majority of these responses were from
Florida, some responses were from other
states in the eastern US.
In November 1994, a second newsletter was
distributed by mail to about 750 names on a
general mailing list established by the
preserve. The purpose of this newsletter was
to present the draft alternatives prior to
release of the Draft General Management Plan /
Development Concept Plans / Environmental
Impact Statement.
Public Workshops/Meetings
All public workshops/ meetings were held in
Jacksonville. For a November 1991
221
workshop, the National Park Service invited
over 50 public and private entities to
participate in the review of the broad
management concepts and develop input
regarding roles and responsibilities.
Following the workshop, the Park Service
mailed a summary of the meeting to all the
participants. The summary outlined the roles
and responsibilities of the agencies as well as
the comments made by these groups.
In June 1992 seven individual meetings were
held involving representatives of the city,
state, and federal governments, as well as
private landowners and the general public.
The intent of these meetings was to gain
additional information that would enable the
Park Service to expand on initial draft
alternatives under development for the draft
general management plan / environmental
impact statement, and to solicit comments
and concerns on the various scoping issues
that were identified through newsletter
responses and by the planning team and the
preserve.
The results of these meetings were mailed to
all the participants as well as to names on
the general mailing list that was established
by the preserve.
AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING
SCOPING
Federal
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
US. Army Corps of Engineers
US. Coast Guard
US. Environmental Protection Agency
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
US. Navy
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATlON/PREPARERS

State I LIST OF AGENCIES AND

Department of Community Affairs ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM COPIES
Department of Environmental Protection OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE BEING SENT
Division of Environmental Resource
Permitting Federal/State/County/Local
Division of Law Enforcement Officials
Division of Marine Resources Hon. Charles Bennett (former US.
Division of Recreation and Parks Representative)
Division of State Lands Hon. Corrine Brown
Division of Water Facilities Hon. Tillie Fowler
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Hon. Bob Graham
Services Hon. Connie Mack
Department of Transportation Lawton Chiles, Governor
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Jacksonville City Council
State Historic Preservation Officer Mayor of Jacksonville

Regional Federal
Nassau County Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council Department of Agriculture
St. Johns River Water Management District Soil Conservation Service
Universities / Extension Service Department of Defense
US. Army Corps of Engineers
US. Coast Guard
City US. Navy
Mayor's Office/City Council Department of the Interior
Economic Development Council US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Lands Selection Federal Highway Administration
Committee National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Environmental Law Administration, National Marine
Health, Welfare, and Bioenvironmental Fisheries Service
Historic Preservation Committee US. Environmental Protection Agency
Parks, Recreation, and Entertainment
Department
Planning Department State
Port Authority Department of Environmental Protection
Transportation Authority Division of Marine Resources
Division of Recreation and Parks
Talbot Island State Geopark
Private Entities Division of Environmental Resource
Castleton Beverage Corporation Permitting
Chamber of Commerce Division of Law Enforcement
CSX Railroad Division of Water Facilities
Environmental advocacy organizations Department of Community Affairs
Jacksonville Electric Authority Department of Health and Rehabilitative
North Shore Corporation Services
Other property owners Department of Transportation
Special interest groups Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Office of Planning and Budgeting
State Historic Preservation Officer

222
 Public Involvement

Regional Organizations/Institutions
Nassau County Commission All private property owners in the preserve
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Black Hammock Island Community
Council Association
St. Johns River Water Management District Castleton Beverage Corporation
Chamber of Commerce
CSX Railroad
City Duval Audubon Society
Convention and Visitors Bureau Edward Waters College - Library
Economic Development Council Florida Community College at
Environmental Lands Selection Jacksonville - Library
Committee Jacksonville Electric Authority
Environmental Law Jacksonville University - Library
Health, Welfare, and Bioenvironmental North Shore Corporation
Historic Preservation Committee University of North Florida - Library
Parks, Recreation, and Entertainment
Department
Planning Department
Port Authority
Transportation Authority

223
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION/PREPARERS
PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND CONSULTANTS
PREPARERS
Denver Service Center
Dennis Strah, Team Captain/ Landscape
Architect
Linda Dahl, Community Planner
Jeff Garrett, Landscape Architect
David Vana-Miller, Natural Resource
Specialist
Harpers Ferry Center
Sharon A. Brown, Interpretive
Planner/ Cultural Resource Specialist
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent
Craig Sheldon, Chief Ranger
Southeast Regional Office
Rich Sussman, Park Planner
CONTRIBUTORS
Washington Office
Warren Brown, Chief, Division of Park
Planning and Protection
Al Galipeau, Division of Socioeconomic
Studies
Erik Hauge, Environmental Specialist, Air
Quality Division
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve
Paul Ghioto, Interpretive Specialist
Debra LaCoste, Administrative Officer
Craig Morris, Park Ranger
Brian Peters, Supervisory Park Ranger
Daniel Tardona, Supervisory Park Ranger
Norman Williams, Chief of Maintenance
224
Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee
Bennie Keel, Archeologist
Bob Wilson, Archeologist
Denver Service Center
Michael Bureman, Former Team Captain
Nancy Baker, Landscape Architect
Steve Culver, Natural Resource Specialist
Wendy Davidson, Landscape Architect
Russ Pischnery, Branch of Concessions
Karen Vaage, Landscape Architect
Whit Watkins, Outdoor Recreation Planner
CONSULTANTS
Florida Park Service
Bob Joseph, Fort George, Florida
Jacksonville, Florida
Joel McEachin, Jacksonville Planning and
Development
Carolyn Pait, Jacksonville Electric Authority
Theresa Snyder, Planning Department
PUBLICATION SERVICES
Denver Service Center
Ruth Eitel, Visual Information Specialist
Glenda Heronema, Visual Information
Specialist
Linda Russo, Writer-Editor
 TIMUCUAN
E( l( )LtKil(lAL AND HIST( )RKI PRESERVE

APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY/ INDEX

 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC LAW 100-249

PUBLIC LAW 100-249FEB. 16. 1988 102 STAT. 13

Public Law 100-249

100th Congress
An Act
Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to preserve certain wetlands and historic Feb. I6. 1988
and prehistoric sites in the St. John: River Valley, Florida. and for other purposes. [H.R 1983]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled. National parks.
monument-l. etc.

TITLE IFORT CAROLINE NATIONAL

MEMORIAL
SECTION 101. AMENDMENTS OF 1950 ACT.
The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the acquisition. investiga
tion. and preservation of lands to commemorate the historic Fort.
Caroline settlement. Saint Johns Bluff. Florida". approved Septem
ber 21. 1950 (64 Stat. 897). is amended as follows:
(1) Section 2 is amended by adding the following after the
nal period: "Such historical park shall serve as the principal
interpretive center and administrative facility for the eco
logical. historic. and prehistoric resources made available under
this legislation. In furtherance of the interpretive and adminis
trative functions referred to in the preceding sentence. the
Secretary shall construct and maintain appropriate museum
facilities for the display of important artifacts and materials
that illustrate the history and prehistory of the region."
(2) Section 3 is repealed. and sections 4 and 5 are redesignated
as sections 3 and 4. respectively.
(3) Section 4. as so redesignated. is amended by striking out
the phrase ", not. to exceed 340.000.".

TITLE IIPRESERVATION OF ST. JOHNS

RIVER VALLEY ECOLOGICAL AREA
AND PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT HIS
TORIC ASSETS
SEC. 20L TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE. 16 USC 698a.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.There is hereby established inthe St. Johns lndim'
River Valley. Florida. where the Timucuan Indians lived in pre
historic and historic times. the Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve thereafter in this Act referred to as the ._Preserve"l. The
Preserve shall comprise the lands. waters. and interests therein
within the boundaries generally depicted on a map of Duval County.
Florida. entitled "Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve" num
bered NA-TEI'IP 80.003-A and dated July 1987. The map shall be on Public
le and available for public inspection in the Office of the National information.
Park Service. Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the

227
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX

102 STAT. 14 PUBLIC LAW 100-249FEB. 16, 1988

Interior may make minor revisions in the boundary of the Preserve

in accordance with section 7(c) of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965. The Preserve shall also include within its bound
aries all that land consisting of approximately 500 acres adjacent to
Fort Caroline National Memorial and known as the Theodore R00
sevelt Preserve. being land formerly owned by one Willie Brown and
donated by him to The Nature Conservancy.
Gift: and (b) LAND AcoUIsIrIoN.The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter
property. in this Act referred to as the Secretary") is authorized to acquire
lands and interests therein within the Preserve by donation. pur
chase with donated or appropriated funds. or exchange. but no lands
other than wetlands or interests therein may be acquired without
the consent of the owner. For purposes of this subsection. the term
"wetlands" has the same meaning as provided by section 3 of the
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Lands. interests in
lands. and improvements thereon within the boundaries of the
Preserve which are owned by the State of Florida or any political
subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation or exchange.
On lands acquired for inclusion within the Preserve. the Secretary
shall not impair any legal riparian right of access nor shall he
preclude the continued use of any legal right of way.
(c) ADMINISTRATIONThe Secretary shall administer those lands
acquired for inclusion within the Preserve in such a manner as to
protect the natural ecology of such land and water areas in accord
ance with this Act and the provisions of law generally applicable to
units of the National Park System. including the Act of August 2".
Boating. 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1. 2-4). The Secretary shall permit
Huntlng. boating, boating-related activities. hunting, and shing within the
Fish and shing. Preserve in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws. The
Safety.
Secretary may designate zones where. and establish periods when.
no hunting or shing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety.
Id) Nothing in this Act shall affect development of a multiunit
residential/ resort project currently proposed for Fort George Island.
nor shall any provision of this Act be construed to affect any
Federal. State or local law applicable to such project.
Gifts and SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ASSETS.
property.
16 USC 6980.
The Secretary, with the consent of the owners thereof. may
acquire by donation or purchase with donated funds the following
properties or sites of signicant historic interest in Duval County.
Florida:
(1) Spanish sixteenth century forts San Gabriel and San
Estaban.
(2) Spanish eighteenth century fort Dos Hermanas.
(3) English eighteenth century forts at Saint Johns Bluff and
Fort George Island.
(4) Spanish sixteenth and seventeenth century mission San
Juan del Puerto.
(5) Site of the American Revolutionary War battle of Thomas
Creek.
(6) The Zephaniah Kingsley plantation. with its eighteenth
and nineteenth century buildings.
Bll'lllfThe Spanish American War fortication on Saint Johns
u .
I8) The confederate fort known as the Yellow Bluff Fort State
Historic Site.

228
 Appendix A

PUBLIC LAW 100-249FEB. 16. 1988 102 STAT. 15

SEC. 203. INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION. 16 use 898p.
Any properties of historic interest acquired under section 202
shall become part of the Preserve established under section 201. The
Secretary shall administer such properties in accordance with a
plan that integrates the administration and interpretation of the
ecological values of the Preserve and the historical values of the
sites so acquired and the historical features of Fort Caroline. Such
administration and interpretation shall be conducted through the
facilities and staff of Fort Caroline National Memorial consistent
with section 2 of the Act of September 21. 1950 (64 Stat. 897).

