GTM Research Reserve Office - Florida Department of ...

Guana Tolomato Matanzas 

National Estuarine 

Research Reserve 

Management Plan • July 2009 - June 2014 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS #235, Tallahassee, FL 32399 

www.FloridaCoasts.org


National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Environmental Education Center 

505 Guana River Road 

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 

(904) 823-4500 • Fax (904) 825-6829 

Marineland Office 

9741 Ocean Shore Blvd 

St. Augustine, FL 32080 

(904) 461-4054 • Fax (904) 461-4056 

This management plan has been developed in 

accordance with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration regulations, including all provisions 

for public involvement. It is consistent with the 

congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the 

provisions of the Florida Coastal Management Program. 

This publication funded in part through a grant 

agreement from the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Florida Coastal Management 

Program by a grant provided by the Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 

NA05NOS4191074-CZ625, NA06NOS4190129-CZ709, 

NA06NOS4190129-CZ726, and NA07NOS4190071- 

CZ823. The views, statements, finding, conclusions, 

and recommendations expressed herein are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the State of Florida, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, or any of its sub-agencies. 

July 2009 - June 2014 


National Estuarine 

Research Reserve 


Includes: 

• Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

• Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

• Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve 



3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS #235, Tallahassee, FL 32399 

www.aquaticpreserves.org

Mission Statements 

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas / The mission of the Office of Coastal and Aquatic 

Managed Areas in relation to Florida’s 41 aquatic preserves, three National Estuarine Research Reserves, 

National Marine Sanctuary, and Coral Reef Conservation Program is to protect Florida’s coastal and 

aquatic resources. 

National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERR) / The NERR System mission is the establishment and 

management, through Federal-state cooperation, of a national system of Estuarine Research Reserves 

representative of the various regions and estuarine types in the United States. Estuarine Research 

Reserves are established to provide opportunities for long-term research, education, and interpretation. 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve / The GTM Research Reserve mission 

is to achieve the conservation of natural biodiversity and cultural resources by using the results of research 

and monitoring to guide science-based stewardship and education strategies. 

CAMA/BTIITF Approval 

CAMA approval date: December 30, 2008 BTIITF approval date: May 13, 2009 

ARC approval date: April 3, 2009 NOAA approval date: July 1, 2009 

:

Executive Summary 

In 1999, the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM Research Reserve) 

was designated in St. Johns and Flagler counties, Florida as a part of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) system because of 

its outstanding representation of the east Florida sub-region of the Carolinian bioregion and its unique 

combination of natural and cultural resources. The hallmark of the NERR program is that each reserve’s 

management efforts are in direct response to, and designed for unique local and regional issues. The 

purpose of this plan is to incorporate, evaluate, and prioritize all relevant information about the GTM 

Research Reserve into management strategies, allowing for compatible public access to the managed 

areas while sustaining the long-term quality of its ecosystems and cultural resources. 

This management plan is an update to the previous five-year GTM Research Reserve plan approved 

on November 10, 1998. In addition to the existing NERR plan, both aquatic preserves managed by the 

GTM Research Reserve previously had individual management plans. The Guana River Marsh Aquatic 

Preserve (GRMAP) management plan was approved December 17, 1991 and the Pellicer Creek Aquatic 

Preserve (PCAP) management plan was approved July 9, 1991. Uplands along the Guana River that are 

currently managed as part of the GTM Research Reserve were previously managed as the Guana River 

State Park (management plan approved March 26, 1999). The inclusive management of these sites as the 

GTM Research Reserve represents a significant enhancement of the purpose of the property as a platform 

for research and education. 

The diversity of communities present in the 64,487 acre GTM Research Reserve provides habitat for a wide 

variety of fish and wildlife. A species list recently compiled for the GRMAP indicates the presence of at least 

44 mammal, 358 bird, 41 reptile, 21 amphibian, 303 fish, and 580 plant species. Many more species are 

expected to occur in the entire GTM Research Reserve. These habitats are essential to many protected 

species (eight plants and forty-eight animals) including the Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus 

polionotus phasma), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), least tern (Sterna antillarum), marine turtles: 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacia) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). In addition, the striped newt (Notopthalmus perstriatus), 

one of Florida’s rarest vertebrate species, occurs within the GTM Research Reserve. Some of the many rare 

listed birds of the GTM Research Reserve include: great egret (Ardea alba), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), 

black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nyticorax), least tern (Sterna antillarum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana) and roseate spoonbill 

(Ajaia ajaja). The rare Atlantic geoduck (Panopea bitruncata) has also been recorded in the GTM Research 

Reserve. With this plan the GTM Research Reserve will continue to expand its role to facilitate and conduct 

research and monitoring, stewardship and education strategies designed to enhance our ability to monitor 

the condition of these species and to conserve their habitats. 

Many species of commercial value are also known to use the GTM Research Reserve’s estuaries 

for all or part of their life cycle. These species include oysters (Crassostrea virginica), quahog clams 

(Mercenaria spp.), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria), white shrimp 

(Penaeus setiferus), brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), striped and white mullet (Mugil cephalus and 

M. curema), gag grouper (Myctoperca microlepis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), gray snapper 

(Lutjanus griseus), lane snapper (L. synagris), flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma and P. dentatus), 

bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and thread herring (Opisthonema 

oglinum). Management strategies to conserve and restore natural habitats supporting sustainable 

populations of these species are an important management priority for the GTM Research Reserve. 

Recreationally valuable species provide a valuable economic incentive for long-term conservation of 

the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources. Species important to the local sports fishery that are 

found in the GTM Research Reserve include tarpon (Tarpon atlanticus), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion 

nebulosus), weakfish (C. regalis), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), 

black drum (Pogonias cromis), spot (Leiostomous xanthurus), croaker (Micropogon undulatus), 

sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), crevalle jack (Carynx hippos), gag grouper (Myctoperca 

microlepis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), lane snapper (L. 

synagris), Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), flounder (Paralichthys sp.), striped mullet (Mugil 

cephalus), and sailor’s choice (Haemulon parri). Habitat and species management based on the best 

available scientific information is required to sustain this valuable resource. 

In addition to these natural resources the GTM Research Reserve contains a unique array of cultural 

resources. This ecosystem has been used by humans for over 5,000 years. Artifacts found in the GTM

Research Reserve area range from an arrowhead from the late Archaic (2500-1000 BC) to pottery from 

the 19th century. There are currently 115 recorded archaeological sites within its boundary. Known sites 

include a burial mound, numerous shell middens, a Spanish mission, and homestead sites from the 

British, Second Spanish and Territorial time periods. Culture resource interpretation and protection is 

given special consideration in this plan. 

The GTM Research Reserve also contains extensive public use amenities directly managed by the 

reserve staff including an extensive trail system, beaches with parking access and dune boardwalks, the 

Guana Lake Dam, and an Environmental Education Center that welcomes approximately 20,000 visitors 

per year including 2,500 students and teachers. Public use of the beaches and trail system is estimated 

to accommodate an additional 170,000 visitors per year. Based on local community support and public 

input, this management plan’s public use strategies emphasize high quality and sustainable natural 

resource experiences. 

Included in the boundary of the GTM Research Reserve are numerous conservation areas including 

the Guana River Wildlife Management Area, Deep Creek State Forest, Stokes Landing Conservation 

Area, Fort Matanzas National Monument , Washington Oaks Gardens State Park, Faver-Dykes State 

Park , Moses Creek Conservation , Pellicer Creek Conservation Area, Princess Place Preserve, and the 

River to Sea Preserve. Following the designation of the GTM Research Reserve a twenty-one member 

Management Advisory Group (MAG) was established. Representation consists of citizens, local 

government officials, managers of the public lands included in the boundary, private property owners, 

scientists and environmental educators. This advisory group provides a unique opportunity to enhance 

cooperative management for the conservation of this ecosystem. 

This revised management plan also identifies additional facilities, staffing, and boundary expansions 

compatible and needed for the GTM Research Reserve to continue its mission. The proposed boundary 

expansion includes approximately sixty-one acres of fee-simple acquisition and annexation of eightthousand-eight-hundred-sixty-five 

acres of public lands within or immediately adjacent to the GTM 

Research Reserve’s existing boundary. There are no plans to change the management authority of the 

annexed properties. The proposed expanded boundary will enhance the GTM Research Reserve’s 

partnerships with key stakeholders and provide additional opportunities to restore or maintain cultural 

resources, natural biodiversity, and important watershed water-quality buffers and flow-ways. 

The management challenges affecting the GTM Research Reserve can be categorized within the 

following topics: Public Use, Habitat and Species Management, Watershed Landuse, Cultural Resource 

Preservation and Interpretation, and Global Processes. Incompatible public use and lack of a scientifically 

defined carrying capacity, habitat fragmentation and loss, point and non-point source pollution, protection 

and interpretation of cultural resources and assessing the impact of global processes are management 

priorities. These issues can be indirectly or directly linked to anthropogenic landuse of increasing 

population densities accompanied by increasing development, recreation, and economic pressures. 

These potential impacts to resources can affect the productivity and function of coastal ecosystems, 

requiring active management to restore and sustain the condition of these resources. 

GTM Research Reserve Management Goals 

Public Use 

Ensure user experiences are sustainable and consistent with natural and cultural resource protection for 

the benefit of existing and future generations. 

Habitat and Species Management 

Improve the conservation of natural biodiversity by implementing the principles of adaptive management 

and ecosystem science. 

Watershed Landuse 

Reduce the impact of watershed landuse on coastal resources by identifying priority pollutants and 

encouraging best management practices. 

Cultural Resource Preservation and Interpretation 

Enhance understanding, interpretation, and preservation of the GTM Research Reserve’s cultural resources. 

Global Processes 

Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning global and meteorological processes and as a 

demonstration site for green building technologies and practices.