Approved February 16. 1988.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORYHR. 1983:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 100-224 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affair-ll.
SENATE REPORTS: No. 100-247 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 133 H087): July 21. considered and passed House.
Dec. 11. considered and passed Senate. amended.
Vol. 134 H988): Feb. 2. House concurred in Senate amendments.
O

229
 APPENDIX B: RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES FOR NATURAL SYSTEMS AND
RECREATIONAL LAND AND LAND USE
[Excerpted from Northeast Florida
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan - July 1,
1987]
GOAL 10: NATURAL SYSTEMS AND
RECREATIONAL LAND - Florida shall protect
and acquire unique natural habitats and
natural systems such as wetlands, tropical
hardwood hammocks, palm hammocks, and
virgin longleaf pine forests, and restore
degraded natural systems to a functional
condition.
10.1 Regional Issue: Protection of Natural
Systems
M: 10.1.1. By 1995, significant wetlands,
uplands, and oodplains should be protected
through a coordinated management plan by
federal, state, and local governments.
Policy: 10.1.1.1. Wetland areas should be
maintained or restored to provide natural
cleansing of surface water runoff, to aid water
storage, and for aquifer recharge.
Policy: 19011.2. Discourage alteration of and
encourage incentives for preservation of
natural/native vegetation along the region's
waterways to prevent erosion, retard runoff,
and preserve natural beauty.
Policy: 10.1.1.3. Water management and
development projects that alter the natural wet
and dry cycles or cause functional disruption
of significant wetlands and aquifer recharge
areas should be prevented.
Policy: 10.1.1.4. Developments should be
designed to protect the type, nature, and
function of oodplains, wetlands, waterways,
estuaries, and lakes through methods such as
limiting: encroachment, removal of native
vegetation, pollution discharges, dredge and
fill, and drainage.
Policy: 10.1.1.5. A natural resources inventory
should be conducted for the purpose of
230
identifying environmentally sensitive lands for
future purchase and/or management.
Policy: 10.1.1.6. Mitigation, where appropriate,
should be provided when wetlands and marine
habitats are impacted through development
activities such as dredge and fill. Mitigation
can include conservation of upland buffers or
wetland restoration.
Policy: 10.1.1.7. Coastal hammocks, xeric oak,
mature longleaf pjne/wiregrass, and other
unique upland communities should be
identified and environmentally insensitive
development should be restricted.
10.2 Regional Issue: Protection of Endangered
Species
@: 10.2.1. By 1991, prevent extinction and
further reductions in the population size of
endangered, threatened, and species of special
concern of plant and animal species that occur
within the region.
Policy: 10.2.1.2. Development proposed
adjacent to outstanding Florida Waters, wildlife
sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, national forests,
state preserves, parks, gardens, sanctuaries,
forests, and publicly owned wildlife
management areas in the region should be
environmentally compatible in order to
conserve wildlife populations and referenced
plants.
Policy: 10.2.1.3. The retention of habitats for
native wildlife and vegetation on-site should
be required in new development where the
habitat is viable by virtue of its size,
configuration, and connecting habitat.
Policy: 10.2.1.4. Lands owned or managed by
any state, regional, or local agency should
comply with all the policies and standards
imposed upon private landowners.

Policy: 10.2.1.5. Maximum utilization of a
centralized data base for referenced species
should be ensured within the region.
Policy: 10.2.1.6. Marinas and ports should not
be located in or adjacent to manatee-designated
sanctuaries, foraging areas, or in or adjacent to
freshwater or warm-water discharge habitat.
Policy: 10.2.1.7. All species of sea turtles that
nest on the sand beaches fronting the Atlantic
Ocean should be protected from human
interference including beach renourishment,
beachfront lighting, coastal construction, and
mechanical beach cleaning during nesting
season.
GOAL 16: LAND USE - In recognition of the
importance of preserving the natural resources
and enhancing the quality of life of the state,
development shall be directed to those areas
that have in place, or have agreements to
provide, the land and water resources, fiscal
abilities, and the service capacity to
accommodate growth in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
16.1 Regional Issue: Balanced and Planned
Development
Goal: 16.1.1. By 1991, urban sprawl patterns in
Northeast Florida should be limited and "leap
frog" development should be discouraged.
Policy: 16.1.1.1. Development should be limited
to areas that have the existing or planned
capacity to service new population and
commerce, in terms of the availability of public
facilities.
Policy: 16.1.1.2. Provide incentives that
encourage development infilling in urban areas
having planned public facilities with sufficient
capacities.
Policy: 16.1.1.3. The Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the regional
planning council (RPC) should assist local
governments in the preparation of the capital
facilities element of their local comprehensive
plans, if such services are desired by local
government.
231
Appendix B
16.2 Regional Issue: Natural Resources
Preservation
M: 16.2.1. By 1991, in order to preserve the
region's natural resources and quality of life,
urban growth should take place where services
are either existing or planned in an
environmentally acceptance manner.
o_al: 16.2.2. By 1991, local land use plans
should protect the quality and quantity of
water resources, and not promote ood
damage.
Policy: 16.2.2.1. Development in FEMA 100
year ood hazard areas should be discouraged
unless it includes offsetting design and
development techniques that minimize adverse
impacts resulting from ooding.
@: 16.2.3. By 1991, problems associated with
antiquated subdivisions should be addressed in
local government comprehensive plans where
applicable.
Policy: 16.2.3.1. LGCPs should address
problems associated with antiquated
subdivisions and offer solutions that are
equitable and timely.
Policy: 16.2.3.2. Antiquated subdivisions should
be redesigned, where feasible, to conform to
present zoning and subdivision regulations
regarding lot size, density, open space,
drainage, etc.
Policy: 16.2.3.3. A land trust should be created
and funded to address the problem of
antiquated subdivisions in the region.
Policy: 16.2.3.4. Undeveloped antiquated
subdivisions in the region should be identified.
Policy: 16.2.3.5. The Regional Planning Council
should assist local governments and private
landowners with developing and implementing
the appropriate redesign of undeveloped
antiquated subdivisions through techniques
such as lot reformation.
 APPENDIX C: ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Cost

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

FORT CAROLINE NATIONAL MEMORIAL

Demolish existing pavement and walkways $ 10,700 $ 10,700 $ 10,700 $ 10,700

Selective clearing 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200

Site grading 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100

New trails and walkways 24,500 24,500 24,500 24,500

Expand parking area 89,000 89,000 89,000 89,000

New connector road 58,200 58,200 58,200 58,200

Resurface asphalt pavement 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000

New boat dock 249,000 249,000 249,000 249,000

New landscaping (trees, shrubs, and groundcovers) 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200

New picnic area 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300

Utilities (underground water/ electricity for boat docks) 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400

Visitor center expansion. 1,415,000 1,415,000 1,415,000 1,415,000

Subtotal Gross Construction $2,032,600 $2,032,600 $2,032,600 $2,032,600

Advanced Planning 350,600 350,600 350,600 350,600

Total Cost $2,383,200 $2,383,200 $2,383,200 $2,383,200

SPANISH POND

Demolish existing pavement and walkways $ 6,100 $ 6,100

Selective clearing 2,600 2,600

New parking areas 24,900 24,900

Rehabilitate existing trails 3,900 3,900

New pedestrian road crossing 32,800 32,800

New elevated boardwalk $125,800 $125,800 125,800 125,800

Subtotal Gross Construction $125,800 $125,800 $196,100 $196,100

Advanced Planning 21,700 21,700 33,800 33,800

Total Cost $147,500 $147,500 $229,900 $229,900

Funding requirements for interpretive media planning, design, construction, and installation are not reected in the visitor center expansion
cost estimates. Funding needs would be provided when an interpretive plan is completed.

232
 Appendix C

Cost
Action 1 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 | Alt. 4
THEODORE ROOSEVELT AREA

Demolish existing entrance road $ 19,600 $ 19,600 $ 19,600 $ 19,600

Revegetate disturbed area 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600

New entrance road and employee parking area 107,400 107,400 107,400 107,400

New road and parking area for camping/picnic 111,400 111,400 111,400 111,400
area/ trailhead
New administration expansion 200,600 200,600 200,600 200,600
New environmental education deck 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200
Rehabilitate existing trails 28,800 28,800 28,800 28,800

Demolish and construct new marsh overlook 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200
New landscaping (trees, shrubs, and groundcovers) 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200

New kiosk 13,100 13,100 13,100

Subtotal Gross Construction $530,000 $543,100 $543,100 $543,100
Advanced Planning 91,400 93,700 93,700 93,700

Total Cost $621,400 $636,800 $636,800 $636,800

Kmcsuzv PLANTATION

Demolish existing road $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000

Revegetate disturbed area 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200

Selective clearing 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900

New road alignment 66,800 66,800 66,800 66,800

New entrance road and service access road 99,900 99,900 99,900 99,900

New parking area 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000

New walkways 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500

New boat dock 131,000 131,000 131,000 131,000

New boardwalk and bulkhead 402,400 402,400 402,400 402,400

New picnic area 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700

Convert carriage house to visitor contact station" 230,600 230,600 230,600 230,600

Utilities (underground water/electricity for boat dock) 11,100 11,100 11,100 11,100

Utilities (underground water, electricity, and septic system 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300
for carriage house)

Subtotal Gross Construction $1,145,400 $1,145,400 $1,145,400 $1,145,400

Advanced Planning 197,600 197,600 197,600 197,600

Total Cost $1,343,000 $1,343,000 $1,343,000 $1,343,000

" Funding requirements for interpretive media planning, design, construction, and installation are not reected in the carriage house cost
estimates. Funding needs would be provided when an interpretive plan is completed.

233
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Cost

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

CEDAR POINT

Selective clearing - parking/roads/trails $ 11,100 $ 11,100 $ 11,100 $ 17,8)

Site grading - parking/contact station/shops/trails 11,100 11,100 11,100 17,800

Revegetate disturbed area 19,700 19,700 19,700 31,500

New parking area 35,400 35,400 35,400 108,100

New visitor contact station 70,700 70,700 70,700

New maintenance facility 78,600 78,600 78,600 137,600

New visitor center 786,000

New kiosk 13,100 13,100 13,100

New boat dock 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700

New boat ramp 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

New two-way access road 27,800 27,800 27,800 27,800

New picnic area 2,700

New trails 57,600 57,600 57,600 57,600

New boardwalk 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,600

Utilities (underground) 13,800 13,800 13,800 11,800

Septic/drainfield 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200

Subtotal Gross Construction $376,800 $389,900 389,900 $1,262,800

Advanced Planning 65,000 67,300 67,300 217,800

Total Cost $441,800 $457,200 $457,200 $1,480,600

 Appendix C

Cost

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

THOMAs CREEK

Site clearing $ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 8,900

Site grading 2,600 2,600 2,600 8,900

Revegetate disturbed area 15,700

Two-way access road 294,000

New parking area 77,900

New visitor center 628,800

New walks at visitor center 18,900

New maintenance facility 72,000

New wood structure (resource management) 15,700 15,700 15,700

New kiosk 13,100 13,100 13,100

New boat dock 15,700

New trails/boardwalks 22,300

Utilities (electricity) 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700

Septic/drainfield for visitor center 10,200

Subtotal Gross Construction $36,200 $49,300 $49,300 $1,202,100

Advanced Planning 6,250 8,500 8,500 207,400

Total Cost 542,450 $57,800 $57,800 $1,409,500

HUGUENOT PARK

Selective clearing 5 22,300

Site grading 22,300

Campsites for RVs 366,800

New comfort station 150,700

New kiosk $13,100 $13,100 13,100

Subtotal Gross Construction $13,100 $13,100 $575,200

Advanced Planning 2,300 2,300 99,000

Total Cost $15,400 $15,400 $674,200

235
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Cost

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

BIG TALBOT ISLAND

Site grading $ 15,700

Revegetate disturbed area 15,700

New roadways 39,300

New parking area 108,100

New satellite visitor/ maintenance facility 72,100

New kiosk 13,100

Utilities 11,800

Septic/drainfield for maintenance facility 10,200

Subtotal Gross Construction $286,000

Advanced Planning 49,300

Total Cost $335,300

SISTERS CREEK MARINA

Demolition $ 8,900

Site grading 8,900

Resurface parking 83,8(1)

Rehabilitate building 1,310,000

Rehabilitate dock 393,0)

Fuel storage 5,200

Landscaping / revegetation 78,600

New kiosk 13,100

Subtotal Gross Construction $1,901,500

Advanced Planning 330,0)

Total Cost $2,231,500

236
 Appendix C

Cost

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

PELOTEs ISLAND (IACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY)

Expand visitor center $471,600

Expand parking area 29,900

New kiosk 13,100

For the purpose of estimating, the National Park Service is $11,000

assuming 1/2 mile of nature trails (unpaved)

Subtotal Gross Construction $11,000 $514,600

Advanced Planning 0 88,800

Total Cost $11,000 $603,400

FoRr GEORGE ISLAND

Rehabilitate existing wood frame building $458,500

Repave parking area 117,900

New landscaping 59,000

New kiosk 13,100

Subtotal Gross Construction $648,500

Advanced Planning 111,900

Total Cost $760,400

Alt. 1 - Alt. 2 - Alt. 3 - Alt. 4 -

GRAND TOTAL $4,979,350 $5,051,900 $5,123,100 $12,087,800

237
 APPENDIX D: DESCRIPTION OF PLANT COMMUNITIES
AS MAPPED FROM LANDSAT SATELLITE IMAGERY
BY THE FLORIDA GAME AND FRESHWATER COMMISSION
UPLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES
Coastal Strand
The coastal strand occurs on well drained
sandy soils and includes the typically zoned
vegetation of the upper beach, nearby dunes,
or coastal rock formations. This community
generally occurs in a long, narrow band
parallel to the open waters of the Atlantic
Ocean or Gulf of Mexico, and along the shores
of some saline bays or sounds in both north
and south Florida. This community occupies
areas formed along high energy shorelines, and
is strongly affected by wind, waves, and salt
spray. Vegetation within this community
typically consists of low growing vines,
grasses, and herbaceous plants with very few
small trees or large shrubs. Pioneer or early
successional herbaceous vegetation
characterizes the foredune and upper beach,
while a gradual change to woody plant species
occurs in more protected areas landward.
Typical plant species include beach morning
glory, railroad vine, sea oats, saw palmetto,
spanish bayonet, yaupon holly, wax myrtle,
along with sea grape, cocoplum, and other
tropicals in southern Florida. The coastal
strand community only includes the zone of
early successional vegetation which lies
between the upper beach, and more highly
developed communities landward. Adjacent or
contiguous community types such as xeric oak
scrubs, pinelands, or hardwood forests would
therefore be classified and mapped
respectively.
Dry Prairies
Dry prairies are large native grass and
shrublands occurring on very at terrain
interspersed with scattered cypress domes and
strands, bayheads, isolated freshwater marshes,
and hardwood hammocks. This community is
characterized by many species of grasses,
sedges, herbs, and shrubs, including saw
palmetto, fetterbush, staggerbush, tar ower,
238
gallberry, blueberry, wiregrass, carpet grasses,
and various bluestems. The largest areas of
these treeless plains historically occurred just
north of Lake Okeechobee, and they were
subject to annual or frequent fires. Many of
these areas have been converted to improved
pasture. In central and south Florida, palmetto
prairies, which consist of former pine
atwoods where the overstory trees have been
thinned or removed, are also included in this
category. These sites contain highly scattered
pines that cover less than 10~15% of an area.
Pinelands
The pinelands category includes north and
south Florida pine atwoods, south Florida
Pine rocklands, and commercial pine
plantations. Pine atwoods occur on at sandy
terrain where the overstory is characterized by
longleaf pine, slash pine, or pond pine.
Generally, atwoods dominated by longleaf
pine occur on well-drained sites, while pond
pine is found in poorly drained areas, and
slash pine occupies intermediate or moderately
moist areas. The understory and groundcover
within these three communities are somewhat
similar and include several common species
such as saw palmetto, gallberry, wax myrtle,
and a wide variety of grasses and herbs.
Generally wiregrass and runner oak dominate
longleaf pine sites, fetterbush and bay trees are
found in pond pine areas, while saw palmetto,
gallberry, and rusty lyonia occupy slash pine
atwoods sites. Cypress domes, bayheads, titi
swamps, and freshwater marshes are
commonly interspersed in isolated depressions
throughout this community type, and fire is a
major disturbance factor. An additional pine
atwoods forest type occurs in extreme south
Florida on rocklands where the overstory is the
south Florida variety of slash pine, and tropical
hardwood species occur in the understory.
Scrubby atwoods is another pineland type
which occurs on drier ridges, and on or near
old coastal dunes. Longleaf pine or slash pine
dominate the overstory, while the groundcover

is similar to the xeric oak scrub community.
Commercial pine plantations are also
reluctantly included in the pinelands
association. This class includes predominately
planted slash pine, although longleaf pine and
loblolly pine tracts also occur. Sandpine
plantations, which have been planted on
severely site prepared sandhill sites in the
north Florida panhandle, are also included in
this category. An acceptable accurate
separation of areas of densely stocked native
atwoods and older planted pine stands with a
closed canopy was not consistently possible.
Sandhill
Sandhill communities occur in areas of rolling
terrain on deep, well-drained, white to yellow,
sterile sands. This xeric community is
dominated by an overstory of scattered
longleaf pine, along with an understory of
turkey oak and bluejack oak. The park-like
ground cover consists of various grasses and
herbs, including wiregrass, partridge pea,
beggars tick, milk pea, queen's delight, and
others. Fire is an important factor in
controlling hardwood competition and other
aspects of sandhill ecology. Although many of
these sites throughout the state have been
modified through the selective or severe
cutting of longleaf pine, these areas are still
included in the sandhill category.
Xeric Oak Scrub
Xeric oak scrub is a xeric hardwood
community typically consisting of clumped
patches of low growing oaks interspersed with
bare areas of white sand. This community
occurs on areas of deep, well-washed, sterile
sands, and it is the same understory complex
of scrubby oaks and other ground cover
species that occurs in the sand pine scrub
community. This condition frequently occurs
when the short time periods between severe
fires results in the complete removal of sand
pine as an overstory species. Also included in
this category are sites within the Ocala
National Forest which have been clearcut, and
are sometimes dominated during the first one
to five years by the xeric oak scrub association.
239
Appendix D
The xeric oak scrub community is dominated
by myrtle oak, Chapman's oak, sand-live oak,
scrub holly, scrub plum, scrub hickory,
rosemary, and saw palmetto. Fire is important
in setting back plant succession and
maintaining viable oak scrubs.
Mixed Hardwood Pine Forests
This community is the southern extension of
the Piedmont southern mixed hardwoods, and
occurs mainly on the clay soils on the northern
Panhandle. Younger stands may be
predominantly pines, while a complex of
various hardwoods become co-dominants as
the system matures over time through plant
succession. The overstory consists of shortleaf
and loblolly pine, American beech, mockemut
hickory, southern red oak, water oak,
American holly, and dogwood.
Also included in this category are other upland
forests that occur statewide which contain a
mixture of conifers and hardwoods as the co
dominant overstory component. These
communities contain longleaf pine, slash pine,
and loblolly pine in mixed association with live
oak, laurel oak, and water oak, together with
other hardwood species characteristic of the
upland hardwood hammocks and forests class.
Hardwood Hammocks and Forests
This class includes the major upland hardwood
associations that occur statewide on fairly rich
sandy soils. Variations in species composition,
and the local or spatial distributions of these
communities are due in part to differences in
soil moisture regimes, soil type, and
geographic location within the state. The major
variations within this association are mesic
hammocks, xeric hammocks, coastal and hydric
hammocks, and live oak or cabbage palm
hammocks.
The mesic hammock community represents the
climax vegetation type within many areas of
northern and central Florida. Characteristic
species in the extreme north include American
beech, southern magnolia, Shumard oak, white
oak, mockemut hickory, pignut hickory,
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX
sourgum, basswood, white ash, mulberry, and
spruce pine. Mesic hammocks of the peninsula
are less diverse due to the absence of
hardwood species which are adapted to more
northerly climates, and are characterized by
laurel oak, hop hombeam, blue beech,
sweetgum, cabbage palm, American holly, and
southern magnolia.
Xeric hammocks occur on deep, well-drained,
sandy soils where fire has been absent for long
periods of time. These open, dry hammocks
contain live oak, sand-live oak, bluejack oak,
blackjack oak, southern red oak, sandpost oak,
and pignut hickory.
Coastal and hydric hammocks are relatively
wet hardwood forests that are found between
uplands and true wetlands. These sometimes
seasonally wet forests are associated with some
nonalluvial peninsula streams, scattered broad
lowlands, and are also found in a narrow band
along parts of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts
where they often extend to the edge of coastal
salt marshes. These communities contain water
oak, red maple, Florida elm, cabbage palm, red
cedar, blue-beech, and sweetgum. Live oak and
cabbage palm hammocks are often found
bordering large lakes and rivers, and are
distributed throughout the prairie region of
south central Florida and extend northward in
the St. John's River basin. These communities
may occur as mixed stands of oak and palm,
or one of these species can completely
dominate an area.
WETLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES
Coastal Salt Marshes
These herbaceous and shrubby wetland
communities occur statewide in brackish
waters along protected low energy estuarine
shorelines of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The
largest continuous areas of salt marsh occur
north of the range of mangroves, and border
tidal creeks, bays and sounds. Salt marshes are
sometimes interspersed within mangrove areas,
and also occur as a transition zone between
freshwater marshes and mangrove forests such
as in the Ten Thousand Islands area along the
southwest Florida coast. Plant distribution
240
within salt marshes is largely dependent on the
degree of tidal inundation, and many large
areas are completely dominated by one species.
Generally, smooth cordgrass typically occupies
the lowest elevations immediately adjacent to
tidal creeks and pools, while black needlerush
dominates less frequently inundated zones.
The highest elevations form transitional areas
characterized by glasswort, saltwort, saltgrass,
sea ox-eye daisy, marsh elder, and saltbush.
For the purposes of this project, cordgrass,
needlerush, and transitional or high salt
marshes are collectively mapped as this single
category.
Freshwater Marsh and Wet Prairie
These wetland communities are dominated by
a wide assortment of herbaceous plant species
growing on sand, clay, marl, and organic soils
in areas of variable water depths and
inundation regimes. Generally, freshwater
marshes occur in deeper, more strongly
inundated situations and are characterized by
tall emergents, and oating leafed species.
Freshwater marshes occur within depressions,
along broad, shallow lake and river shorelines,
and are scattered in open areas within
hardwood and cypress swamps. Also, other
portions of freshwater lakes, rivers, and canals
which are dominated by oating leaved plants
such as lotus, spatterdock, duck weed, and
water hyacinths are included in this category.
Wet prairies commonly occur in shallow,
periodically inundated areas and are usually
dominated by aquatic grasses, sedges, and
their associates. Wet prairies occur as scattered,
shallow depressions within dry prairie areas
and on marl prairie areas in south Florida.
Also included in this category are areas in
Southwest Florida with scattered dwarf cypress
having less than 20% canopy coverage, and a
dense groundcover of freshwater marsh plants.
Marshes and wet prairies are dominated by
various combinations of pickerel weed,
sawgrass, maidencane, arrowhead, fire ag,
cattail, spike rush, bulrush, white water lily,
water shield, and various sedges. Many marsh
or wet prairie types, such as sawgrass marsh
or maidencane prairie, have been described
and so-named based on their dominant plant
species.

Cypress Swamp
These regularly inundated wetlands form a
forested border along large rivers, creeks, and
lakes, or occur in depressions as circular
domes or linear strands. These communities
are strongly dominated by either bald cypress
or pond cypress, with very low numbers of
scattered black gum, red maple, and sweetbay.
Understory and ground cover are usually
sparse due to frequent ooding but sometimes
include such species as buttonbush, lizard's
tail, and various ferns.
Hardwood Swamp
These wooded wetland communities are
composed of either pure stands of hardwoods,
or occur as a mixture of hardwoods and
cypress. This association of wetland-adapted
trees occurs throughout the state on organic
soils and forms the forested oodplains of
nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and broad lake
basins. Tree species include a mixed overstory
containing black gum, water tupelo, bald
cypress, dahoon holly, red maple, swamp ash,
cabbage palm, and sweetbay.
Bay Swamp
These hardwood swamps contain broadleaf
evergreen trees that occur in shallow, stagnant
drainages or depressions often found within
pine atwoods, or at the base of sandy ridges
where seepage maintains constantly wet soils.
The soils, which are usually covered by an
abundant layer of leaf litter, are mostly acidic
peat or muck which remain saturated for long
periods but over which little water level
uctuation occurs. Overstory trees within
bayheads are dominated by sweetbay, swamp
bay, and loblolly bay. Depending on the
location within the state, other species
241
Appendix D
including pond pine, slash pine, blackgum,
cypress, and Atlantic white cedar can occur as
scattered individuals, but bay trees dominate
the canopy and characterize the community.
Understory and groundcover species may
include dahoon holly, wax myrtle, fetterbush,
greenbriar, royal fern, cinnamon fern, and
sphaguum moss.
DISTURBED COMMUNITIES
Shrub and Brushland
This association includes a variety of situations
where natural upland community types have
been recently disturbed through clear-cutting
commercial pinelands, land clearing, or fire,
and are recovering through natural
successional processes. This type could be
characterized as an early condition of old field
succession, and the community is dominated
by various shrubs, tree saplings, and lesser
amounts of grasses and herbs. Common
species include wax myrtle, saltbush, sumac,
elderberry, saw palmetto, blackberry, gallberry,
fetterbush, staggerbush, broomsedge, dog
fennel, together with oak, pine and other tree
seedlings or saplings.
Barren
This class includes highly reective
unvegetated areas such as roads, beaches,
active strip mines, tilled agricultural sites, and
cleared land on sandy soils. Unvegetated sites
in urban areas which include rooftops of
buildings, athletic fields, landfills, and parking
lots, etc., are also included in this category.
Vegetated tracts within urban areas are
classified and mapped according to their
predominant vegetation cover or plant
community type.
 APPENDIX E: PLANT SPECIES OF SALT MARSH VEGETATION
WITHIN TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE

Common Name Scientic Name

Bamboo vine Smilax laurifolia

Beardgrass Andropogon capillipes
Bedstraw Galium hispidulum
Beggar tick Bidens pilosa
Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides
Black cherry Primus serotina
Black needlerush Juncus roemeriamls
Broomsedge Andropogon virginicas
Bullbrier Smilax bona-nox
Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto
Cattail Typha latifolia
Christmas berry Lycium cnrolinianum
Coral bean Erythrina herbacea
Dahoon holly llex cassine
Dewberry Rabus trivialis
Fiddle dock Rumex pulcher
Gallberry holly Ilex corriacea
Glasswort Salicornia virginica
Greenbrier Smilax auriculam
Groundcherry Physalis viscosa
Groundsel Baccharis halimifolia
Laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica
Loblolly pine Pimls laeda
Marsh elder Iva frutescens
Marsh hay cordgrass Spartina palens
Narrow-leaved cattail Typha augustifolia
Polygala Polygala grandiflora
Prickly-pear cactus Opuntia stricta
Purple thistle Cirsium horridulm
Red bay Persea borbonia
Rush luncus scirpoides
Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius
Saltwort Batis maritima
Sand live oak Quercus virginiana
Sandspur Cenchrus tribuloides
Saw palmetto Serenoa repens
Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense
Sea blight Suaeda linearis
Sea lavender Limonium caroliniamlm
Sea oats Uniola paniculnm
Sea oxeye daisy Borricliia frulescens
Sea purslane Sesuvium portularastrum
Seashore saltgrass Disticlilis spicata
Sedge Cyperus licinus
Slash pine Pinus elliottii
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alternaora
Southern longleaf pine Pinus palustris

242
 Appendix E

Common Name Scientic Name

Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiora

Southern red cedar limiperus siliciola
Staggerbush Lyonia ferruginea
Tread softly Cnidoscolus stimulosus
Virginia dropseed Sporobolus virginicus
Vlriginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Water pennywort Hydrocot.i/Ie bonariensis
Wax myrtle Myrica cerifem
Wiregrass Aristida stricta

Source: City of Jacksonville 1984.

243
 APPENDIX F: PLANT SPECIES FOUND ON FORT GEORGE ISLAND

Common Name Scientic Name

Adder's-tongue fern Ophioglossum petiolatum

American holly Ilex opaca
Americana groundnut Apios americana
-L
Annual glasswort Salicornia bigelowii
Aster Aster caroliniamls
Ball-moss Tillandsia recurvata
Bartram's moss Tillandsia bartramia
Basket grass Oplismenus setarius
Beautybush Callicarpa americana
Beggar ticks Bidens alba
Black nightshade Solanum nigrescens
Blanket ower Gaillardia pulchella
Blechnum fern Blechnum serrulatum
-
_.A_ _.o,-_~.
Blue curls Trichostema dichotonum
Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Boston fern Nephrolepsis exaltata
Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum
Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus
Buckthom Rharmms caroliniana
Buckthom, tiny-leaved Sageretia minutora
Bulbous adder's-tongue Ophioglossum crotalophoroides
Bushy bluestem Andropogon glomeratus
Buttery orchid Encyclia tampensis
Buttery-pea Centrosema virginiana
Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto
Carolina holly llex ambigua
Carolina laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana
Catbrier Simlax laurifolia
Catbrier S. bona-nox
Cheilanthes southern lip fern Cheilanthes microphylla
Christmas berry Lycium carolinianum
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Coastal foxtail Setaria corrugata
Common cattail Typha latifolia
Coontie Zamia pumila
Coral beads Cocculus carolimls
Coral honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens
Coralbean Erythrina herbacea
Coralroot Hexalectris spicata
Creeping cucumber Melothria pendula
Cross-vine Bignonia capreolata
Dahoon holly Ilex cassine
Deerberry Vaccinium stamim'um
Desmodium Desmodium spp.
Devil's walking stick Aralia spinosa
Downy shield fern Thelynteris dentatus
Eastern gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides
Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron

244
 Appendix F

Common Name Scientic Name

Elderberry Sambucus simpsonii

Eupatorium Eupatorium spp.
False willow Baccharis angustifolia
Fimbristylis Fimbristylis caroliniana
Florida shield fern Dryopleris Iudoviciana
French mulberry Callicarpa americana
Frog fruit Lippia nodiora
Frostweed Verbesina virginica
Giant reed Arundo donax
Godfrey's privet Forestiera godfreyi
Golden polypody Phlebodium aureum
Golden canna Canna accida
Goldenaster Chrysopsis spp.
Goldenrod Solidago sempervirens
Green dragon Arisaema dmcontium
Green-y orchid Epidendrum conopseum
Greenbrier Similax auriculata
Groundsel tree Baccharis halmifoliu
Hackberry Celtis Iaevigata
Hairgrass Muhlenbergia capillaris
l-Iaimet vine Cynaclmm scoparium
Helianthus Helianthus debilis
Hercules club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis
I-Iog plum Prunus umbellata
Hophornbean Ostrya virginiana
Horse sugar Symplocos tinctoria
Horsemint Monarda punctata
Hymenocallis Hymenocallis latifolia
Indian pipe Monotropa unora
Innocence Houstonia sp.
Lactuca lncfuca graminifolia
Ladder brake, brake fem Pteris vittata
Ladies tresses Spiranthes cernua var. odorata
Ladies tresses, green Spiranthes polyantha
Ladies tresses Spiranlhes vernalis
Lantana Iantana depressa var. oridana
Laurel oak Quercus hemisphaerica
Limonium Limonium carolinianum
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Lyre-leaved sage S. Iyrata
Malaxis, orida malaxis Malaxis spicata
Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina
Marine vine Cissus trifoliata
Marsh elder Iva imbricala
Marsh fern Tlielypteris palustris
Marshhay cordgrass Spartina patens
Maypop Passiora incarnata
Mikania Mikania scandens
Melanthera Melanthera nivm
Mistletoe Phoradendron serotinum
Mockernut hickory Caryn tomenfosa

245
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Common Name Scientic Name

Mulberry Moms rabra

Needlervsh Iuncus roemarianus
Nephrolepsis Nephrolepsis cordifolia
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Passion ower Passiora lutea
Patridge berry Mitchella repens
Patridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata
Peperomia Peperomia humilis
Pepper vine Ampelopsis arborea
Perennial glasswort Salicornia virginica
Persimmon Diospyrus virginiana
Pignut hickory Caryn glabra
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Pokeberry Phytolacca americana
Polypody fern Polypodium plumula
Pony-foot Dichondra caroliniensis
Rattan vine Berchemia scandens
Red spiderling Boerhaavia diusa
Red cedar Juniperus silicola
Redbay Persea borbonia
Resurrection fern Polyopodium polypodioides
Rouge plant Rivina lmmilis
Royal fern Osimmda regalis
Salt marsh cordgrass Spartina altemora
Saltwort Batis maritima
Sarsaparilla vine Smilax pumila
Saw palmetto Serenoa repens
Sea oxeye daisy Borrichia frutescens
Sea lavendar Limonium carolinianum
Sea purslane Sesavium portulacastrum
Seashore dropseed Sporobolus virginicas
Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens
Shoestring fern Vittaria lineata
Skullcap Scutellaria intergrifolia
Slash pine Pinus elliottii
Small-fruited paw-paw Asimina parviora
Soapberry Sapindus marginatus
Sour orange Citrus aurantium
Southern dewberry Rubus triziialis
Southern grape fern Botrychium biternatum
Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiora
Southern foxgrape Vitis munsoniana
Spanish moss Tillansia usneoides
Spanish dagger Yucca aloifolia
Sparkleberry Vaccinium arboreum
Spring coralroot Corallorhiza wisteriana
Staggerbush Lyonia fraticosa
Stiff comel Cormis foemina
Stinging nettle Cnidosculus stimulosus
Strawberry bush Eaonymus americaims
String lily Crinum americana

246
 Appendix F

Common Name Scientic Name

Swampbay Persea palustris

Sweet orange Citrus sinensis
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua
Sweetleaf horse sugar Symplocos tinctorla
Thelypteris Theypteris torresimm
Tough bumelia Bumelia tenax
Tropical sage Salvia coccinea
Trumpet vine Cnmpsis radicans
Valerian Valeriana scandens
Vemonia Vemonia angustifolia
Viburnium Viburnum spp.
Violet Violet affinis
Violet Viola septemloba
Virgin's bower Clematis virginiana
Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginimm
Virginia live oak Quercus virginiana
VIrginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Wafer ash Ptelea trifoliata
Water oak Quercus nigm
Water pennywort Hydrocotyle bonnriensis
Water spider orchid Habenaria repens
Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
Whisk fern Psilotum nudum
Wild coffee Psychotria nervosa
Wild petunia RueIlia carolinensis
Wild olive Osmantlms americana
Wild bean Phaseolus spp.
\Mld cherry Prunus serotina
Winged sumac Rhus copallina
Yaupon holly Ilex vomitoria
Yellow jessamine Gelsernium sempervirens
Zeuxine Zeuxine strateumatica

SOURCES: Florida Department of Natural Resources 1990a; Water and Air Resources, Inc. 1985.

247
 APPENDIX G: FISH SPECIES COLLECTED BY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA IN 1984

Common Name Scientic Name

Alewife Alosa pseuaoharengus
Atlantic croaker Micropocan imdalatus
Atlantic cutlassfish Trichuirius lepturus
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic needlefish StrongyIum marina
Atlantic spadefish Chaetodiptems ber
Banded topminnow Fundulus cingulatus
Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli
Bighead searobin Prionotus tribulus
Black drum Pogonias cromis
Blackcheek tongue fish Symphurus plagiusa
Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
Butterfish Pronatus triacantlms
Carolina blenny Hypsoblemmius hentz
Florida pipefish Syngathus oridae
Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus
Gizzard shad Dorosomn ceperliamim
Goby Gobionellus spp
Goby Gobiosoma spp
Hogehoker Trinectes maculatus
Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens
Jack crevalle Caranx hippos
King mackeral Scomberomorous cavalla
Ladyfish Elops saurus
Longnose killie Fundalus similis
Lookdown Selene vomer
Marsh killie Fundulus conuentus
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus
Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatillis
Northern puffer Sphaeroides maculatus
Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides
Red drum Scianenops ocellata
Sailor's choice Haerulon parri
Sheephead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus
Silversides Menidia beryllina
Spot Eucinostomus argenteus
Spot Leiostomus xanthurus
Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus
Striped killie Fundulus majalis
Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsitus
Striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoep
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Summer ounder Paralichthys dentalus
Tarpon Megalops atlantica
Threadfin herring Opisthopera oglimlm
Toadfish Opsanus tau
Weakfish Cynoscion regalis
White mullet Mugil curema

SOURCE: City of Jacksonville 1984

248
 APPENDIX H: SPECIES OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOUND ON FORT GEORGE
AND PELOTES ISLANDS AND MAMMALS OBSERVED WITHIN THE PRESERVE IN 1984

Common Name Scientic Name

Amphibians

Slimy salamander Pletliodon glutinosus

Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus
Southern toad Buufo terrestris
Greenhouse frog Eleutherodactylus plnnirostris
Eastern narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis
Green treefrog Hyla cinerea
Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella
Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala
Eastern spadefoot toad Scaphiopus holbrooki
Florida gopher frog Rana areolata nesopus
Footer Pseudemys oridana
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polypliemus
Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum
Florida softshell Apalone ferox
Atlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta

Reptiles

Green anole Anolis carolinensis

Six-lined race runner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus
Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps
Southern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus ventralis
Ground skink Scincella Iateralis
Florida cottonmouth Agkistrodon pisrivorus
Scarlet snake Cemopliora coccinea
Southern black racer Coluber constrictor
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus
Corn snake (red ratsnake) Elaphe guttata
Yellow ratsnake Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata
Scarlet king snake Lampropeltis triangulum
Eastern coachwhip Masticophis agellum
Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon comis couperi
American alligator Alligator mississipiensis

Mammals

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus
Unidentified bats Vespertilionidae or Molossidae
Raccoon Procjon lotor

249
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Common Name Scientic Name

Mammals tcont.)