Table of Contents 

Part One / Basis for Management 

Chapter One 

1.1 / Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 / Management Plan Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................... 4 

1.3 / Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 5 

Chapter Two / National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERR) 

2.1 / Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7 

2.2 / NERR System Mission and Goals ............................................................................................... 7 

2.3 / Biogeographic Regions ............................................................................................................. 13 

2.4 / Reserve Designation and Operation ......................................................................................... 13 

2.5 / Administrative Framework ......................................................................................................... 14 

Chapter Three / Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal 

and Aquatic Managed Areas 

3.1 / Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15 

3.2 / State Management Authority ..................................................................................................... 16 

3.3 / State Statutory Authority ............................................................................................................ 17 

3.4 / State Administrative Rules ......................................................................................................... 18 

Chapter Four / The Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

(GTM Research Reserve) 

4.1 / Acquisition and Designation History of the GTM Research Reserve ....................................... 21 

4.2 / Resource Description ................................................................................................................ 22 

4.2.1 / GTM Research Reserve Mission ......................................................................................... 22 

4.2.2 / International/National/State/Regional Significance ............................................................ 22 

4.2.3 / Location/Boundaries ........................................................................................................... 23 

4.2.4 / Adjacent Public Lands and Conservation Areas ................................................................ 23 

4.2.5 / Surrounding Demographic Data and Future Projections ................................................... 26 

4.2.6 / Topography and Geomorphology ...................................................................................... 26 

4.2.7 / Geology ............................................................................................................................... 27 

4.2.8 / Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 29 

4.2.9 / Climate ................................................................................................................................ 31 

4.2.10 / Natural Communities ........................................................................................................ 32 

4.2.11 / Listed Species ................................................................................................................... 41 

4.2.12 / Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 41 

4.2.13 / Problem/Nuisance Species ............................................................................................... 42 

4.2.14 / Forest Resources .............................................................................................................. 42 

4.2.15 / Archaeological and Historical Resources ......................................................................... 42 

4.3 / Compatible and Traditional Uses .............................................................................................. 45 

4.4 / Non-CAMA Managed Public Lands within the GTM Research Reserve Boundary ................. 49 

Part Two / Management Programs and Issues 

Chapter Five / Program Accomplishments 

5.1 / Ecosystem Science ................................................................................................................... 55 

5.2 / Resource Management ............................................................................................................. 58 

5.3 / Education and Outreach ........................................................................................................... 61 

Chapter Six / Management Issues 

6.1 / Introduction to Issue-Based Management ................................................................................ 69 

6.2 / Public Use ................................................................................................................................. 70 

6.3 / Habitat and Species Management ............................................................................................ 81

6.4 / Watershed Landuse ................................................................................................................... 96 

6.5 / Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 99 

6.6 / Global Processes .................................................................................................................... 102 

Part Three / Additional Plans 

Chapter Seven / Administrative Plan ................................................................................................ 105 

Chapter Eight / Facilities Plan ........................................................................................................... 113 

Chapter Nine / GTM Research Reserve Boundary Expansion and Land Acquisition Plan ........ 119 

9.1 / Scope and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 119 

9.2 / Key Plan Elements ................................................................................................................... 121 

9.2.1 / Annexation of Existing Public Lands with No Change in Management Designation ....... 121 

9.2.2 / Fee Simple Acquisitions .................................................................................................... 122 

9.3 / Potential Funding Sources and other Conservation and Acquisition Efforts ......................... 123 

List of Tables 

Table 1 / C-CAP and FNAI habitat classification ............................................................................... 32 

Table 2 / Compatible public use ........................................................................................................ 48 

Table 3 / Numbers of individuals reached with on-site education and outreach programs. ............ 62 

Table 4 / Citizen support group membership and volunteers .......................................................... 63 

Table 5 / Numbers of participants in coastal training program workshops ...................................... 67 

Table 6 / Invasive non-native species .............................................................................................. 159 

Table 7 / Native nuisance/problem species .................................................................................... 160 

Table 8 / Established invasive and non-native mosquitoes ............................................................ 160 

Table 9 / Burn history ....................................................................................................................... 170 

Table 10 / Strategies: estimated timeline and cost ......................................................................... 173 

Table 11 / Potential for outsourcing of services .............................................................................. 193 

Table 12 / Management advisory group .......................................................................................... 263 

Table 13 / Public meetings .............................................................................................................. 264 

Table 14 / Recorded archaeological sites ..........................................................................................xx 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 / Boundary and location of the GTM Research Reserve indicating the area directly 

managed by CAMA. ............................................................................................................................ 2 

Figure 2 / CAMA state-wide managed resources ............................................................................... 3 

Figure 3 / Biogeographic regions of the NERR system ...................................................................... 8 

Figure 4 / Designated or proposed NERR’s ....................................................................................... 9 

Figure 5 / Federal management structure for the NERR system ...................................................... 14 

Figure 6 / Adjacent public lands and resources (northern component) .......................................... 23 

Figure 7 / Adjacent public lands and resources (southern component) .......................................... 24 

Figure 8 / Projected adjacent future land use ................................................................................... 25 

Figure 9 / Topography ....................................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 10 / Geomorphology .............................................................................................................. 27 

Figure 11 / Soil types (northern component ) ................................................................................... 28 

Figure 12 / Soil Types (southern component) ................................................................................... 28 

Figure 13 / Hydrology (northern component) ................................................................................... 30 

Figure 14 / Hydrology (southern component) .................................................................................. 31 

Figure 15 / Habitats ........................................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 16 / Cultural resources (northern component) ...................................................................... 43 

Figure 17 / Cultural (southern component) ....................................................................................... 44 

Figure 18 / Northern component public access points .................................................................... 45 

Figure 19 / Southern component public access points .................................................................... 46

Figure 20 / Current public use ........................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 21 / Issue-based adaptive management ............................................................................... 70 

Figure 22 / Facilities and improvements (including managed access) .......................................... 114 

Figure 23 / Proposed public lands annexation ............................................................................... 120 

Figure 24 / Proposed land acquisition (northern component) ....................................................... 121 

Figure 25 / Proposed land acquisition (southern component) ....................................................... 122 

Figure 26 / Timber assessment Letter ............................................................................................. 163 

Figure 27 / Prescribed fire burn units .............................................................................................. 169 

Figure 28 / Maintained prescribed fire lines .................................................................................... 171 

Figure 29 / Estimated programming costs for full implementation ................................................ 172 

Figure 30 / Estimated personnel needs for full implementation ..................................................... 172 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A / Additional Acquisition and Restoration Council Requirements 

A.1 / Executive Summary (ARC Table Format) ............................................................................... 126 

A.2 / Management Plan Compliance Checklist GRMAP Uplands .................................................. 127 

A.3 / FNAI Natural Communities (Rank and Status) ....................................................................... 129 

A.4 / FNAI Natural Communities Acreage ....................................................................................... 130 

A.5 / Species List ............................................................................................................................. 130 

A.6 / Designated and Listed Species (Rank and Status) ................................................................ 155 

A.7 / Nuisance and Invasive Species Control Plan ......................................................................... 159 

A.8 / Timber Resources ................................................................................................................... 163 

A.9 / Prescribed Fire Plan ................................................................................................................ 163 

A.10 / Potential Surplus Lands ........................................................................................................ 172 

A.11 / Budget Summary Table......................................................................................................... 172 

A.12 / Analysis of Contracting Potential .......................................................................................... 193 

A.13 / Land Management Review Team Recommendations and Management Response ........... 194 

A.14 / Recorded Archaeological Sites ........................................................................................... 202 

Appendix B / Legal Documents 

B.1 / Code of Federal Regulations .................................................................................................. 205 

B.2 / State Legal Requirements ....................................................................................................... 230 

B.3 / Aquatic Preserve Resolution ................................................................................................... 230 

B.4 / Florida Statutes (F.S.) .............................................................................................................. 231 

B.5 / Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) ....................................................................................... 231 

B.6 / Memorandums of Understanding ........................................................................................... 232 

B.7 / Trustees Lease Agreement ..................................................................................................... 267 

B.8 / Letter of Compliance of the Management Plan with the Local Government 

Comprehensive Plan ....................................................................................................................... 271 

Appendix C / Reference Materials 

C.1 / Acronym List ........................................................................................................................... 271 

C.2 / References ............................................................................................................................. 273 

Appendix D / Public Involvement 

D.1 / Citizen Support Organization (CSO) ...................................................................................... 276 

D.2 / Management Advisory Group ................................................................................................ 276 

D.3 / Public Meetings, Minutes and Comments .............................................................................. 277 

D.3.1 / First Management Advisory Group Meeting .................................................................... 277 

D.3.2 / First Set of General Public Meetings and Management Response ................................. 280 

D.3.3 / Second Management Advisory Group Meeting ............................................................... 313 

D.3.4 / Second Set of General Public Meetings .......................................................................... 315

Natural coquina rock formations like these found at the beach and nearshore environment at Marineland 

provide unique and valuable habitat and buffer shorelines from erosion by storms. 

Part One 

Basis for Management 

Chapter One 

. / Introduction 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System is a network of protected areas established 

for long-term research, education, and stewardship. Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, established the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to be 

administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in cooperation with the 

coastal states in which the NERRs are designated. Under the system, healthy estuarine ecosystems 

which typify different regions of the U.S. are designated and managed as sites for long-term research 

and are used as a base for estuarine education and interpretation programs. The system also provides a 

framework through which research results and techniques for estuarine education and interpretation can 

be shared throughout the region and across the nation. 

This partnership program between NOAA and the coastal states protects more than one million 

acres of estuarine land and water, which provide essential habitat for wildlife; offer educational 

opportunities for students, teachers and the public; and serve as living laboratories for scientists. 

The Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM Research Reserve, 

Figure 1) was designated in St. Johns and Flagler counties, Florida as a part of this system because 

of its outstanding representation of the east Florida sub-region of the Carolinian bioregion and its 

unique combination of natural and cultural resources. The site selection process for this the GTM 

Research Reserve began in September of 1991. The present day GTM Research Reserve was 

selected by a committee of scientists, environmental educators and coastal managers because it met 

the overall needs of a relatively pristine habitat for scientific research and environmental education 

opportunities. The selection was supported by citizens and legislators of St. Johns and Flagler 

counties. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida then nominated the estuaries comprising

St. Augustine 

§¨¦ 95 

Ponte 

Vedra 

Beach 

£¤ 

0 2 4 

Miles 

^_ 

Æ· A1A 

Palm 

Coast 

Æ· A1A 

St. Augustine Inlet 

^_ 

Matanzas 

Inlet 

GTM Research Reserve Boundary 

CAMA Managed Lands 

Gulf of Mexico 

± 

Atlantic Ocean 

Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve 

GTM Research Reserve Southern Component 

^ GTM Research Reserve Offices 

May 2008 

Figure / Boundary and location of the GTM 

Research Reserve indicating the area directly 

managed by CAMA. 

the Guana, Tolomato and Matanzas including 

the Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve (PCAP) 

and Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

(GRMAP) as the now existing GTM Research 

Reserve. The final GTM Research Reserve 

designation was made in August, 1999. In 

January 2004, management authority of Guana 

River State Park was conveyed to the DEP, 

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(CAMA). Within the GTM Research Reserve, 

CAMA directly manages the PCAP, portions of 

the GRMAP including the lands that formerly 

made up the Guana River State Park, and other 

state sovereign submerged lands within the 

Matanzas River and its tributaries inside the 

GTM Research Reserve designated boundary 

that were classified as Class II or Outstanding 

Florida Waters as of 1998 (Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, 1998). This area 

includes tidally submerged state sovereign 

adjacent to and within the Intracoastal Waterway 

and its tributaries, excluding the Treasure Beach 

Canal System - From Intracoastal Waterway 

marker number 29, south to an east-west line 

through marker number 109). 

The Florida NERRs are administered on behalf 

of the State by the DEP Office of CAMA as part 

of a network (Figure 2) that includes forty-one 

aquatic preserves, three NERRs, a National 

Marine Sanctuary (NMS), the Coral Reef 

Conservation Program (CRCP), and the Florida 

Oceans and Coastal Council. This provides 

for a system of significant protections to 

ensure that our most popular and ecologically 

important underwater ecosystems are cared 

for in perpetuity. Each of these special places 

is managed with strategies based on local 

resources, issues, and conditions. 

Our expansive coastline and wealth of aquatic 

resources have defined Florida as a subtropical 

oasis, attracting millions of residents and 

visitors, and the businesses that serve them. 

Florida’s submerged lands play important roles 

in maintaining good water quality, hosting a 

diversity of wildlife and habitats (including 

economically and ecologically valuable nursery 

areas), and supporting a treasured quality of 

life for all. In the 1960s, it became apparent 

that the ecosystems that had attracted so 

many people to Florida could not support 

rapid growth without science-based resource 

protection and management. To this end, state 

legislators provided extra protection for certain 

exceptional aquatic areas by designating them 

as aquatic preserves. 