Florida mink Mustela vison Iutensis

River otter Lutra canadensis
Dog Canis familiaris
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargmteus
Cat Felis catus
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Eastern gray sguirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
Rice rat Oryzomys palustris
Florida water Rat (round-tailed muskrat) Neober alleni
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus oridanus
Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
Nine-banded armadillo Dasynus novemcinctus
West Indian manatee Tricheclms mnnatus lntirostris

SOURCES: Florida Department of Natural Resources 1990a; Newman et al. 1988; City of Jacksonville
1984

250
 APPENDIX I: BIRD SPECIES FOUND WITHIN OR ADJACENT
TO THE TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE

Common Name Scientic Name Occurrence

Red-throated loon Gavia stellata

Common loon Gavia immer
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Horned grebe Podiceps auritus
Gannet Morus bassmms
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidenmlis
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Anhinga Anhinga anhinga
American bittem Botaurus Ientiginosus
Least bittem Ixobrychur exilis
Great blue heron Arden herodias
Great egret Casmerodius albus
Snowy egret Egretta tlmla
Little blue heron Florida caerula
Louisiana / tricolored heron Hydranassa tricolor
Reddish egret Dichromanassa rufescens
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Green heron Butorides striatus
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Yellow-crowned night-heron Nyctanassa violacea
White ibis Eudocimus albus
Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaia
Wood stork Mycteria americana
Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor
Snow goose Chen caerulescens
Wood duck Aix sponsa
Green-winged teal Anas crecca
Black duck Anas rubripes ETE E E E<E E E E E
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Pintail Anas acuta
Blue-winged teal Anas discors
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata
American wigeon Anas americana
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Redhead Aythya americmm
Ringnecked duck Aythya collaris
Lesser scaup Aythya ainis
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis S
Black scoter Melanitta nigra
Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata
White-winged scoter MeImIilta deglandi E
Bufehead Bucephala albeola
Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Black vulture Coragyps atratus
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

251
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Common Name Scientic Name Occurrence

I.
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus oE _~EE .E TIE ,>.ZE ,oE E, ,
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii
4
Red-shouldered hawk ~Buteo lineatus
4
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensus
American kestrel Falco sparverius
Merlin Falco columbarius
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrimls
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Bobwhite Colinus virginiamls
Clapper rail Rallus longirostris
Virginia rail Rallus limicola
Sora Ponmm cardina
1|.
Common gallinule Gallinula chloropus
American coot Fulica americana
Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola
4.
Wilson's plover Charadrius wilsonia
Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Piping plover Charadrius melodus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicaims
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Lesser yellowlegs Trainga avipes
Willet Catoptropliorus semipalmatus
Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia "2< " PE' < E E ZPE Z E
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa
Ruddy tumstone Arenaris interpres
Red knot Calidris cammls
Sanderling Calidris alba
Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla
Western sandpiper Calidris mauri
Least sandpiper Erolia minutilla
Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griesus
Common snipe Capella gallinago
Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarimls
Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus
Laughing gull Larus atricilla
Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia
Ring-billed gull IJlt.llS delawarensis
Herring gull larus argentatus
Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus
Glaucous gull IJlfllS hyperboreus
Great black-backed gull Larus marinus
Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica

252
 Appendix I

Common Name Scientic Name Occurrence

Caspian tern Sterna cnspia

Royal tern Sterna maxima
Sandwich tern Sterna sandvict'nsis
Common tern Sterna liirundo
Forster's tern Sterna forsteri
Least tern Sterna albifrons
Black skimmer Rynchops niger
Rock dove Columbn livia
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Ground dove Columbina passeriua
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus mnericanus
Eastern screech-owl Otus asio
Great-horned owl Bubo virginimms
Barred owl Strix vnria
Short-eared owl Asio nmmeus
Common nighthawk Cliordeiles minor
Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis
Chimney swift Chaetum pelagica
Ruby-throated hummingbird Arcliolochus colubris
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Red-headed woodpecker Melnnerpes erythrocrphalus
Red-bellied woodpecker Centurus carolinus
Yellow-bellied sapsucker Spliympicus vnrius
Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus
Common icker Colaptes auratus
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus
Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens
Eastern phoebe Snyomis phoebe
Great crested ycatcher Myiarclms crinitus
Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tymnnus
Gray kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis
Purple martin Progne subis
Tree swallow Iridoprocne bicolor
Rough-winged swallow Stelgtdopteryx rucollis
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
Fish crow Corvus ossifragus
Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis
Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor
Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta cnnadensis
Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
House wren Troglodytes aedon
Worthington's marsh wren Cistotliorus palustris griseus
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Veery Catharus fuscesceris 52z 72121 <
Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus
Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina

253
APPENDIxEs / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Common Name Scientic Name Occurrence

American robin Turdus migratorius W

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis P

Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos P

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum I)

Water pipit Antlms spinoletta

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviciamis
Starling Sturmls vulgarus
White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus
Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius
Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus
Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata
#
Northern parula/Parula warbler Parula nmericana ,)
Yellow warbler Demiroica petecliia EZ EZ,E'EKEZ KZE
Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica
Magnolia warbler Demiroica magnolia
Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina
Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caeruleseens
Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata
Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens
Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica
Pine warbler Dendroica pimls
Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor
Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum
Bay-breasted warbler Demo-lroica castanea
Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata
Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta vnria
American redstart Setophaga ruticilla
Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus (also W)
Northern waterthrush Seirurus noveboracensis
Common yellowthroat Geotlilypis trichas
Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina
Summer tanager Pimnga rubra
Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus lmiovicimms
Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea
Painted bunting Paeerina ciris E E EYE E EYQ
Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erytliropthalmus
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina
Field sparrow Spizella pusilla
Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza candacuta
Seaside sparrow Ammospiza maritima
Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana
White-throated sparrow Zonotriclzia albicollis
Dark-eyed junco junco hyemalis

254
 Appendix I

Common Name Scientic Name Occurrence

Lapland longspur Calcarius Iapponicus V

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis V
Pt
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna P
Pli
Boat-tailed grackle Quiscaluis major
Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula I)

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater I)

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius s

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus W

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis W
House sparrow Passer domesticus I)

Keys:
P Permanent Resident
W Winter Resident
S - Summer Resident
M Migrant
V - Rare Visitor
Nesting

SOURCES: Personal communications from the Duval Audubon Society (1991) and Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission (1992).

255
 APPENDIX I: CONSULTATION REGARDING RARE,
THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

May 13, 1991 memorandum

REPLY
Arm = Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, FL

mc'r General Management Plan-Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve.

m, Mr. Steve Culver (DSC - TWE), National Park Service, Denver, CO.

This responds to your memorandum of May 1, 1991, requesting a list of Federally

threatened and endangered species that may be found within the above referenced
preserve in Duval County, Florida.

Listed species under the Fish and Wildlife Service's jurisdiction that may be found
within the preserve are:

Florida manatee (In'ghghus managQ-Endangered: All waters surrounding the

preserve are within designated critical habitat for this species. Manatees are found
throughout this area, primarily during the spring, summer and fall months.

Wood stork (Mycteriajmerjcaw-Endangered: Wood storks have not been recorded

nesting on the preserve; however, storks are frequently observed feeding in the area.

Bald eagle mummy-Endangered: There are no known eagle nests in

the preserve; however, eagles have been observed over the preserve and feeding in the
general area.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker mug-Endangered: We have no record of

active or inactive red-cockaded Woodpecker colonies within the boundary of the
preserve. However, if mature pine stands occur, there is the potential for red
cockaded woodpeckers.

Eastern indigo snake WEE-Threatened: This species is

extremely difficult to locate, but it is possible this snake is found within the preserve
especially in any sand hill area.

The preserve does not include barrier islands; therefore, there is no recorded marine
turtle nesting. As stated in your memorandum, you are requesting a list of species
from National Marine Fisheries Service. Several species of marine turtles are
observed from time to time in the waters of the preserve.

We are available to work with the Park Service in developing the GMP. If our
assistance is needed, please conW

avid J. Wesley

Cash In On Safety; Earn Dividends For Life

256
 Appendix J

e (Kg
a; V 1; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
x National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
. \ -_ _ . NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Realm '" Manager'scllm "ml" Southeast Region
.H.
um 15 01991 9450 K0 g er Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

May 28, 1991 F/SERlStTLD

Mr. Donald A. Falvey

Manager, Eastern Team
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
National Park Service
Denver Service Center
12795 West Alameda Parkway
Denver, Colorado 802250287

Dear Mr. Falvey:

This responds to your letter of May 1, 1991, requesting information

on endangered and threatened species under the jurisdiction of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which might occur in the
vicinity of the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve, near
Jacksonville, Florida. The enclosed list contains species under
NMFS purview that may occur in the marine environment off the
Florida Atlantic coast. Given the location of the Preserve, we
suggest the only species likely to be affected is the shortnose
sturgeon. This species has been reported in the St. Johns River,
Florida.

If you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey Brown, Fishery

Biologist, at FTS 826-3366.

Sincerely yours, ,
\
/T~. \ 1L. \.
/tYLQ f 1u.\\$~
Charles'A. Oravetz, Chief
Protected Species Management
Branch

Enclosure

257
APPENDIXEs / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS

UNDER
NMFS JURISDICTION

Florida: Atlantic Coast

Listed Species Scientific Name Status Date Listed

finback whale Balaenoptera physalus 12/02/70

humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 12/02/70
right whale Eubaleana glacialis 12/02/70
sei whale Balaenoptera borealis 12/02/70
sperm whale Physeter catodon [1101*]
P['0
1010101! ! 12/02/10
green sea turtle Chelonia m das 07/28/78
hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys 1mbricata 06/02/70
Kemp's (Atlantic) Lepidochelys kempi 12/02/70
ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea 06/02/70
turtle
loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Th 07/28/78
turtle

SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING

None

LISTED CRITICAL HABITAT

None

PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT

None

258
 Appendix J

The response to this letter included the data

814
that were requested. These data have been
incorporated into this general management
April 6' 1993 plan / environmental impact statement.

Mr. Jim Mueller

Florida Natural Areas Inventory
1018 Thomasville Road
Suite 200 C
Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Dear Mr. Mueller:

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of April 5, 1993 and
provide additional information concerning the items we discussed.

As we discussed we are requesting a print out of data in the FNAI by

occurrence for flora, fauna (for all Federal and state listed species)
and natural communities. We would like the search of the data base to
be by 7.5' quad sheet and by latitude and longitude. The 7.5 quad sheet
area names are as follows:

Amelia City
Hedges
Italia
Fernandina Beach
St. Mary's
Mayport
Bastport
Jacksonville Beach
Arlington

we would also like to request that the data requested be mapped in some
manner, such as atlas graphic maps. We are very interested in reviewing
this data to determine geographic relationships. Please let us know an
approximate time frame for completing this request.

As for the other matter we discussed, biological survey, inventory and

assessment work for specific upland areas within the Preserve, I am in
the process of compiling the necessary information for you to prepare a
proposal for our review. I will forward this information to you very
soon. As we discussed, I will let Trish Patterson of our Regional Office
in Atlanta know that the funding for this survey work can be obligated
through the cooperative agreement all ready in place with TNC in Chapel
Hill, NC.

I want to thank you for your cooperation in this matter and the time you
have taken to help us understand your program and its relationship to our
needs. This information will be of great use to the National Park Service
for planning purposes and for the management of resources already

259
A??F\SCI?5 ,' 58mm ,-~ SCIQ

acquired within the tinumn lcoloqical and H..8=CrLC Preserve. Be look

forward to WLDQ {rm you concerning when I3.'.I request can be
oocpleted. It you need additional intorntion please fee. free to cal..
ae at (904) 221-5568.

Sincerely.

SKJFJED
Sauna. Levin
Super intendent

bcc: Trish Patterson. SIR0C!

Dav..d Van Puller, 35C - lantern Tea
\/
 APPENDIX K: RECREATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR
THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2010
[Excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan - 2010
(City of Jacksonville 1990)]
GOAL 3: To use open space and recreational
facilities as a key element in the city's planning
strategy to enhance the natural environment
and to conserve important natural resources.
Objective 3.1 Comprehensive Resource
Management Program. By 1994, as it relates to
the provision of recreation and related open
space opportunities, the city shall develop a
comprehensive resource management program
for the protection of natural areas having
special characteristics.
Policies:
3.1.1 The Recreation and Parks Department
will develop and maintain an inven
tory of all natural areas of the city
having special characteristics such as
waterfronts, stream valleys, significant
wildlife habitats, and drainageways.
3.1.2 Those portions of park properties
containing important natural resources
will be developed and managed by the
Recreation and Parks Department for
long-term conservation. Opportunities
for public access to the resource will be
developed in a manner consistent with
the conservation of the resource.
3.1.3 The Recreation and Parks Department
will incorporate into its park design,
development, and redevelopment plans,
strategies, and programs for natural
resource establishment, restoration, or
enhancement.
3.1.4 The city will include specific open space
definitions and standards in the Land
Development Regulations.
GOAL 4: Capitalize on the scenic and
recreational quality of the St. Johns River, its
tributaries, and other waterways and water
bodies.
261
Objective 4.1 Accessibility and the Use of
Shorelines. The city will provide greater public
accessibility to the St. Johns River and develop
appropriate recreational uses of its shorelines.
Policies:
4.1.1 By 1993 the Recreation and Parks
Department, as a part of its Master
Recreation Improvement Plan, will
develop a plan for the acquisition of
acreage along the St. Johns River and its
major navigable tributaries for recreation
and open space purposes.
4.1.2 The city's Land Development
Regulations will be updated by April 1,
1991, to include site design standards for
new and redeveloped areas bordering
major waterways in order to provide
waterfront areas for recreational use.
4.1.3 Parking and support facilities such as
drinking water and restrooms will be
designed at public access points to the
beach where pedestrian traffic is such to
warrant the expenditure.
Objective 4.2 Public Boating and Fishing
Opportunities. The city will increase the
number of public boating and fishing facilities
along the St. Johns River and its tributaries.
Policies:
4.2.1 When the city of Jacksonville constructs
new boat ramps, they should include
multiple ramps, adequate parking areas,
lighting, restrooms, drinking water, and
launch preparation areas with clear
overhead for masted vessels.
4.2.2 By 1993 the Recreation and Parks
Department will examine all proposed
and existing bridge crossings for
inclusion of major boat ramps either
under or adjacent to the structure, and
fishing catwalks along the span.
APPENDIXEs / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX
4.2.3 By 1993 the Recreation and Parks
Department will examine all future,
existing, or abandoned bridges over the
St. Johns River or its tributaries for areas
for fishing either on or alongside the
bridge.
4.2.4 By 1993 the Recreation and Parks
Department will begin to evaluate the
desirability of fishing piers in existing as
well as all future waterfront parks.
GOAL 5: The city in cooperation with state and
federal governments will use stream and
tributary areas for open space, watershed and
wildlife habitat protection, and recreational
purposes.
Objective 5.1 Acquisition and Preservation of
Waterway Corridors. The city in cooperation
262
with the state and federal governments will
acquire and preserve major stream valley
corridors plus adjacent vital resources such as
wetlands, wooded areas, and conservation
areas when deemed necessary for watershed
protection.
Policies:
5.1.1 The city of Jacksonville, through the
Conservation and Recreation Lands
Program, the Save our Coasts Program,
the Save Our Rivers Program, Florida
Recreation Development Assistance
Program, the Land Acquisition Trust
Fund, and similar programs will request
and encourage the state to acquire major
inland woodlands, major stream valleys,
and other selected waterfront areas.
 APPENDIX L: LETTER FROM STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

~ 1... \'

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

u\5nu1
&onuyd$uu
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
ILA. Gray Build!"
no South Bronw
Tallahssue. Florida saw-mac
Director.! Ofce Tehnopiu Number (FAX)
law 4'14 (W4! 54383

September 30, 1994

Mr. Paul B. Hartwi In Reply Rater To:

National Park serv as Frank J. Keel
southeast Regional office Historic sites
7: spring street s.u. Specialist
Atlantal, Georgia 30303 (904) 487-3333
Project File No. 943070

as: Cultural Resource Assessment Request

Dratt General Manaqesent Plan/Development Concept Plsns/
lnvironnental Inpact stateasnt - Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve
Duval county, Florida

Dear Mr. Rartwigz

In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 0.1.8., Part

800 ("Protection or Historic Properties"), we have reviewed the
reterenced project(s) tor possible impact to historic properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the
iatoric_zlagls. The authority for this procedure is the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 09-665),
as asended.

we have revise the dratt Timucuan Ecological and Historic

Preserve Plans. It is our determination that all alternatives,
as they relate to cultural resources, aeet the historic
preservation goals ct this agency. However, we do note that the
iaplesemtation ct alternatives 3 or 4 could further enhance the
preservation and protection or cultural resources in the
Preserve .

Archseoloaical Rmsnh Florida Folldlh Propane Historic Preservation Museum 05 orid! Hhtory
-~ -- ~--~ :00 :900 301-2191 9043 *F.Z'I 1 "P "5*

263
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Mr. Hsrtwiq
Ssptsobsr 30, 1994
Page 2

Is look forward to receiving the tinll version o! the nsnaqonsnt

plans and environmental inpaot scstslont. It you blvbalny
questions concerning our connonts, pisses do not hesitate to
contact us. Your intoroot in protecting Ylorids's historic
proportion is appreciated.

sincerely)7~ ;

'FGoorqs I. Percy, Director

Division of Historical Resources
and
state Historic Preservation orticor
GNP/Rik

HM
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auth, D.
1985 Urban Rivers Report on the Indian
Rivere Lagoon and the Lower St.
Johns River. St. Johns River Water
Management District, Palatka, FL.
Bahr, L.M., and WP. Lanier
1981 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Reefs of
the South Atlantic Coast: A Community
Prole. US. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of Biological Services,
Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/15.
Bass, D.G., Jr.
1990 "Monitoring Florida's Riverine Fish
Communities." Florida Scientist 53(1):1
10.
1991 "Riverine Fishes of Florida, " edited by
R]. Livingston, in The Rivers of Florida.
Spring-Verlag New York Inc., NY.
Bass, D.G., Jr. and DI. Cox
1985 "River Habitat and Fishery Resources
of Florida." Florida Aquatic Habitat and
Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter of
the American Fisheries Society.
Bengtson, JL
1981 Ecology of Manatees (Trichechus
manatus) in the St. Johns River, Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN.
Bennett, Charles E.
1976 Fort Caroline and Its Leader. Gainesville,
FL: The University Presses of Florida.
Buker, George E.
N.d. "Spanish-American War Fortifications:
St. Johns Bluff, Florida." Manuscript,
Fort Caroline National Memorial.
Burgess, G. and R. Franz
1978 "Zoogeography of the Aquatic Fauna
of the St. Johns River System with
Comments on Adjacent Peninsular
Faunas." American Midland Naturalist
100(1):160-170.
265
City of Jacksonville
1993 Special Management Areas Plan.
City of Jacksonville, Department of Parks,
Recreation and Entertainment
1993 Management Plan, Huguenot Memorial
Park, by Jack S. Ruppel. Planning,
Research and Grants Division.
Prepared for State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources.
Jacksonville, FL.
City of Jacksonville, Planning Department
1984 Water Quality Assessment in the Jaxport
Area with Analysis and Plan for the
Estuarine Marsh System. Jacksonville.
1990a Comprehensive Plan - 2010, Historic
Preservation Element. Jacksonville.
1990b Comprehensive Plan - 2010:
Conservation/Coastal Management
Element. Jacksonville.
1990c Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Ports,
Aviation and Related Facilities Element.
Jacksonville.
1990d Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Future Land
Use Element. Jacksonville.
1990e Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Solid Waste
Element. Jacksonville.
1990f Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Drainage
Element. Jacksonville.
1990g Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Natural
Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element.
Jacksonville.
1990h Comprehensive Plan - 2010: Recreation
and Open Space Element. Jacksonville.
1991 "Water Quality Monitoring Plan."
Unpublished
1992 1992 Annual Statistical Package.
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX
Cooke, CW.
1945 Geology of Florida. Florida Geological
Survey Bulletin 29.
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe
1979 Classcation of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS
79/31. US. Fish and Wildlife, Office
of Biological Services, Wash., DC.
Davis, J].
1991 Letter from Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Northeast
District to National Park Service,
Denver, CO.
DeMort, C. and RD. Bowman
1985 "Seasonal Cycles of Phytoplankton
Populations and Total Chlorophyll of
the Lower St. Johns River Estuary,
Florida." Florida Scientist 48(2):96-107.
Demort, CL. and A.Q. White, Eds.
1987 Proceedings of the 1985 Fish Habitat
Symposium: Growth Impacts on Coastal
Northeast Florida and Georgia. Florida
Sea Grant College, Report No. 81,
Tallahassee, FL.
Deuerling, B.
1991 Letter from City of Jacksonville,
Department of Health, Welfare, and
Bio-Environmental Services, Water
Resources Division to National Park
Service, Denver, CO.
Dickinson, Martin F., and Lucy B. Wayne.
1990 "Archeological Studies at Pelotes
Island Preserve, St. Johns River Power
Park, Jacksonville, Duval County,
Florida." Prepared for Jacksonville
Electric Authority.
Duever, L., P. Carr, J. Newman, I-I. Platt
1989 Interpretation and Management Plan for
the Pelotes Island Preserve, Final Report.
Submitted to Jacksonville Electric
Authority, Jacksonville. KBN
Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Gainsville, FL.
266
Durako, M., M. Murphy, and K. Haddad
1988 Assessment of Fisheries Habitat:
Northeast Florida. Florida Marine Res.
Pub. No. 45. Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau of Marine
Research, St. Petersburg, FL.
Fall, C.
1985 Interim Water Quality Management Plan.
St. Johns River Water Management
District. Palatka, FL.
Federal Highway Administration, US.
Department of Transportation
1991 "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Wonderwood Connector -
Arlington to Mayport." Tallahassee.
Femald, E. and D. Patton
1984 Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Florida
State University, Tallahassee.
Fish and VVIldlife Service, US. Department of
the Interior
1980 Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory,
1:250000 scale map. Jacksonville,
FloridaGeorgia. Available from US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
1979 Biological Aspects of Water Quality in
Florida. Part II: Nassau-St. Marys, St.
Johns, and East Coast Drainage Basins.
Tech. Ser. Vol. 4, No. 3. Jacksonville.
1982 St. Johns River Biological Survey; Duval
County, 20.3BA, April and August.
Northeast District, Jacksonville.
1983 St. Johns River Biological Survey; Duval
County, 20.38A, January and
September. Northeast District,
Jacksonville.
1985 Duval Tributary Study, Interim Report,
1984-1985. Northeast District,
Jacksonville.
1986 Water Quality Review of the Lower St.
Johns River, Duval County.