Title to submerged lands not previously conveyed 

to private landowners is held by the Board of 

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund

Santa Rosa 

Escambia 

Okaloosa Walton 

Yellow River 

Marsh 

Fort Pickens 

± 

Alabama 

Rocky 

Bayou 

Holmes 

Washington 

Bay 

St. Andrews 

December, 2006 

Aquatic Preserves 

St. 

Joseph 

Bay 

Jackson 

Calhoun 

Gulf 

Liberty 

Franklin 

Apalachicola 

Bay 

Gulf of Mexico 

Gadsden 

Wakulla 

Alligator 

Harbor 

Apalachicola 

National Estuarine Research Reserves 

0 25 50 100 150 

Miles 

Lake 

Jackson 

Leon Jefferson Madison 

Big Bend 

Seagrasses 

Taylor 

Aquatic Preserves layer maintained by: Office of Coastal and 

Aquatic Managed Areas, 3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 235, 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000, 850-245-2094 

Map Figure 2 / CAMA / CAMA System state-wide Map managed resources. 

Suwannee 

Columbia 

Rainbow 

Marion 

Springs 

Wekiva 

Volusia 

Citrus 

River 

Lake 

Sumter 

Seminole 

(the Trustees). The Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Trustees, act as guardians for the people of the 

State of Florida (§253.03, Florida Statutes [F.S.]) and regulate the use of these public lands. Through 

statute, the Trustees have the authority to adopt rules related to the management of sovereignty (Florida 

Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975). A higher layer of protection is afforded to aquatic preserves which include 

areas of sovereignty lands that have been “set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries for the 

benefit of future generations” due to “exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value” (Florida 

Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975, §258.36, F.S.). 

Georgia 

Lafayette 

Dixie 

Hamilton 

Gilchrist 

St. Martins 

Marsh 

Pinellas 

County 

Boca Ciega 

Bay 

Levy 

Terra Ceia 

Baker 

Union 

Clay 

Bradford 

Alachua 

Oklawaha 

River 

Hernando 

Pasco 

Hillsborough 

PinellasCockroach 

Bay 

Manatee 

Sarasota 

Nassau 

Duval 

Putnam 

Rookery Bay 

Polk 

Hardee 

DeSoto 

St. Johns 

Flagler 

Orange 

Collier 

Osceola 

Highlands 

Lemon Bay 

Cape Haze 

Charlotte Glades 

Gasparilla Sound - 

Charlotte Harbor 

Matlacha Pass 

Pine 

Island 

Sound 

Lee 

Hendry 

Estero Bay 

Rookery Bay 

Cape Romano - 

Ten Thousand Islands 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative 

Fort Clinch 

Nassau River - 

St. Johns 

River Marshes 

Guana River Marsh 

Guana - Tolomato - Matanzas 

Pellicer Creek 

Tomoka 

Marsh 

Brevard 

Indian River 

Martin 

Palm Beach 

Broward 

Monroe 

Miami-Dade 

Lignumvitae Key 

Coupon Bight 

Mosquito 

Lagoon 

Banana River 

Okeechobee St. Lucie 

North Fork, 

St. Lucie 


Indian River - 

Malabar to 

Vero Beach 

Indian River - 

Vero Beach 

to Fort Pierce 

Jensen Beach 

to Jupiter Inlet 

Loxahatchee 

River - Lake 

Worth Creek 

Biscayne Bay - 

Cape Florida 

to Monroe 

County Line 

Biscayne Bay 

Aquatic Preserves include all the state-owned submerged 

lands within their boundaries. This map is not intended 

for use for determination of wetlands or land ownership.

Recreation is an important ecological service provided by GTM Research Reserve. 

. / Management Plan Purpose and Scope 

The NOAA requirements for the preparation of management plans are outlined in the National Estuarine 

Research Reserve Program Regulations (CZMA section 315, and 15 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 921). The federal regulations ensure that NERR management programs are consistent 

with the goals, objectives, and policies of the NERR System. The mandate for developing aquatic 

preserve management plans is outlined in Rule 18-20.013 and Subsection 18-18.013(2) of the Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 

Management plan development and review begins with collecting resource information from historical 

data, research and monitoring and includes input from individual CAMA managers and staff, area 

stakeholders, and members of the general public. The statistical data, public comment, and cooperating 

agency information, is then used to identify management issues and threats affecting the present 

and future integrity of the site, its boundaries, and adjacent areas. This information is utilized in the 

development and review of the management plan, which is examined for consistency with the statutory 

authority and intent of the aquatic preserve and NERR programs. Each management plan is evaluated 

periodically and revised as necessary to allow for strategic improvements. Intended to be used by site 

managers and other agencies or private groups involved with maintaining the natural integrity of these 

resources, the plan includes scientific information about the existing conditions of the site and the 

management strategies developed to respond to those conditions. 

This management plan is an update to the previous five-year GTM Research Reserve plan approved on 

November 10, 1998. In addition to the existing NERR plan, both aquatic preserves managed by the GTM 

Research Reserve previously had individual management plans. The GRMAP management plan was 

approved December 17, 1991 and the PCAP management plan was approved July 9, 1991. Uplands 

along the Guana River that are currently managed as part of the GTM Research Reserve were previously 

managed as the Guana River State Park (management plan approved March 26, 1999). The management 

of these sites as the GTM Research Reserve represents a significant enhancement of the purpose of the 

property as a platform for research and education.

. / Public Involvement 

CAMA recognizes the importance of stakeholder participation and encourages their involvement in the 

management plan development process. CAMA is also committed to meeting the requirements of the 

Sunshine Law, §286.011, F.S. and federal regulations 15 CFR 921.33: 

• Meetings of public boards or commissions must be open to the public; 

• Reasonable notice of such meetings must be given; and 

• Minutes of the meetings must be recorded. 

• NOAA may require public notice, including notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for 

public comment before approving a boundary or management plan change. 

Several key steps have been taken during the development of this management plan. First, staff 

organized an advisory committee comprised of key stakeholders. Next, staff advertised and conducted 

public meetings to receive input from stakeholders on the concerns and perceived issues affecting the 

GTM Research Reserve. This input was utilized in the development of a draft management plan that was 

reviewed by CAMA staff, the advisory committee, and NOAA. After the initial reviews, the staff advertised 

and conducted, in conjunction with the advisory committee, a second public meeting to engage the 

stakeholders for feedback on the draft plan and the development of the final draft of the management 

plan. For additional information about the advisory committee and the public meetings refer to Appendix 

D / Public Involvement. All public meeting notices were posted on the property, electronically mailed to 

a large recipient list, placed on the DEP Associated Press wire, announced at a scheduled governmental 

meeting and advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly.

Marshes provide nutrients, filter pollutants and serve as habitats to conserve natural biodiversity that 

is necessary to sustain recreational and commercially important species. 

Chapter Two 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System 


The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System was created by the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. Section 1461, to augment the Federal Coastal Zone 

Management (CZM) Program. The CZM Program is dedicated to comprehensive, sustainable 

management of the nation’s coasts. 

The Reserve system is a network of protected areas established to promote informed management of the 

Nation’s estuaries and coastal habitats. The Reserve system currently consists of 27 reserves in 22 states 

and territories, protecting over one million acres of estuarine lands and waters. 

. / NERR System Mission and Goals 

NERR Mission - As stated in the NERR regulations, 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 921.1(a), 

the NERR System mission is: 

“the establishment and management, through Federal-state cooperation, of a national system of 

Estuarine Research Reserves representative of the various regions and estuarine types in the United 

States. Estuarine Research Reserves are established to provide opportunities for long-term research, 

education, and interpretation.” 

NERR System Goals - Federal regulations, 15 CFR Part 921.1(b), provide five specific goals for the 

NERR System: 

1. Ensure a stable environment for research through long-term protection of NERR resources; 

2. Address coastal management issues identified as significant through coordinated estuarine research 

within the System;

3. Enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities 

for public education and interpretation; 

4. Promote federal, state, public and private use of one or more reserves within the System when such 

entities conduct estuarine research; and 

5. Conduct and coordinate estuarine research within the System, gathering and making available 

information necessary for improved understanding and management of estuarine areas. 

Similar to other NERR sites, the GTM Research Reserve serves as a platform for research and education 

and as a clearinghouse for science based information to guide the conservation of natural and cultural 

resources within the region. This is accomplished by conducting and facilitating scientific studies and 

symposia which in turn are used to guide the GTM Research Reserve’s environmental education and 

stewardship programs. This process of adaptive management ensures that the best available information 

is provided to citizens, coastal managers and elected officials making decisions affecting coastal habitats. 

These activities also provide a mechanism for coordinated ecosystem management of lands within the 

GTM Research Reserve boundary and its watershed. 

NERR System Strategic Goals 2005 to 2010 - The NERR System began a strategic planning process in 

1994 in an effort to help NOAA achieve its environmental stewardship mission to “sustain healthy coasts.” 

In conjunction with the strategic planning process, Estuarine Reserves Division (ERD) and Reserve staff 

has conducted a multi-year action planning process on an annual basis since 1996. The resulting threeyear 

action plan provides an overall vision and direction for the Reserve system. As part of this process, 

the Reserve system developed a vision: Healthy estuaries and watersheds where coastal communities 

and ecosystems thrive; and mission: To practice and promote coastal and estuarine stewardship through 

innovative research and education, using a system of protected areas. The following three goals are 

outlined in the 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. 

1. Strengthen the protection and management of representative estuarine ecosystems to advance 

estuarine conservation, research and education. 

Californian 

Columbian 

17 

16 

15 

18 

14 

19 

Sub-Arctic 

26 

25 

Insular: 

Fjord 

24 

27. Hawaiian Islands 

28.Western Pacific Island 

29.Eastern Pacific Island 

Key: 

Figure / Biogeographic regions of NERR. 

13 

20 

12 

Louisianan 

Contains reserve 

No reserve, unrepresented region 

No reserve, represented region 

Reserve 

Proposed reserve 

Great Lake s 

11 

21 

22 

10 

23 

7 

8 

9 

6 

5 

Carolinian 

4 

3 

West India n 

2 

1 

Virginian 

Acadian

Figure / NERR systems. (* designates proposed site) 

. Wells, Maine 

. North Carolina 

. Great Bay, New Hampshire 

. Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts 

. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island 

. Connecticut* 

6. Hudson River, New York 

. Jacques Cousteau, New Jersey 

. Delaware 

. Chesapeake Bay, Maryland 

0. Chesapeake Bay, Virginia 

. North Inlet-Winyah Bay, South Carolina 

. ACE Basin, South Carolina 

. Sapelo Island, Georgia 

. Guana Tolomato Matanzas, Florida 

6. Rookery Bay, Florida 

. Apalachicola, Florida 

. Weeks Bay, Alabama 

. Grand Bay, Mississippi 

0. Mission-Aransas, Texas 

. Tijuana River, California 

. Elkhorn Slough, California 

. San Francisco, California 

. South Slough, Oregon 

. Padilla Bay, Washington 

6. Wisconsin* 

. Old Woman Creek, Ohio 

. St. Lawrence River, New York* 

. Kachemak Bay, Alaska 

0. Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico 

2. Increase the use of Reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management issues. 

. Enhance peoples’ ability and willingness to make informed decisions and take responsible actions 

that affect coastal communities and ecosystems. 

The GTM Research Reserve is managed compatibly with the NERR’s Program vision and 2005-2010 

Strategic Goals. 