1987 Basin Assessment Coastal Area, Final
Report, Fall 1985-Spring 1987. Northeast
District, Jacksonville.
1988 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment,
Statewide NPS Assessment (Volume I
and State Nonpoint Source Management
Plan (Volume 2). Tallahassee.
1990a Water Quality Assessment for the State of
Florida- Section 30501) Report.
Tallahassee.
1990b Florida State of the Environment.
Tallahassee.
1991 "Baseline Water Quality Monitoring
Plan, Northeast District." Unpublished
Florida Department of Natural Resources
1986 Nassau River and St. Johns River
Marshes and Fort Clinch State Park
Aquatic Preserves, Management Plan.
Tallahassee.
1987 Comprehensive Shellsh Harvesting Area
Survey, Duval County, Florida.
Tallahassee.
1990a Fort George Island Unit Managment
Plan. Division of Recreation and Parks,
Tallahassee.
1990b Guide to the Natural Communities of
Florida. Tallahassee.
1990c Florida Rivers Assessment. Tallahassee.
1991a Annual Landings Summaries. Bureau of
Marine Research. St. Petersburg, FL.
1991b Shelsh Harvesting Area Atlas (Revised).
Division of Marine Resources,
Tallahassee.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission
1983 Study 111. Rivers of Florida and Their
Fishes. Dingell-Iohnson Project F-36,
North Florida Streams Research
Project. Tallahassee.
1990 1989-1990 Annual Report. Tallahassee.
267
Bibliography
1991a Oicial Lists of Endangered and
Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora
in Florida. Tallahassee.
1991b Personal communication of GIS
Database to National Park Service,
Denver, CO.
Florida Inland Navigation District
1987a Environmental Site Documentation for
Proposed Dredged Material Disposal
Areas in Northeast Florida - Vol. 5, West
Central Black Hammock Island. Report
prepared by Taylor and Divoky, Inc.,
E.L. Mosura, Principal Investigator.
1987b Environmental Site Documentation for
Proposed Dredged Material Disposal Area
in Northeast Florida - Vol. 6, Northeast
Black Hammock Island. Report prepared
by Taylor and Divoky, Inc., E.L.
Mosura, Principal Investigator.
Fretwell, Iacqueline
1984 Kingsley Beatty Gibbs and His Joumal of
1840-1843. St. Augustine, FL: St.
Augustine Historical Society.
Garland, MA.
1991 Letter from Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Office of Land Use
Planning and Biological Services to
National Park Service, Denver, CO.
Harris, L.D.
1978 El Pantano De Los Espanoles: A Job
Completion Report on the Interpretation
and Management of Spanish Pond, Fort
Caroline National Memorial. School of
Forest Resources and Conservation,
University of Florida, Gainsville, FL.
Hendon, William S.
1972 "The Park as a Determinant of
Property Values." Real Estate Appraiser
38(5)(Sept./Oct.): 73-79.
1974 "Park Service Areas and Residential
Property Valus." American journal of
Economics and Sociology 33(2)(April):
175-83.
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX
Jodice, P.
1991 Letter from Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission to National
Park Service, Denver, CO.
Johnson, R., J. Frazee, and F. Fenzel
1982 Hydrogeology of the St. Johns River
Water Management District. Special
Publication SJ 82-SP2, St. Johns River
Water Management District, Palatka,
FL.
Joyce, E.A., Jr.
1965 The Commerical Shrimps of the Northeast
Coast of Florida. Professional Paper
Series No. 6. Contribution No. 85,
Florida Board of Conservation Marine
Laboratory, St. Petersburg, FL.
Kinnaird, M.
1985 "Aerial Census of Manatees in
Northeastern Florida." Biological
Conservation 32:59-79.
Kurz, H. and K. Wagner
1957 Tidal Marshes of the Gulf and Atlantic
Coasts of Northern Florida and
Charleston, South Carolina. Florida State
University Studies, No. 24. Florida
State University, Tallahassee.
Leve, G.W.
1966 Groundwater in Duval and Nassau
Counties, Florida. Florida Geological
Survey, Report of Investigations No.
43. Tallahassee.
McLane, W.M.
1955 "The Fishes of the St. Johns River
System." Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Florida, Gainsville, FL.
Moody, H.
1963 "St. Johns River." Florida Wildlife 7:16
23.
National Park Service, US. Department of the
Interior
1934 "House of Anna Madagegine Jai and
Slave Quarters-Driver's Cabin, Fort
George Inlet, Fort George Island,
Florida." Historic American Buildings
Survey No. 15-1.
268
1940 "Historic Site Survey, Fort Caroline,
Florida" by Albert Manucy. Fort
Marion National Monument.
1974 An Ecological Survey of the Coastal
Region of Georgia, by AS. Johnson, H.
Hillestad, S. Shanholtzer, and G.
Shanholtzer. Scientific Monograph
Series, No. 3., Washington, DC.
1987 History and Prehistory in the National
Park System and the National Historic
Landmarks Program.
1988 "An Archeological Overview and
Assessment of Sites Within and
Adjacent to the Proposed Boundaries
of the Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve, Duval County,
Florida," by Susan Hammersten.
Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological
Center.
1991 "1991 Annual Statement for
Interpretation, Fort Caroline National
Memorial and Timucuan Ecological
and Historic Preserve."
1992a "The Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve, Phase III, Final
Report." Prepared by Michael Russo,
Florida Museum of Natural History,
University of Florida at Gainesville,
under cooperative agreement with
National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1992b Fort Caroline National Memorial, Scope of
Collections Statement.
1992c Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve, Scope of Collections Statement.
1993a Land Protection Plan, Fort Caroline
National Memorial and Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve.
1993b Resource Management Plan, Fort Caroline
National Memorial and Timucuan
Ecological and Historic Preserve.

1993c "The Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve: An Historical
Analysis and Interpretation." Prepared
by Everett W. Caudle, Florida
Museum of Natural History,
University of Florida at Gainesville,
under cooperative agreement with
National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1994 "Concessions Management Plan,
Timucuan Ecological and Historic
Preserve, Duval County, Florida."
Newman, James R., Linda C. Duever, and
Herbert M. Platt
1988 "Resource Inventory of Pelotes Island."
Submitted to Jacksonville Electric
Authority, Jacksonville, FL.
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council
1987 Northeast Florida Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan. Jacksonville, FL.
Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland, and EA. McMahan
1974 Coastal Ecological Systems of the United
States, Part I. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Powell, P.
1991 Personal communication from Duval
Audubon Society to National Park
Service, Denver, CO.
Qureshi, Z.
1975 "Surface Water Resources of St. Johns
River, Florida." Water Resources Bulletin
11(3):568-74.
Rehm, A.E., R.C. Tone, and J8. Kirkwood
1975 Final Report on Biological Assessment of
Water and Marsh Areas of the St. Johns
River. Report No. 14591 of Battelle,
Columbus Laboratories, William F.
Clapp Laboratories, Inc., Duxbury,
MA.
Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and LC. Burney
1984 Deepwater Ports Maintenance Dredging
and Disposal Manual. Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee.
Bibliography
Scott, T.
1983 The Geology of the Hawthorn Formation
of Northeastern Florida. Bureau of
Geology, Report of Investigation No.
94, Part I. Tallahassee.
St. Johns River Management District
1989 SWIM Plan for the Lower St. Johns River
Basin. Palatka, FL.
1989 Appendices for the SWIM Plan for the
Lower St. Johns River Basin. Palatka, FL.
Stickney, RR.
1972 Eects of Intracoastal Waterway Dredging
on Ichthyofauna and Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Technical Report
Serices No. 72-4. Georgia Marine
Science Center, University of Georgia,
Skidaway Island, GA.
Tagatz, M.E.
1967a "Fishes of the St. Johns River, Florida."
Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy
of Sciences 30(1):25-50.
1967b "Noncommercial Crabs of the Genus
Callinectes in St. Johns River, Florida."
Chesapeake Science 8(3):202-203.
1968 "Biology of the Blue Crab, Callinectes
sapidus, Rathbun, in the St. Johns
River, Florida." Fishery Bulletin
67(1):17-33.
University of Georgia
1993 Historic Resource Study: Fort Caroline
National Memorial, Jacksonville, Florida,
by Tal Stanfield, Graduate Student,
Historic Preservation Program.
Athens, GA.
US. Army Corps of Engineers
1985 St. Johns River Basin, Florida, Interim
Water Quality Management Plan
Findings. Jacksonville District, FL.
Vlach, John Michael
1993 Back of the Big House, The Architecture
of Plantation Slavery. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX

Walker, Karen J. Wenzel, K. and P. McVety

1988 Kingsley and His Slaves: Anthropological
Interpretation and Evaluation, Vol. 5,
Volumes in Historical Archaeology,
edited by Stanley Smith. Columbia,
SC: The University of South Carolina
for The South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
Water and Air Research, Inc.
1985 Master Resource Management Plan, Ft.
George Island, Jacksonville, Florida. Vols.
1-7, Gainesville, FL.
1986 Water Quality Review, Lower St. Johns
River, Duval County. Florida
Department of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee.
White, W.A.
1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida
Peninsula. Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology,
Geology Bulletin No. 51.

Webb, Terence H.
1991 "Zephaniah Kingsley Research Project
Under the Auspices of National Park
Service, Timucuan Ecological and
Historic Preserve." Manuscript,
Jacksonville, FL.