The issue topic areas of the GTM Research Reserve’s management plan (Watershed Landuse, 

Cultural Resource Preservation and Interpretation, Public Use, Habitat and Species Management and 

Global Processes) have a direct linkage with the National Program’s priority management issues of 

land use and population growth, habitat loss and alteration, water quality degradation and changes 

in biological communities.

0 

The GTM Research Reserve and other Reserves share the National Program’s 2005- 2010 Strategic Plan 

- guiding Principles (http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Background_StrategicPlan.html): 

• Strong partnerships between NOAA, state agencies and universities, and other local partners are 

critical to the success of the reserve system. 

• The reserve system integrates science, education and stewardship on relevant topics to maximize the 

benefits to coastal management. 

• Reserves serve as a catalyst and a focal point for demonstrating and facilitating objective problem 

solving and best management practices. 

• Reserves engage local communities and citizens to improve stewardship of coastal areas. 

• Reserves implement an ecosystem-based management approach. 

NERR System National Programs 

The three major elements of the Reserve System are: 

(1) Research on estuarine habitats and processes, 

(2) Education and interpretation of estuarine processes and 

(3) Resource stewardship. 

NERR System Research and Monitoring Program 

The Reserve System provides a mechanism for addressing scientific and technical aspects of coastal 

management problems through a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and coordinated approach. Research 

and monitoring programs, including the development of baseline information, form the basis of this 

approach. Reserve research and monitoring activities are guided by national plans that identify goals, 

priorities, and implementation strategies for these programs. This approach, when used in combination 

with the education and outreach programs, will help ensure the availability of scientific information that 

has long-term, system-wide, consistency and utility for managers and members of the public to use in 

protecting or improving natural processes in their estuaries. 

NERR System Research Funding Priorities 

Federal regulations 15 C.F.R. 921.50(a) specify the purposes for which research funds are to be used: 

• Support management-related research that will enhance scientific understanding of the Reserve 

ecosystem; 

• Provide information needed by reserve managers and coastal ecosystem policy makers, and; 

• Improve public awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems and estuarine management 

issues. 

The Reserve System has identified the following five priority research areas to complement the funding 

priorities outlined above: 

1. Habitat and ecosystem processes 

2. Anthropogenic influences on estuaries 

3. Habitat conservation and restoration 

4. Species management 

5. Social science and economics 

NERR System Research Goals 

The Reserve System research goals are embedded in Goal 2 of the Reserve System Strategic Plan 2005- 

2010, ‘Increase the use of reserve science and sites to address priority coastal management issues,’ and 

are outlined in the 2006-2011 Reserve System Research and Monitoring Plan. They include: 

• Biological, chemical, physical, and ecological conditions of reserves are characterized and monitored 

to describe reference conditions and to quantify change. 

• Scientists conduct research at reserves that is relevant to coastal management needs and increases 

basic understanding of estuarine processes.

• Scientists have access to NERRS datasets, science products and results. 

• The scientific, coastal management and education communities, as well as the general public, use 

data, products tools, and techniques generated at the NERRS. 

There are two reserve system efforts to fund research on the previously described areas. 

The Graduate Research Fellow (GRF) Program supports students to produce high quality research in 

the reserves. The fellowship provides graduate students with funding for one to three years to conduct 

their research, as well as an opportunity to assist with the research and monitoring program in a 

reserve. Projects must address coastal management issues identified as having regional or national 

significance, relate them to the Reserve System research focus areas, and be conducted at least 

partially within one or more designated reserve sites. Students work with the research coordinator 

or manager at the host reserve to develop a plan to participate in the reserve’s research and/or 

monitoring program. Students are asked to provide up to 15 hours per week of research and/or 

monitoring assistance to the reserve. This training may take place throughout the school year or may 

be concentrated during a specific season. 

Secondly, research is funded through the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental 

Technology (CICEET), a partnership between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire (UNH). 

CICEET uses the capabilities of UNH, the private sector, academic and public research institutions 

throughout the U.S., as well as the 27 reserves in the reserve system, to develop and apply new 

environmental techniques. 

NERR System-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) 

It is the policy of the GTM Research Reserve to implement each phase of the System-wide Monitoring 

Plan initiated by ERD in 1989, and as outlined in the reserve system regulations and strategic plan: 

• Phase I: Environmental Characterization, including studies necessary for inventory and 

comprehensive site descriptions; 

• Phase II: Site Profile, to include a synthesis of data and information; and 

• Phase III: Implementation of the System-wide Monitoring Program. 

The System-wide Monitoring Program provides standardized data on national estuarine environmental 

trends while allowing the flexibility to assess coastal management issues of regional or local concern. 

The principal mission of the monitoring program is to develop quantitative measurements of short-term 

variability and long-term changes in the integrity and biodiversity of representative estuarine ecosystems 

and coastal watersheds for the purposes of contributing to effective coastal zone management. The 

program is designed to enhance the value and vision of the reserves as a system of national reference 

sites. The program currently has three main components and the first is in operation. 

1. Abiotic Variables: The monitoring program currently measures pH, conductivity, salinity, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, turbidity, water level and atmospheric conditions. In addition the program collects 

monthly nutrient and chlorophyll A samples and monthly diel samples at one SWMP data logger 

station. Each reserve uses a set of automated instruments and weather stations to collect these data 

for submission to a centralized data management office. 

2. Biotic Variables: The reserve system will incorporate monitoring of organisms and habitats into the 

monitoring programs as funds become available. The first aspects likely to be incorporated will 

quantify vegetation (e.g., marsh vegetation, submerged aquatic vegetation) patterns and their change 

over space and time. Other aspects that could be incorporated include monitoring infaunal benthic, 

nekton and plankton communities. 

3. Landuse, Habitat Mapping and Change: This component will be developed to identify changes in 

coastal ecological conditions with the goal of tracking and evaluating changes in coastal habitats and 

watershed landuse/cover. The main objective of this element will be to examine the links between 

watershed land use activities and coastal habitat quality. 

These data are compiled electronically at a central data management “hub”, the Centralized Data 

Management Office (CDMO) at the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research 

of the University of South Carolina. They provide additional quality control for data and metadata and 

they compile and disseminate the data and summary statistics via the Web (http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu) 

where researchers, coastal managers and educators readily access the information. The metadata 

meets the standards of the Federal Geographical Data Committee.

NERR System Education Program 

The Reserve System provides a vehicle to increase understanding and awareness of estuarine 

systems and improve decision-making among key audiences to promote stewardship of the nation’s 

coastal resources. Education and interpretation in the reserves incorporate a range of programs and 

methodologies that are systematically tailored to key audiences around priority coastal resource issues 

and incorporates science-based content. Reserve staff members work with local communities and 

regional groups to address coastal resource management issues, such as non-point source pollution, 

habitat restoration and invasive species. Through integrated research and education programs, the 

reserves help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these coastal resource issues. 

Formal and non-formal education and training programs in the NERRS target K-12 students, teachers, 

university and college students and faculty, as well as coastal decision-maker audiences such as 

environmental groups, professionals involved in coastal resource management, municipal and county 

zoning boards, planners, elected officials, landscapers, eco-tour operators and professional associations. 

K-12 and professional development programs for teachers include the use of established coastal and 

estuarine science curricula aligned with state and national science education standards and frequently 

involve both on-site and in-school follow-up activity. Reserve education activities are guided by national 

plans that identify goals, priorities, and implementation strategies for these programs. Education and 

training programs, interpretive exhibits and community outreach programs integrate elements of NERRS 

science, research and monitoring activities and ensure a systematic, multi-faceted, and locally focused 

approach to fostering stewardship. 

NERR System Education Goals 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System’s mission includes an emphasis on education, 

interpretation and outreach. Education policy at the GTM Research Reserve is designed to fulfill the 

reserve system goals as defined in the regulations 15 C.F.R. 921.1(b). Education goals include: 

1. Enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities 

for public education and interpretation; 

2. Conduct and coordinate estuarine research within the system, gathering and making available 

information necessary for improved understanding and management of estuarine areas. 

NERR system Education Objectives 

Education-related objectives in the Reserve System Strategic Plan 2005-2010 include: 

1. People are aware of the ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of estuarine resources. 

2. People understand how human choices and natural disturbances impact social, economic, and 

estuarine ecological systems. 

3.People apply science-based information when making decisions that could impact coastal and 

estuarine resources. 

NERR System Coastal Training Program 

The Coastal Training Program (CTP) provides up-to-date scientific information and skill-building 

opportunities to coastal decision-makers who are responsible for making decisions that affect coastal 

resources. Through this program, National Estuarine Research Reserves can ensure that coastal 

decision-makers have the knowledge and tools they need to address critical resource management 

issues of concern to local communities. 

Coastal training programs offered by reserves relate to coastal habitat conservation and restoration, 

biodiversity, water quality and sustainable resource management and integrate reserve-based research, 

monitoring and stewardship activities. Programs target a range of audiences, such as land-use planners, 

elected officials, regulators, land developers, community groups, environmental non-profits, business 

and applied scientific groups. These training programs provide opportunities for professionals to network 

across disciplines and develop new collaborative relationships to solve complex environmental problems. 

Additionally, the CTP provides a critical feedback loop to ensure that professional audiences inform local 

and regional science and research agendas. Programs are developed in a variety of formats ranging 

from seminars, hands-on skill training, participatory workshops, lectures and technology demonstrations. 

Participants benefit from opportunities to share experiences and network in a multidisciplinary setting, 

often with a reserve-based field activity.

Partnerships are important to the success of the Program. Reserves work closely with state coastal 

programs, Sea Grant College extension and education staff, and a host of local partners in determining 

key coastal resource issues to address, as well as the identification of target audiences. Partnerships with 

local agencies and organizations are critical in the exchange and sharing of expertise and resources to 

deliver relevant and accessible training programs that meet the needs of specific groups. 

The Coastal Training Program requires a systematic program development process, involving periodic 

review of the reserve niche in the training provider market, audience assessments, and development of 

a three to five year program strategy, a marketing plan and the establishment of an advisory group for 

guidance, program review and perspective in program development. The CTP implements a performance 

monitoring system, wherein staff report data in operations progress reports according to a suite of 

performance indicators related to increases in participant understanding, applications of learning and 

enhanced networking with peers and experts to inform programs. 

. / Biogeographic Regions 

NOAA has identified eleven distinct biogeographic regions and 29 subregions in the U.S., each of which 

contains several types of estuarine ecosystems (15 CFR Part 921, for NERR typology system, Figure 3). 

The GTM Research Reserve is within the Carolinian biogeographic region within the east Florida 

subregion. The location’s relatively pristine condition and unique climate and biodiversity are well suited 

to being designated as a Research Reserve. Community leaders along with state, federal and local 

governments have preserved extensive areas in the watershed of the GTM Research Reserve resulting 

in some of the country’s most pristine freshwater, tidal creek and estuarine habitats. Consequently, the 

GTM Research Reserve provides a unique setting to conduct research and monitoring and to set goals for 

protecting and restoring other estuaries in the region. 

Many species of subtropical and temperate plants and animals co-inhabit the GTM Research Reserve 

making it an ideal location to study climate change and other global ecological processes. The GTM 

Research Reserve also serves as an important habitat for migrating species including calving North 

American right whales and serves as a critical feeding and resting location for migrating shorebirds 

along the North American Atlantic flyway. In addition, the GTM Research Reserve is located in a 

region with the oldest record of European occupation and has a rich assortment of cultural resources 

dating to the pre-Columbian era, thereby providing a valuable resource for archaeological research 

and interpretation. 

When complete, the NERR System will contain examples of estuarine hydrologic and biological types 

characteristic of each biogeographic region. As of 2007, the NERR System included 27 reserves and 

three reserves in the process of designation (Figure 4). 

. / Reserve Designation and Operation 

Under Federal law (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1461), a state can nominate an estuarine 

ecosystem for Research Reserve status so long as the site meets the following conditions: 

• The area is representative of its biogeographic region, is suitable for long-term research and 

contributes to the biogeographical and typological balance of the System; 

• The law of the coastal State provides long-term protection for the proposed Reserve’s resources to 

ensure a stable environment for research; 

• Designation of the site as a Reserve will serve to enhance public awareness and understanding of 

estuarine areas, and provide suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation; and 

• The coastal State has complied with the requirements of any regulations issued by the Secretary 

[of Commerce]. 

Reserve boundaries must include an adequate portion of the key land and water areas of the natural 

system to approximate an ecological unit and to ensure effective conservation. 

If the proposed site is accepted into the Reserve system, it is eligible for NOAA financial assistance 

on a cost-share basis with the state. The state exercises administrative and management control, 

consistent with its obligations to NOAA, as outlined in a memorandum of understanding. A Reserve 

may apply to NOAA’s ERD for funds to help support operations, research, monitoring, education/ 

interpretation, stewardship, development projects, facility construction, and land acquisition.

. / Administrative Framework 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a federal-state partnership program. The ERD of 

the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) administers the reserve system. The 

OCRM is part of NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) (Figure 5). The Division establishes standards 

for designating and operating reserves, 

provides support for Reserve operations 

and system-wide programming, 

undertakes projects that benefit 

the reserve system, and integrates 

information from individual reserves 

to support decision-making at the 

national level. As required by Federal 

regulation, 15 CFR Part 921.40, OCRM 

(CZMA Section 312) periodically 

evaluates reserves for compliance with 

Federal requirements and with the 

individual Reserve’s Federally-approved 

management plan. 

The ERD currently provides support 

for four system-wide programs: the 

System-Wide Monitoring Program, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Estuarine Reserves Division 

Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve 

Figure 5 / Federal structure for managing national estuarine 

reseach reserves. 

the Graduate Research Fellowship Program, the K-12 Education Program, and the Coastal Training 

Program. They also provide support for Reserve initiatives on restoration science, invasive species, 

K-12 education, and Reserve specific research, monitoring, education, and resource stewardship 

initiatives and programs. 

The state interest is represented through one or more state agencies, typically agencies charged with 

environmental, wildlife or coastal management responsibilities. States usually administer Reserve 

personnel and day-to-day Reserve management. For Florida, the agency that manages the NERRs is the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas.

Aesthetics value, although hard to quantify, provides unique experiences supporting local tourism. 

Chapter Three 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 


The DEP protects, conserves, and manages Florida’s natural resources and enforces the State’s 

environmental laws. The DEP is the lead agency in state government for environmental management 

and stewardship and commands one of the broadest charges of all the state agencies, protecting 

Florida’s air, water, and land. The DEP is divided into three primary areas: Regulatory Programs, Land and 

Recreation, and Planning and Management. Florida’s environmental priorities include restoring America’s 

Everglades; improving air quality; restoring and protecting the water quality in our springs, lakes, rivers 

and coastal waters; conserving environmentally-sensitive lands; and providing citizens and visitors with 

recreational opportunities, now and in the future. 

Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) is the unit within the DEP that manages more than four 

million acres of submerged lands and select coastal uplands. This includes three National Estuarine 

Research Reserves (NERRs), forty-one aquatic preserves, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) and the Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). The three NERRs, the Sanctuary, and the 

CRCP are managed in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

CAMA manages sites in Florida for the conservation and protection of natural and historical resources 

and resource-based public use that is compatible with the conservation and protection of these lands. 

CAMA is a strong supporter of the NERR system and its approach to coastal ecosystem management. 

The State of Florida has three designated NERR sites, each encompassing at least one aquatic 

preserve within its boundaries. Rookery Bay NERR includes Rookery Bay Aquatic preserve and Cape 

Romano – Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic preserve; Apalachicola NERR includes Apalachicola Bay

6 

Aquatic preserve; and Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR includes Guana River Marsh Aquatic preserve 

and Pellicer Creek Aquatic preserve. These aquatic preserves provide discrete areas designated for 

additional protection beyond that of the surrounding NERR and may afford a foundation for additional 

protective zoning in the future. 

Each of the Florida NERR managers serves as a regional manager overseeing multiple aquatic preserves 

in their region. This management structure advances CAMA’s ability to manage its sites as a part of the 

larger statewide system. 

. / State Management Authority 

Established by law, aquatic preserves are submerged lands of exceptional beauty that are to be 

maintained in their natural or existing conditions. The intent was to forever set aside submerged lands 

with exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific values as sanctuaries, called aquatic preserves, for 

the benefit of future generations. 

The laws supporting aquatic preserve management are the direct result of the public’s awareness of and 

interest in protecting Florida’s aquatic environment. The rampant dredge and fill activities that occurred 

in the late 1960s spawned this widespread public concern. In 1966, the Trustees created the first aquatic 

preserve, Estero Bay, in Lee County. 

In 1967, the Florida Legislature passed the Randall Act (Chapter 67-393, Laws of Florida), which 

established procedures regulating previously unrestricted dredge and fill activities on state-owned 

submerged lands. That same year, the legislature provided the statutory authority (§253.03, Florida 

Statutes (F.S.)) for the Trustees to exercise proprietary control over state-owned lands. Also in 1967, 

government focus on protecting Florida’s productive water bodies from degradation due to development 

led the Trustees to establish a moratorium on the sale of submerged lands to private interests. An 

Interagency Advisory Committee (IAC) was created to develop strategies for the protection and 

management of state-owned submerged lands. 

In 1968, the Florida Constitution was revised to declare in Article II, Section 7, the state’s policy of 

conserving and protecting natural resources and areas of scenic beauty. That constitutional provision 

also established the authority for the legislature to enact measures for the abatement of air and water 

pollution. Later that same year, the IAC issued a report recommending the establishment of twenty-six 

aquatic preserves. 

The Trustees acted on this recommendation in 1969 by establishing sixteen aquatic preserves and 

adopting a resolution for statewide system of such preserves. In 1975 the state legislature passed the 

Florida Aquatic preserve Act of 1975 (Act) that was enacted as Chapter 75-172, Laws of Florida, and later 

became Chapter 258, Part II, F.S. This Act codified the already existing aquatic preserves and established 

standards and criteria for activities within those preserves. Additional aquatic preserves were individually 

adopted at subsequent times up through 1989. 

Originally adopted by the Trustees in 1981, the Conceptual State Lands Management Plan also 

provides essential guidance concerning the management of sovereignty lands and aquatic preserves 

and their important resources, including unique natural features, seagrasses, endangered species, 

and archaeological and historical resources. CAMA’s management plans must be consistent with the 

Conceptual State Lands Management Plan. 

Through delegation of authority from the Trustees, the DEP and CAMA have proprietary authority to 

manage the sovereignty lands, the water column, spoil islands (which are merely deposits on sovereignty 

lands), and some of the natural islands and select coastal uplands to which the Trustees holds title. 

NERR sites include state-owned uplands in addition to sovereignty lands. Florida’s first acquisition 

program was born in 1963 as the Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF), which funded the Outdoor 

Recreation and Conservation Program to purchase park and other recreational areas. The 

Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program was created in 1972. 

In 1979, the current Division of State Lands (DSL) was created within the Florida Department of Natural 

Resources, a predecessor agency to the DEP. The same year the legislature substantially amended 

Chapter 253, F.S., pertaining to the use and management of state lands and created the Conservation 

and Recreation Lands (CARL) program to replace EEL. CARL and its successors were eventually 

codified in Chapter 259, F.S. 1981 saw the establishment of the Save Our Coast (SOC) program, which 

augmented the LATF to focus on coastline purchases. CARL eventually subsumed the responsibilities 

of both SOC and LATF.

Preservation 2000 Program commenced in 1990 to fund CARL and other acquisition initiatives. 

Preservation 2000 was intended as a ten-year program and was succeeded by Florida Forever Program 

at the end of its course. Florida Forever has replaced CARL and continues to provide for the evaluation of 

land for acquisition and inclusion within the boundaries of Florida’s three NERRs. 

Enforcement of state statutes and rules relating to criminal violations and non-criminal infractions rests 

with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Marine Patrol, DEP law enforcement, 

and local law enforcement agencies. Enforcement of administrative remedies rests with CAMA, the DEP 

Districts, and Water Management Districts (WMD). 

. / State Statutory Authority 

The fundamental laws providing management authority for the aquatic preserves are contained in 

Chapters 258 and 253, F.S. These statutes establish the proprietary role of the Governor and Cabinet, 

sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Trustees), as Trustees over 

all sovereignty lands. In addition, these statutes empower the Trustees to adopt and enforce rules and 

regulations for managing all sovereignty lands, including aquatic preserves. The Florida Aquatic preserve 

Act was enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1975 and is codified in Chapter 258, F.S. 

The legislative intent for establishing aquatic preserves is stated in Section 258.36, F.S.: “It is the intent 

of the Legislature that the state-owned submerged lands in areas which have exceptional biological, 

aesthetic, and scientific value, as hereinafter described, be set aside forever as aquatic preserves 

or sanctuaries for the benefit of future generations.” This statement, along with the other applicable 

laws, provides a foundation for the management of aquatic preserves. Management will emphasize 

the preservation of natural conditions and will include only sovereignty or state-owned lands that are 

specifically authorized for inclusion as part of an aquatic preserve. 

Management responsibilities for aquatic preserves may be fulfilled directly by the Trustees or by staff of the 

DEP through delegation of authority. Other governmental bodies may also participate in the management 

of aquatic preserves under appropriate instruments of authority issued by the Trustees. CAMA staff serves 

as the primary managers who implement provisions of the management plans and rules applicable to the 

aquatic preserves. CAMA does not “regulate” the lands per se; rather, that is done primarily by the DEP 

Districts (in addition to the Water Management Districts (WMD) and the Division of Aquaculture in the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)), which grant regulatory permits and--through 

delegated authority from the Trustees--proprietary authorizations for certain public and private uses within 

the aquatic preserves. Staff evaluates proposed uses or activities in the aquatic preserve and assesses the 

possible impacts on the natural resources. Project reviews are primarily evaluated in accordance with the 

criteria in the Act, Chapter 18-20, F.A.C., and this management plan. 

Staff comments and those of the public are submitted to the appropriate permitting staff for consideration 

in their issuance of any delegated authorizations in aquatic preserves or in developing recommendations 

to be presented to the Trustees. This mechanism provides a basis for the Trustees to evaluate public 

interest and the merits of any project while also considering potential environmental impacts to the 

aquatic preserves. Any activity located on sovereignty lands will require a letter of consent, a lease, an 

easement, or other approval from the Trustees. 