270
 INDEX
A1A 16, 49, 66, 165-167
Acquisition 3, 9, 13, 18, 20, 40, 51, 60, 61, 68, 73,
85, 89, 92-94, 97, 102, 103, 108, 172, 194, 198,
205, 208, 209, 211
African 22, 24, 28, 41, 43, 91
Air Quality 13, 17, 35, 57, 58, 62, 68, 73, 89, 108,
109, 184, 185, 192, 200, 209, 212
Archeological 9, 14, 15, 23, 28, 29, 36, 38-41, 45,
55, 74, 86, 101, 102, 153, 154, 156-159, 165,
186, 187, 195, 203, 207, 210, 216, 217, 224
Army Corps of Engineers 16, 35, 120, 168, 184,
185, 213, 221, 222
Big Talbot Island 29, 67, 85, 92, 96, 100, 144, 149,
154, 165, 172, 210, 236
Biodiversity 21, 37, 58, 195, 209
Black Hammock Island 29, 67, 85, 139, 167, 223,
267
British 22-24, 28, 42-44, 77, 91, 153, 158, 159
Campgrounds 60, 65
Carrying capacity 15, 51, 68, 89, 186, 191
Cedar Point 16, 29, 60, 64, 78, 91, 96, 100, 144,
167, 193, 210
City of Jacksonville 4, 9, 13, 21, 30, 35, 38, 49, 50,
85, 86, 109, 111, 124, 129, 135, 136, 139, 140,
144, 152, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171-173
Civil War 23, 28, 41, 43, 56, 154, 155, 166
Class II waters 9, 130, 131, 136, 144, 145, 198,
208, 211
Clean Air Act 35, 108, 185, 212
Commercial landings 4, 115, 145
Comprehensive Plan - 2010 30, 49, 50, 124, 172
Concessions 55, 56, 61, 64, 86, 93, 97, 224
Cooperation 21, 28-30, 33, 49, 51, 55, 61, 65, 67,
73, 85, 92, 94, 97, 184, 188, 193, 196, 198, 204,
209
Cooperative agreements 20, 65, 68, 85, 97, 203
Cooperative management 68, 71, 72, 86, 99, 198,
199, 205, 206, 209
Cooperators 29, 65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 86, 98, 200,
204, 205
Docks 16, 35, 48, 49, 66, 73, 91, 100, 185, 187,
190, 196, 198, 213
Dredge and till 35, 190, 214
Dredging 17, 35, 48, 55, 112, 118, 120, 129, 184,
185, 190, 201
E. Dale Ioyner Nature Preserve 9, 28, 165, 172
271
Economy 18, 45, 102, 160, 173, 187-189, 194, 205,
211
Endangered 3, 13, 14, 37, 44, 47, 48, 57, 59, 68,
72, 73, 78, 86, 90, 99, 103, 146, 152, 184, 185,
188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 206-209, 211-213
Erosion 13, 35, 44, 56, 57, 110, 118, 120, 124, 130,
156, 185, 190, 193, 201
Estuarine 3, 4, 9, 11-13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 36,
41, 50, 62, 63, 68, 72, 85, 86, 94, 97, 109, 110,
112, 115, 116, 118, 123,129, 130, 135, 143,144,
145, 185, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 204,
206, 208, 209, 211
Exotic species 27, 36, 37, 56, 68, 72, 73, 90, 145,
146, 192, 196, 207
Fertilizers 124, 191, 196-198
Fire management 14, 38, 40
Fish camps 9, 12, 44, 160, 167
Fishing 3, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21, 36, 41, 44, 46, 47, 60,
72, 73, 91, 143, 155, 156, 160, 164-166, 171,
184, 200
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
57, 139, 140, 143, 144, 149, 152, 171, 213
Floridan Aquifer 110, 119, 120
Folklife 40, 41, 214
Fort Caroline 3, 9-12, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 33, 35,
39, 40, 46-48, 55, 56, 58-61, 63, 66, 67, 74-76,
78-80, 86, 90, 91, 93-95, 98, 100, 102, 110, 119,
154, 157, 159, 161-164, 167, 168, 172, 175, 176,
175, 176, 184, 185, 187, 193, 194, 195-197, 200,
202-204, 206, 207, 210, 213, 216
Fort George Island 10, 12, 29, 43, 67, 77, 85, 92,
97, 100, 110, 111, 139, 142, 144, 146, 149, 158,
159, 162, 165, 167, 176, 203, 204, 210
French 12, 22-24, 42-44, 46, 56, 76, 77, 91, 155,
157, 159, 162, 163
Freshwater marsh 140, 240
Greenfield Peninsula 55, 85
Groundwater 13, 44, 119, 120, 124, 190, 198, 208,
265, 268
Habitat 13, 27-29, 34, 37, 38, 48, 57, 60, 92, 93,
99, 100, 112, 116, 118, 129, 130, 139, 143, 144,
149, 157, 184, 190, 191-198, 201, 202, 206-209,
211, 212, 230, 231
Historic structures 102, 158, 186, 215, 217
Huguenot Memorial Park 9, 30, 67, 78, 92, 96,
100, 101, 144, 149, 165, 172, 200, 210
Hunting 3, 10, 15, 16, 21, 36, 47, 60, 72, 73, 156,
171
APPENDIXES / BIBLIOGRAPHY / INDEX
Indians 23, 24, 27, 43, 44, 77, 156, 214
Integrated pest management 36, 72, 73
Interpretation 3, 4, 10, 15-18, 22, 28, 29, 39, 41,
42, 44-46, 52, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 74-76, 78,
90, 91, 94, 99, 162-164, 175, 194, 197, 204
Interpretive themes 15, 42, 43, 45, 59, 63, 74, 75,
76, 77, 90, 91, 194, 197, 204, 210
Jacksonville Electric Authority 9, 28, 29, 64, 67,
101, 136, 165, 168, 171, 172, 196, 222, 223, 224,
237
Jurisdiction 11, 37, 47, 50, 55, 58, 59, 61, 64, 85,
93, 99, 102, 146, 168, 172, 184, 191, 194, 200,
205, 213-215
Kingsley Plantation 3, 9, 10, 12, 16, 21, 28, 33,
35, 38-41, 46-48, 58, 59, 61, 64, 66, 74, 76, 77,
80, 86, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 146, 154, 158, 161,
162, 163, 164, 167, 172, 176, 184, 185, 187,
193-197, 200, 202-204, 206, 207, 210, 213, 217,
233
Land Protection Plan 34, 51, 60, 61, 64, 68, 85, 92
Land use 16, 30, 34, 41, 49, 50, 61, 64, 71, 78, 85,
92, 93, 97, 115, 168, 171, 172, 173, 193, 199,
208, 230, 231
Little Talbot Island 123, 146, 167
Manatees 149, 184, 196, 198
Maritime hammock 28, 72, 142
Mayport 4, 9, 16, 29, 30, 43, 44, 49, 55, 66, 76,
123, 129, 136, 157, 165-167, 171, 173
Mayport Ferry 9, 16, 49, 66, 165, 167
Middens 4, 9, 24, 42, 86, 142, 153, 154
Military 12, 20, 22, 23, 28, 43, 44, 55, 67, 154, 155,
158, 171, 173
Nassau County 21, 103, 115, 166, 205, 222, 223
Nassau River 9, 11, 12, 29, 50, 85, 86, 93, 103,
118, 120, 130, 135, 136, 139, 143, 144, 146, 167,
202, 205, 207
National Register of Historic Places 39, 46, 74,
153, 154, 157-159, 193, 214
Outstanding Florida Waters 9, 29, 130, 214
Partnership 2, 65, 213
Pelotes Island 9, 14, 28, 67, 92, 97, 100, 101, 109,
110,139,146,149,165,171, 172,196, 197, 210,
237
Pest control 36, 72
Pesticides 36, 130
Physical development 3, 34, 4648, 51, 60, 61,
63-65, 78-80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 155, 175, 206
272
Piers 16, 48, 49, 262
Pollutants 35, 73, 109, 124, 130, 184, 185, 191,
200, 206
Prehistoric 3, 9, 11, 12, 15, 24, 28, 37, 38, 42-45,
65, 77, 153-156, 214
Pumpkin Hill 67, 86, 103, 205
Recreation 9, 15, 21-, 29, 36, 45, 46, 48, 49, 60, 63,
67, 72, 74, 75, 80, 91, 124, 158, 164, 165, 166,
175, 185, 188, 222-224
Resource Management Plan 34, 36-38, 59, 67, 68,
71, 73, 89, 99
Ribault Column 9, 61, 76, 157, 162, 163, 168, 175,
216
Salt marsh 3, 4, 11-13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 41,
42, 48, 50, 62, 63, 94, 110-112, 115-118, 139,
140, 139, 140, 142-145, 150, 153, 165, 198
Septic tanks/leachfields 191, 198
Shellfish 9, 21, 42, 44, 47, 112, 129, 130, 136, 145,
146, 145, 156, 184, 190, 191, 194, 196, 198, 206,
208, 211
Sisters Creek Marina 67, 92, 97, 100, 210
Sisters Creek park and boat ramp 9, 167, 172
Slavery 28, 41, 43, 77, 78, 155, 164
Slaves 43, 44, 77
Spanish 9, 10, 12, 14, 21-24, 27, 28, 38, 42-44, 48,
56, 61, 66, 73-77, 79, 91, 95, 123, 153-159,
162-164, 168, 175, 176, 184, 216
Spanish Pond 48, 61, 76, 79, 95, 123, 157, 163,
164, 168, 175, 176, 184, 216
Spanish-American War 9, 12, 14, 21, 38, 43, 66,
73-75, 159
Spoil sites 71, 89
St. Johns River 9, 11, 12, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29, 35, 40,
42-44, 46, 50, 55, 71, 76, 77, 109, 110, 111, 115,
116, 118-120, 123, 124, 129, 130, 135, 136,
142-144, 146, 149, 153, 156-160, 162, 163, 167,
168, 173, 201, 202, 207, 222, 223
St. Johns River Water Management District 35,
135, 222, 223
Stormwater 57, 78, 123, 124, 129, 190, 196, 201,
213, 214
Tabby ruins 153
Theodore Roosevelt 3, 9, 16, 33, 35, 46, 47, 58-61,
63, 66, 67, 76, 77, 79, 80, 79, 80, 94, 95, 98,
100, 102, 142, 144, 157, 161-164, 167, 168, 172,
175, 176, 175, 176, 185, 193-197, 200, 202, 203,
204, 206, 207, 210, 216
Thomas Creek 9, 10, 12, 23, 38, 43, 60, 64, 78, 92,
96, 100, 120, 130, 159, 193, 210

Threatened 3, 13, 14, 37, 44, 47, 48, 57, 59, 68, 72,
73, 78, 90, 97, 99, 103, 135, 146, 152, 159, 184,
185, 188, 193, 194, 196-198, 206-209, 211, 213
Timucua 42, 43, 156, 157, 195
Transportation 16, 17, 29, 44, 48, 49, 61, 64, 66,
80, 92, 97, 102, 115, 155, 167, 168, 173, 187,
190, 194, 197, 205, 210, 222, 223
US. Fish and Wildlife Service 35, 37, 57, 123,
146, 184, 209, 212, 213, 221, 222
US. Navy 21, 30, 44, 50, 55, 67, 136, 168, 173,
221, 222
Vegetation management 36, 71-73
Printed on Racyckd Papa:
Index
Water quality 9, 13, 14, 21, 035, 36, 43, 56, 68,
71-73, 89, 99, 109, 112, 115, 120, 123, 124, 129,
130, 135, 136, 137, 136, 145, 184, 185, 190-194,
196-202, 206-209, 211, 213
Wetlands 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20-22, 27, 35, 42, 43,
44, 55, 56, 61, 63, 71, 76, 86, 89, 90, 92, 97,
112, 118, 120, 123, 129, 135, 144, 154, 157, 165,
171, 184-186, 188, 190, 191, 193, 199, 200, 206,
208, 209, 211, 213
Wonderwood Expressway 29, 55, 103, 167, 188
Yellow Bluff Fort 9, 10, 12, 21, 28, 38, 66, 73, 75,
154, 159
273 : U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1995841-417
As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most
of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our
land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the
environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the
enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources
and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging
stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for
American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under US.
administration.

NPS D-7, December 1994

 G-83
NO.
PERMIT
Strah
Dennis
Center
TCE
Service
Denver
-
FPOSTAGE
PAID
& EES
INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT
THE
OF
USE,
S300
PRIVATE
FOR
PENALTY
NPARK
SERVICE
ATSERVICE
NIAOTNIAOLNAL
PARK
Denver,
8CO
02 5-0287
BOUFSINCEISAL FIRST-STATES
MAIL UNITED
CLAS
Box Parkway
25287
PO. Alameda
West
12795
 1I21I2013

lllllllllllllllllll
 -
.
~
~
\
I-
~
.
f
\
.
~.\-
.
.,,
.,...,..- ~
..-> .\
o... ~.2...
i-... .i--
-. --......
'o.\..-w-
~i-\
,t.
I- i-~~\-..~... ~.
. .-~ ..~ I
\- Q \ - , -\.z.-
.2.. ,.. ._..-\
.. .,0. .', .~\.1.. \.
.o.o-.. .>.~\....--Q. ..'\.~\q .
.~ - . .'u- . .
.
.. . .. :u .. \. r... .~o ~
, -
-:. ..-~o, ~I~~o .,-~,,,\1..o .-,
I..-
~~.. .-0.lol\.. ~..\. \,
\... :... \o.... fl . ,.....-l
' .. ...~ ~- ~\-u\\.
~ .P.~
. . l-0..-. \ ---.~-... uo.to$:.:
.~.~. .u~\.l-,. \..
I.- ..,... ..~.o.\....,~. ,..~
':
I.- K. -. o. . .....-..~ . ,---.. \
ol.-...l.P.. u..0. "Io, .\
-\~
.'ol~.t\.....
. ~ ........ o.\- :. ,,:..~ I-,lq
....-,-~
~ \ -
.-\I--, l\ 9..
\". :.-
I- ..:. ,- ..\
. :.~\.. . '-P
~ :.t.
\o ..:-:...~o
:.-1...~
w..-...aw-,
- ~- '.~ . . .- la..:.-al
..~..l-'!!~. ,,.
, . ~ ..:... .. ..
. u.. .u.. \.. \
.. ,
:.3:.
'\s~- - \... . 0I-.\,o_J
-Q\q...~.\$\-
..-I..-u\ .-... - '\ . \ -\..
. ~~ ,\-..... o J-.\. .\ ...\\
-:.\..:.-..\... :.'\:
'--,-.o..~l.-E\o.. ~~
u.\..-.\\...-I-..I-'..
~... :. ...
..-o........
.. .\1.4:. \:....
..\\~
o u. \\'. :~ 2 .~........ -
\ ..\ .. qu-
. :.\: 1'.- . ~...
... ~ . ~... \..I-ol...
o,
.2i-.
... ~,o.\ \.
I:.,:.. 1-
,-....I--
...-\.\,- . ~
.~'0:
o . .
\..,.".m\

-k,-...
......I-,~, ,
\-
,'o... , ..-.2\\
~'...
,...~ .'
.
'l-t
o~-.\.~o. o--\J-. ,Y>,u'~.\
o.\~o,~
\0. :\>-,'\II,
I.. :.I: - ~.. 1, I
ol. V ~ 1 , \ ~ y
. , o.
-V I V V I..l-. ,I . .-'- I ~ :.... ~u~. \ ,~
..
.~..,~,3 . , .
. .\I-.. ~ \. .~_~:.
.2 :..
. i - \. . \ - '-
.-.. ..-..I-..:. .~I.7
~ ..., ..' -
, - ,\~\,
...~,..\ .P~
. >.l
,\ ' ..\\

.:.-Q .
. \\. \ - .\ , w. '".
.-.-.
- .
-\.

,,- \ P- . V ..2\. ... .

.\l . ..o u\-'- \ ol\ ... t
..\ V .L~. ~ \-.~. .. . . . :. .~
..1\1
..- . 2.:- - \- w ...._.. ,-,\l
-...& ,. f:- . 0.,.,o'~.--
\~~I\';-o

:~l--
. .~..
..-1t~. P.. .....>J~>. \..
>.... . . . . \
V . ~
.\ _,-..F\\-.\!-~.
..J,.. .P..'.-\ u\';....
. ,
'

~:. .~...... .\\\..-\\\

I- . ....
.'.. o -- os.I-
,'-. V
. I \ \ \, , V
V ~
,
J
..
~d\

~-
1~..1. .
""Pu'n .."6r--"w{"r

, .,.-:...tl.~~
. ~~. \:.\.. -\
. . ~ou~1 u\-....
.- - I l .9\..\. I - .~\-.l\:\
..\>\.
. ~I- \o.: '.~l'
.f. :.a- ~\.
o.......
..\,i- h.- \
- - - \ \..?\ . \
\ ..-.\-
,'4-,.~ . u\
,-: :... ..:\- \~
\,.
~t. PM... >~I-~
~\

- .. u . - .'~ -'- _
:. x.
't~oI-:o.u ..\u: .1:.
,']. & ~u.\. \I ~,
..o :- 1'.
-\ ..",\
ot. ..~.\ \-...
u o.-..uu0_'
.~... -
I ,\rvJ, f...}-
. u 4...~ : , .I
.~.. l-
. . I o0.0... \\ .-:. 0o.
'-I. .-
- I.wztI , ..'-- .z\., .
' ,P-l.~l-
..... . --.
~., VP...- . V . 0 u.'.
~
.
:. .