The same authorities in Chapters 258 and 253, F.S., discussed above, provide management directives 

relevant to the NERRs. Of critical importance, Section 253.86 grants CAMA the explicit authority to 

promulgate rules for the management of uplands assigned to its management. Additionally, NERR 

management must take into account Chapter 259, F.S., which authorizes and governs acquisition and 

use of lands to conserve and protect important habitats, wildlife, water resources, and archaeological 

sites in accordance with the Land Conservation Act of 1972. Land managing agencies must prepare 

management plans in compliance with guidelines established in Chapter 259, F.S. Once again, 

the Trustees fulfill the proprietary management overview role for the NERRs, with management 

responsibilities assigned to staff acting as “agents” of the Trustees, pursuant to delegations of authority, 

management agreements, and other legal mechanisms. Typically, a lease agreement with the Trustees 

delegates management authority for the uplands assigned to the DEP and CAMA. Leases for Trustees 

lands within this NERR are included in Appendix B 7. 

Many provisions of the Florida Statutes that empower non-CAMA programs within DEP or other agencies 

may be important to the management of CAMA sites. For example, Chapter 403, F.S., authorizes DEP 

to create rules concerning the designation of “Outstanding Florida Waters,” a designation program 

that provides aquatic preserves with additional regulatory protection. Chapter 370, F.S, regulates

saltwater fisheries and provides enforcement authority and powers for law enforcement officers within 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Chapter 597 F.S. regulates the use of 

submerged lands for aquaculture. Likewise, Chapter 372, F.S., provides similar powers relating to wildlife 

management. Because the NERR boundaries encompass areas directly managed by other state and 

federal agencies, interested parties should refer to the management plans produced by the relevant 

agencies for those parcels for a discussion of their legal authorities. The sheer number of statutes that 

affect NERR management prevents an exhaustive list of all such laws from being provided here. 

. / State Administrative Rules 

Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C., are the three administrative rules directly applicable to the uses 

allowed in aquatic preserves specifically and sovereignty lands generally. These rules are intended to be 

cumulative, meaning that Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., should be read together with Chapter 18-18, F.A.C., or 

Chapter 18-20, F.A.C., to determine what activities are permissible within an aquatic preserve. If Chapter 

18-18, F.A.C., or Chapter 18-20, F.A.C., are silent on an issue, Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., will control; if a 

conflict is perceived between the rules, the stricter standards of Chapter 18-18, F.A.C., or Chapter 18-20, 

F.A.C., supersede those of Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. Because Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. concerns all sovereignty 

lands, it is logical to discuss its provisions first. 

Originally codified in 1982, Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., is meant “to aid in fulfilling the trust and fiduciary 

responsibilities of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for the administration, 

management and disposition of sovereignty lands. The intent of this legislation is 1) to ensure maximum 

benefit and use of sovereignty lands for all the citizens of Florida; 2) to manage, protect, and enhance 

sovereignty lands so that the public may continue to enjoy traditional uses including, but not limited to, 

navigation, fishing, and swimming; to manage and provide maximum protection for all sovereignty lands, 

especially those important to public drinking water supply, shellfish harvesting, public recreation, and fish 

and wildlife propagation and management; 3) to ensure that all public and private activities on sovereignty 

lands which generate revenues or exclude traditional public uses provide just compensation for such 

privileges; and 4) to aid in the implementation of the State Lands Management Plan.” 

To that end, Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., contains provisions on general management policies, forms of 

authorization for activities on sovereignty lands, and fees applicable for those activities. “Activity,” in the 

context of the rule, includes “construction of docks, piers, boat ramps, board walks, mooring pilings, 

dredging of channels, filling, removal of logs, sand, silt, clay, gravel or shell, and the removal or planting 

of vegetation.” (Rule 18-21.003, F.A.C.) To be authorized on sovereignty lands, activities must be not 

contrary to the public interest. (Rule 18-21.004, F.A.C.) 

Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., also sets policies on aquaculture, geophysical testing, and special events related 

to boat shows and boat displays. Of particular importance to CAMA site management, it additionally 

addresses spoil islands, preventing their development in most cases. 

Chapters 18-18 and 18-20, F.A.C., apply standards and criteria for activities in the aquatic preserves 

that are stricter than those of Chapter 18-21, F.A.C. Chapter 18-18, F.A.C., is specific to the Biscayne 

Bay Aquatic preserve and is more extensively described in that site’s management plan. Chapter 

18-20, F.A.C., is applicable to all other aquatic preserves. It further restricts the type of activities for 

which authorizations may be granted for use of sovereignty lands and requires that structures that are 

authorized be limited to those necessary to conduct water dependent activities. Moreover, for certain 

activities to be authorized, “it must be demonstrated that no other reasonable alternative exists which 

would allow the proposed activity to be constructed or undertaken outside the preserve.” (Paragraph 

18-20.004(1)(g), F.A.C.) 

Chapter 18-20, F.A.C., expands on the definition of “public interest” by outlining a balancing test that is 

to be used to determine whether benefits exceed costs in the evaluation of requests for sale, lease, or 

transfer of interest of sovereignty lands within an aquatic preserve. The rule also provides for the analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of a request in the context of prior, existing, and pending uses within the aquatic 

preserve, including both direct and indirect effects. 

Chapter 18-20, F.A.C., directs management plans and resource inventories to be developed for every 

aquatic preserve. Further, the rule provides provisions specific to certain Aquatic preserves and indicates 

the means by which the Trustees can establish new or expand existing Aquatic preserves. 

NERRs, because they manage uplands in addition to their oversight of sovereignty lands within Aquatic 

preserves, must follow the provisions of Chapter 18-2, F.A.C., Chapter 18-23, F.A.C., and Chapter 18-24, 

F.A.C. Chapter 18-2, F.A.C., establishes policies concerning use of uplands owned by the Trustees and

managed by state entities. Originally codified in 1996, this rule expands upon the guidelines set forth in 

the Conceptual State Lands Management Plan. It requires that uses of the uplands be not contrary to the 

public interest and mandates that direct and indirect impacts and cumulative effects be considered as 

part of the public interest determination. 

Chapter 18-23, F.A.C., supplements Chapter 18-2, F.A.C., by establishing guidelines and criteria 

specifically for uplands managed by CAMA. It limits certain activities on these uplands, such as hunting 

and admission of pets, “to conserve, preserve and restore the natural and cultural resources and ensure 

the safety and enjoyment of visitors.” (Subsection 18-23.007(2), F.A.C.) The rule provides a schedule of 

fines for violations of these policies, which are considered non-criminal infractions. 

Chapter 18-24, F.A.C., delineates procedures specific to the use of monies from the Florida Forever 

Trust Fund for the acquisition and restoration of uplands. It also prescribes the procedures that are to be 

followed by the Acquisition and Restoration Council in advising the Trustees in administering the Florida 

Forever Program. 

As with statutes, Aquatic preserve management relies on the application of many other DEP and outside 

agency rules. Perhaps most notably, Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., concerns the classification of surface 

waters, including criteria for “Outstanding Florida Waters” (OFW), a designation that provides for the 

State’s highest level of protection for water quality. An Outstanding Florida Water, (OFW), is a water body 

designated worthy (under authority of Section 403.061 (27), F.S.) of special protection because of its 

natural attributes and is intended to protect existing good water quality. All Aquatic preserves contain 

OFW designations. No activity may be permitted within an OFW that degrades ambient water quality 

unless the activity is determined to be in the public interest.

Natural lighting is essential for conserving natural biodiversity and also benefits photographers and 

other artists. 

Chapter Four 

The Guana Tolomato Matanzas 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM Research Reserve) 

. / Acquisition and Designation History of the GTM Research Reserve 

In 1957, the state of Florida, through the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, leased 

approximately 12,000 acres, the bulk of the Guana River peninsula, from several investment companies. 

In 1982 the property was purchased by Gate Petroleum from Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co., which was 

then owned by Phillips Petroleum Company. 

Two years later, in 1984, the state of Florida purchased through its Conservation and Recreation Lands and 

Save Our Coast programs approximately 12,000 acres of the Guana River peninsula for $48 million dollars. 

The Guana River system was designated an aquatic preserve in 1985 for the primary purpose of preserving 

the biological resources in the area and maintaining these resources in thier essentially natural condition. 

Under the state’s ownership, on January 8, 1988, BTIITF conveyed management authority of Guana River 

State Park (approximately 2,488.98) acres to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of 

Recreation and Parks (DRP) under Lease No. 3462. 

The site selection process for Florida’s east coast Research Reserve began in September of 1991, with the 

identification of candidate estuaries in the Florida East Coast Carolinian and West Indian biogeographic 

regions identified by the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System. The Guana Tolomato Matanzas 

ecosystem was selected as the preferred alternative by a committee of scientists, environmental educators, 

and coastal managers on the basis of its overall potential for scientific research and environmental education 

opportunities and because of its relative pristine condition. The GTM Research Reserve’s ultimate purpose is 

to serve as a platform for research that guides environmental education and stewardship programs focused on 

the conservation of northeast Florida’s unique natural and cultural resources. 

After obtaining support from the citizens and legislators of St. Johns and Flagler counties, the Governor 

and Cabinet of the State of Florida nominated the estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, 

Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers for designation as a NERR. The GTM Research Reserve was officially 

designated on August 19, 1999. Presently this designation includes 12 distinct management units; two 

of these are directly managed by the Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) (Pellicer

Creek Aquatic Preserve (PCAP) and portions of the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (GRMAP). 

On December 15, 2003 the BTIITF assigned, transferred and conveyed 100% of the title and interest of 

Lease No. 3462 (formally DEP/DRP’s Guana River State Park) to DEP/CAMA for the remainder of the 

terms of the lease. This lease will expire on January 8, 2038. 

In addition, the GTM Research Reserve is also responsible for managing State sovereign submerged 

lands within the Matanzas River and its tributaries inside the GTM Research Reserve designated boundary 

(Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998). This plan is the first update to the GTM Research 

Reserve management plan (BTIITF Approved November 10 th , 1998). 

. / Resource Description 

. . / GTM Research Reserve Mission 

The GTM Research Reserve’s mission is to achieve the conservation of natural biodiversity and cultural 

resources by using the results of research and monitoring to guide science-based stewardship and 

education strategies. 

. . / International/National/State/Regional Significance 

The diversity of communities present in the GTM Research Reserve provides habitat for a wide variety 

of fish and wildlife. A species list recently compiled for the GRMAP indicates the presence of at least 44 

mammal, 358 bird, 41 reptile, 21 amphibian, 303 fish, and 580 plant species. Many more species are 

expected to occur in the GTM Research Reserve. 

The GTM Research Reserve contains habitats essential to many protected species (eight plants and 

forty-eight animals) including the Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma), 

gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), least tern (Sterna antillarum), marine turtles: loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacia) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). In addition, the striped newt (Notopthalmus perstriatus), one 

of Florida’s rarest vertebrate species, occurs within the GTM Research Reserve. Some of the many rare 

listed birds of the GTM Research Reserve include: great egret (Ardea alba), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), 

black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nyticorax), least tern (Sterna antillarum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana) and roseate spoonbill 

(Ajaia ajaja). The rare Atlantic geoduck (Panopea bitruncata) has also been recorded in the GTM Research 

Reserve. The GTM Research Reserve continues to expand its role to facilitate and conduct research 

and monitoring, stewardship and education strategies designed to enhance our ability to monitor the 

condition of these species and to conserve their habitats. 

Many species of commercial value are known to use the GTM Research Reserve’s estuary for all or part 

of their life cycle. These species include oysters (Crassostrea virginica), quahog clams (Mercenaria spp.), 

blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), 

brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), striped and white mullet (Mugil cephalus and M. curema), gag grouper 

(Myctoperca microlepis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), lane 

snapper (L. synagris), flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma and P. dentatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), 

menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum). Management strategies 

to conserve and restore natural habitats supporting sustainable populations of these species are an 

important management priority for the GTM Research Reserve. 

Recreationally valuable species provide a valuable economic incentive for long-term conservation of 

the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources. Species important to the local sports fishery that are 

found in the GTM Research Reserve include tarpon (Tarpon atlanticus), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion 

nebulosus), weakfish (C. regalis), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), 

black drum (Pogonias cromis), spot (Leiostomous xanthurus), croaker (Micropogon undulatus), 

sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), crevalle jack (Carynx hippos), gag grouper (Myctoperca 

microlepis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), lane snapper (L. 

synagris), Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), flounder (Paralichthys sp.), striped mullet (Mugil 

cephalus), and sailor’s choice (Haemulon parri). Habitat and species management based on the best 

available scientific information is required to sustain this valuable resource. 

In addition to these natural resources the GTM Research Reserve contains a unique array of cultural 

resources. This ecosystem has been used by humans for over 5,000 years (Baker, 1988; Newman, 1995). 

Artifacts found in the GTM Research Reserve area range from an arrowhead from the late Archaic (2500- 

1000 BC) to pottery from the 19th century.

. . / Location/Boundaries 

The GTM Research Reserve is located south of the City of Jacksonville (Duval County) in St. 

Johns County and Flagler County on the northeast coast of Florida. The GTM Research Reserve 

is geographically separated into a northern and southern component, separated by the City of St. 

Augustine (Figure 1, Page 2). The northern component (referred to locally as Guana) is associated 

with the Tolomato and Guana River estuaries 

and the southern component is associated with 

the Matanzas River. The northern component 

consists of GRMAP, Guana River Wildlife 

Management Area (GRWMA), Stokes Landing 

Conservation Area and Deep Creek State Forest. 

The GTM Environmental Education Center 

(EEC) is located in the northern component 

of the GTM Research Reserve ten miles north 

of St. Augustine on State Road A1A in Ponte 

Vedra Beach, and serves as the administrative, 

education, research, and stewardship facilities 

for the northern component of the GTM Research 

Reserve. The southern component of the GTM 

Research Reserve consists of PCAP, Faver-Dykes 

State Park, Washington Oaks Gardens State 

Park, Moses Creek Conservation Area, Pellicer 

Creek Conservation Area, Fort Matanzas National 

Monument, Princess Place Preserve, The 

River to Sea Preserve at Marineland, and other 

State sovereign submerged lands within the 

Matanzas River and its tributaries inside the GTM 

Research Reserve designated boundary that 

were classified as Class II or Outstanding Florida 

Waters as of 1998 (Chapter 17-302.600(3)(b)55 

and 17-302.600(3)(b)18 F.A.C.; Florida 

Æ· 

Department of Environmental Protection, 1998). 

This area includes tidally submerged State 

sovereign adjacent to and within the Intracoastal 

Waterway and its tributaries, excluding the 

Treasure Beach Canal System - from Intracoastal 

Waterway marker number 29, south to an eastwest 

line through marker number 109). The 

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement 

Trust Fund (the Trustees) has designated CAMA 

to manage the GRMAP (excluding the Guana 

River Wildlife Management Area) and the PCAP. 

Copies of the management lease agreement can CAMA Managed Lands (Northern) 

be seen by contacting the Research Reserve, the ^_ GTM Research Reserve Offices 

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, or 


DEP’s Division of State Lands. 

A1A 

£¤ 1 

§¨¦ 95 

. . / Adjacent Public Lands 

and Conservation Areas 

Northern Component 

Adjacent to and within the watershed of GRMAP 

are significant public lands managed by various 

state and local agencies (Figure 6). Adjacent 

public lands include GRWMA, Deep Creek State 

Forest, Stokes Landing Conservation Area, 

Nocatee Preserve, Davis Park, and a portion 

of the Twelve Mile Swamp Tract including the 

Twelve Mile Swamp Wildlife Management Area 

and Conservation Area. 


Adjacent Conservation Lands (Northern) 

Anastasia & Ft. Mose State Parks 

12-Mile Swamp/WMA 

Deep Creek State Forest 

^_ 

Guana River Wildlife Management Area 

Pa 

lm 

Stokes Landing Conservation Area Co 

ast 

Nocatee Preserve (Private) 

0 1 2 Miles 

± 

May 2008 

Figure 6 / Adjacent public lands and resources of 

the GTM Research Reserve’s northern component.

Nocatee Preserve is a 2,400 acre parcel of salt marsh, floodplain forest, and silviculture donated to St 

Johns County by the PARC Corporation, developers of the town of Nocatee. The purpose of this parcel 

is to provide conservation of wildlife and passive recreation. The preserve is adjacent to the northwestern 

boundary of the GRMAP providing three miles of natural shoreline and serving as a buffer to the 

developments of Nocatee. 

§¨¦ 95 

^_ 

£¤ 1 

Æ· A1A 

CAMA Managed Lands (Southern) 


^_ 

P alm 

C oast 

± 

GTM Research Reserve Southern Component 

Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve 

GTM Research Reserve Office (Marineland) 

Adjacent Conservation Lands (Southern) 

River To Sea Preserve 

Faver-Dykes State Park 

Ft. Matanzas National Monument 

Matanzas State Forest 

Moses Creek Conservation Area 

Pellicer Creek Conservation Area 

Princess Place Preserve 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park 

Greenberg Property 

0 1 2 

Miles 

Æ· A1A 

May 2008 

Figure / Adjacent public lands and resources of 

the GTM Research Reserve’s southern component. 

Davis Park is a 138 acre county park located 

west of the GRMAP along County Road (CR) 

210, (Palm Valley) road. This park is developed 

for recreational activities including baseball 

fields, soccer fields, softball fields, and football 

fields. The natural portions of the park include 

freshwater wetlands and pine silviculture. 

Twelve Mile Swamp tract is comprised of 

the 21,898 acre Twelve Mile Swamp Wildlife 

Management Area and the 378 acre Twelve Mile 

Swamp Conservation Area. This entire tract is 

currently under a long-term timber reservation. 

Approximately 700 acres of this tract lie within 

the watershed of the GRMAP. 

Stokes Landing Conservation Area is 274.04acres. 

The conservation area is located in St. 

Johns County, approximately 3 miles north of 

downtown St. Augustine. This area is open to the 

public for recreational activities such as hiking, 

bicycling, wildlife viewing, and fishing. 

Southern Component 

The immediate watershed of PCAP is composed 

almost entirely of conservation lands including 

Matanzas State Forest, Faver Dykes State Park, 

Pellicer Creek Conservation Area, and the 

Princess Place Preserve. 

This PCAP is bounded almost entirely by 

conservation lands (Figure 7). On the north 

bank from Faver Dykes State Park to I-95, and 

between I-95 and US-1 upland property is 

owned by local residents. At this point in time, 

limited upland development and low usage of 

Pellicer Creek have minimized existing humanassociated 

disturbance. 

Fort Matanzas National Monument is located about 

15 miles south of the historic district of St. 

Augustine, Florida on SR A1A. Fort Matanzas 

guarded the southern inlet leading to the first 

permanent European settlement in continental 

United States. As such, Fort Matanzas represents 

one of the oldest and most well preserved historical 

structures within GTM Research Reserve. The 

original national monument site consisted of only 

the fort on Rattlesnake Island. Through the years, 

however, the National Park Service has been able 

to acquire additional land both on Rattlesnake and 

on Anastasia Island to set aside a slice of an intact 

barrier island ecosystem. The river and ocean 

beaches as well as the .6 mile nature trail offer 

visitors the opportunity to view a variety of plants 

and wildlife native to this ecosystem.

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park is located in Flagler County about 20 miles south of the City 

of St. Augustine. The park is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway (AIWW) on the west and consists of 423.31 acres. In the management of Washington Oaks 

Gardens State Park emphasis is placed on the natural and cultural resources and the maintenance and 

enhancement of the gardens. Recreational uses are passive. Development in the park has been limited 

to the gardens, picnicking, nature trails and necessary support facilities. Park programs emphasize 

interpretation of the park’s natural and cultural attributes. 

Faver-Dykes State Park is located in St. Johns County and is bordered east, north and south with 

conservation lands. Although some of this property was logged prior to state purchase and is being 

restored, the overall significance of this property remains. At Faver-Dykes State Park, public outdoor 

recreation and conservation is the designated use of the property. Faver-Dykes State Park contains 

6,045.89 acres. 

Moses Creek Conservation Area is located 

in St. Johns County south of St. Augustine 

and is within the Northern Coastal Basin. 

The property lies in the area of confluence 

of Moses Creek and the Matanzas River. 

The property is bounded to the north 

by a housing development, to the west 

by schools, and to the south by small 

neighborhoods and SR 206. The eastern 

boundary of the property is the Matanzas 

River. Moses Creek Conservation Area 

comprises approximately 2,173 acres. 

Pellicer Creek Conservation Area is 

located in northeastern Flagler County, 

lies along the southern shoreline of 

Pellicer Creek and contains approximately 

2,997 acres. The site has about 6.3 miles 

of frontage along Pellicer Creek and is 

located approximately 1.5 miles west of 

the Matanzas River, which is part of the 

Intracoastal Waterway. 

The Princess Place Preserve, managed 

by Flagler County, is located on a knoll 

overlooking the confluence of Pellicer 

Creek and the Intracoastal Waterway, 

the estate was once home to a Russian 

Princess. It was built as a hunting lodge 

in 1886 by Henry Cutting and is the oldest 

standing structure in the county. Princess 

Place has a rich history and contains 1500 

pristine acres. 

The River to Sea Preserve, also managed 

by Flagler County, is located on both 

sides of SR A1A in Marineland. It is jointly 

owned by Flagler County and the Town 

of Marineland. Beginning at the beach of 

the Atlantic Ocean and reaching west to 

the Matanzas River (Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway), the River to Sea Preserve 

protects a rapidly disappearing maritime 

scrub environment. The 90 acre preserve 

offers walking trails nature vistas, 

ecological education opportunities as well 

as public access to the beach. 

GTM Research 

Reserve Boundary 

Watershed Boundary 

Future Land Use Classification 

Agricultural 

Timberlands 

Conservation 

Recreation 

Residential 

Mixed Commercial/Residential 

Commercial 

Municipal 

Public/Institutional 

Industrial 

Airport 

Misc 

Data Sources: St. Johns County, 

Flagler County, & City of Palm Coast 

Planning Departments. 

Classification methodology differs 

between planning departments. 

± 

0 2.5 5 

Miles 

May 2008 

Figure / Projected future land use adjacent to the 

GTM Research Reserve.

6 

. . / Surrounding Demographic Data and Future Projections 

The populations of St. Johns County and the adjacent Flagler, Putnam, and Volusia counties have grown 

25 percent since 1990, and are projected to grow an additional 20 percent by 2010 (BEBR, University of 

Florida, 2002; Figure 8). As of 2000, 17 percent of residents in these counties were in the 0-14 age group, 

36.4 percent in the 15-44 age group, 25.6 percent in the 45-64 age group, and 21 percent were aged 65 

and over, which is a higher state average for the 45 

and older groupings (BEBR, University of Florida, 

2002). Nearly 1,339,800 people reside within 

Ponte 

Vedra 

Beach 

^_ 

St. Augustine 


Reserve Offices 



^_ 


Reserve Watershed 

Highways 

Æ· A1A 

§¨¦ 95 

£¤ 

Sea Level 

Data Source: St Johns County 

0 2.5 5 Miles 


Matanzas 

Inlet 

^_ 

Palm 

Coast 

Elevation in feet 

5 - 7 

7 - 11 

11 - 14 

14 - 16 

16 - 19 

19 - 21 

21 - 22 

Figure / Topography of the watershed of the 

GTM Research Reserve. 

Æ· A1A 

± 

22 - 24 

24 - 26 

26 - 29 

29 - 31 

31 - 33 

33 - 34 

34 - 39 

39 - 70 

No Data 

June 2007 

50 miles of the GTM Research Reserve, which 

includes the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, 

Palatka, Daytona and New Smyrna (U.S. Bureau of 

the Census, 2000). 

Increasing development will most likely affect the 

timing, quantity and quality of freshwater entering 

the PCAP. More than 1 million people live within 

a 60 mile radius of Pellicer Creek. The northeast 

Florida region (Baker, Clay, Duval, Flagler, Nassau, 

Putnam and St. Johns counties) is one of the fastest 

growing regions in the state. It has experienced a 22 

percent increase in population between 1990 and 

2000. By 2015, the region is expected to grow by 

an additional 20 percent. In addition, over 3 million 

tourists visited the region in 2006. 

According to the US Census Bureau, Flagler 

County’s population increased 53 percent over a 

five-year period from 2001-2006. The population 

of St. Johns County grew by 47 percent between 

1990 and 2000. Residential development 

and the infrastructure necessary to support 

these developments will impact the amount of 

impervious surface in the watershed and adversely 

affect the levels of nonpoint source pollutants 

entering the aquatic preserve. 

To meet the challenges associated with 

increased development and population the GTM 

Research Reserve must work cooperatively 

with local, state and national partners to ensure 

the best available science-based information 

is used to make decisions affecting coastal 

resources. The goal of the research with respect 

to watershed issues is to reduce the impact of 

watershed landuse on coastal resources by 

identifying priority pollutants and encouraging 

best management practices in partnership 

with state, federal and local agencies, colleges 

and universities, private industry and citizens. 

Specific research, stewardship and education 

strategies will be presented in the issue 

characterization section of this plan. 

. .6 / Topography and Geomorphology 

The GTM Research Reserve’s coastal estuaries 

are bounded to the west by the Pamlico Terrace, 

which has an elevation of 5 to 25 feet above sea 

level. The topography present today was formed 

over the last 10,000 years and is composed 

of remnant beach and dune ridges, swamps, 

marshes, tidal flats, creeks, rivers, and estuarine

lagoon bottoms (Figure 9). The elevation within the GTM Research Reserve ranges from sea level to 

40 feet on the dunes within its northern component and in the central regions of the Pellicer Creek 

Conservation Area. 

The GTM Research Reserve is located in the lower part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The coastal region 

occupies a physiographic division known as the Coastal Lowlands. This region of the Florida Plateau is 

described by Cooke (1945) as a belt of land along 

the coast, extending 30 to 60 miles inland, that 

is flat, poorly drained, and characterized by the 

ancient marine terraces and dune ridges. 

There are seven or possibly eight marine terraces, 

each formed at different sea levels during the 

Pleistocene epoch (White, 1970). These terraces 

were formed prehistorically by waves, currents, 

and the rise and fall of sea levels. When the sea 

level remained stationary for long periods, the 

waves and currents would erode the sea floor to 

form a fairly level surface. Each time the sea level 

dropped, a part of the sea floor was exposed 

as a level plain or terrace. The terraces tend to 

be parallel to the present Atlantic shoreline and 

become progressively higher from east to west 

(Kojima and Hunt, 1980; Figure 10). Over time 

the level plains of the terraces were modified or 

destroyed by stream erosion. 

As with all of coastal Florida, changes in sea level 

and climate can have significant impacts on salt 

water intrusion, storm surge, coastal erosion and 

habitat loss. The GTM Research Reserve is well 

suited to serve as a clearinghouse of information 

concerning global and meteorological processes 

affecting coastal habitats of northeast Florida 

through partnerships with state, federal and local 

agencies, academic institutions, private industry 

and citizens. 

. . / Geology 

The GTM Research Reserve overlies typical 

Floridian coastal geologic strata. The ground 

is covered with Holocene epoch sediments (< 

10,000 years old) including sand, clay and shell 

fragments. Older limestone from the Anastasia 

formation is exposed on the southern beach in 

the GRMAP (east of Sombrero Creek). These 

rocks date from the Pleistocene epoch, which 

occurred from 1.8 million years ago (MYA) to 

10,000 years ago (Florida Geological Survey 

(FGS) Lithologic Database). 

Beneath these surface sediments lies the 

Hawthorn group (Miocene epoch, 24-5.3 MYA). 

The Hawthorn group is made up of clays and 

dolomite, and acts as a semi-confining layer 

atop the Floridan aquifer. The Hawthorn group is 

thickest under the GRMAP, ranging in depth from 

130 to 300 feet. It is thinner to the south, where 

it ranges in depth from 99 to 137 feet under the 

southern portion of the GTM Research Reserve 

(Florida Geological Survey Lithologic Database). 

Ponte 

Vedra 

Beach 

^_ 

^_ 

St. Augustine 

§¨¦ 95 

Æ· A1A 

£¤ 

GTM Research Reserve 

Offices 


Boundary 


Watershed 

Highways 


Matanzas 

Inlet 

^_ 

Palm 

Coast 

Æ· A1A 

Palmlico Terrace 

Silver Bluff Terrace 

Talbot Terrace 

± 

0 2.5 5 

Miles 

Data Source: St Johns River Water Management District June 2007 

Figure 0 / Geomorphology of the watershed of the 

GTM Research Reserve.

Minerals 

No deposits of commercially valuable minerals have been found within the GTM Research Reserve. 

Soils 

There are a total of 42 soil types occurring in the boundaries of the GTM Research Reserve (Figures 11, 

12). The varying depth of the water table within the soils at the GTM Research Reserve limits the land 

use abilities. While the region is relatively flat, the soils types are influenced by surface water flow, waves, 

currents and tidal forces. Relief is not pronounced, yet a few feet can mean the difference between dry, 

habitable, cultivable land and freshwater swamp or coastal marsh. 

The soils of the uplands within the GTM Research Reserve are primarily derived from sandy marine 

sediments. There are five general soil map units outlined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The 

sand ridges, coastal dunes and flatwoods areas of the Guana peninsula consist of the Astatula-Tavares 

soils. These soils are nearly level to sloping, excessively drained and moderately well-drained soils that 

± 

GTM Research Reserve -- North 

Soil Classifications 

PELLICER 

MYAKKA 

ASTATULA 

TURNBULL 

TAVARES 

MOULTRIE 

CASSIA 

ORSINO 

ADAMSVILLE 

SMYRNA 

ST. AUGUSTINE 

TISONIA 

FRIPP 

PLACID 

IMMOKALEE 

PAOLA 

Other 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

0 1 2 

Miles 

May 2008 

± 

GTM Research Reserve -- South 

Figures , / Soil types of the northern component (left) and watershed of the southern component 

(right) of the GTM Research Reserve. 

Soil Classif 

PELLIC 

MYAKK 

ASTAT 

TURNB 

TAVAR 

MOULT 

CASSIA 

ORSIN 

ADAMS 

SMYRN 

ST. AU 

TISON 

FRIPP 

PLACID 

IMMOK 

PAOLA 

Other 

Source: U.S. Departm 

Natural Resources C 

0 1

are sandy throughout. They are located throughout the hammock-sand ridge and flatwoods areas west of 

Lake Ponte Vedra and extend to the estuarine marshes. 

The Holopaw-Riviera-Pompano soils are represented on a small area along the north GRWMA boundary 

west of Lake Ponte Vedra. They are nearly level and poorly drained; some types are sandy to a depth of 

20 to 40 inches or more and loamy below, while others are sandy throughout. They provide fair conditions 

for growth of grasses, legumes, herbaceous plants, hardwoods and pines. 

The coastal dunes along State Road (SR) A1A are made up of the Fripp-Satellite-Paola map unit. This unit 

consists of soils on narrow, rolling sandy ridges interspersed with narrow swales. These soils are excessively 

drained sandy soils in the primary and secondary dunes and somewhat poorly drained in the swales 

The Riviera-Holopaw-Winder association is found on a small portion of the GRWMA area in the northwest 

section bordering the AIWW. These soils are nearly level and poorly drained; some are sandy to a depth 

of 20 to 40 inches or more and loamy below, while others are sandy to a depth of fewer than 20 inches 

and loamy below. They are considered “fair” producers of open land, woodland and wetland wildlife 

habitat and migratory bird species utilize these areas extensively. 

The Pellicer-Tisonia soils are derived from the deposition of estuarine clay sediment and organic detritus, 

and are found along the boundary of the Tolomato River and the AIWW (i.e., estuarine tidal marshes). 

They are nearly level, very poorly drained soils subject to frequent tidal flooding; some are loamy, while 

others are organic, underlain by clays. These soils are rated as fair producers of wetland wildlife habitat. 

Resident and migratory bird species utilize these wetlands extensively 

The GTM Research Reserve’s beaches consist of quartz sand, shells, shell fragments, and pebbles 

derived from exposures of the Anastasia Formation (Tanner, 1960). This formation consists of a sandy 

coquina held together by calcareous cement, and obtained its name from Anastasia Island opposite St. 

Augustine (Cooke, 1945). 

Throughout the GTM Research Reserve, soil erosion is most evident along the AIWW and the GTM 

Research Reserve’s ocean shoreline. Hydrodynamic and sediment transport models are needed to 

understand these processes and work toward sustainable solutions. In addition, the management of 

Lake Ponte Vedra within the GRWMA must be studied to understand the potential impact on nearby soil 

grain size, geochemistry, hydrology and deposition rates. The GTM Research Reserve’s education and 

stewardship programs will be guided by this information. 

. . / Hydrology 

Surface Water 

The GTM Research Reserve is located in the Upper East Coast Drainage Basin (part of the Florida East 

Coast Basin) which covers 467,196 acres. The basin has been further divided into two major drainage 

sub-basins: the Tolomato River (53,802 acres) and, the Matanzas River (167,599 acres) drainage basins. 

The natural hydrodynamics of this system has been altered by water control structures, such as the AIWW 

which runs through it, dikes, inland wells, drainage ditches and a dam placed across the headwaters of 

the Guana River Estuary. 

The Tolomato, Guana and Matanzas River estuaries form a system of “bar-bounded” estuaries that 

extend south from Jacksonville in Duval County to below Marineland in Flagler County behind the barrier 

island system. The Guana River estuary runs parallel to the Tolomato River estuary on the seaward side, 

with the two lagoons joining just north of the St. Augustine Inlet. Oceanic exchange occurs through 

the St. Johns River Inlet, a major navigational channel to the north, and the St. Augustine Inlet to the 

South. The Matanzas River estuary extends approximately 20 miles south from the St. Augustine Inlet 

to about eight miles south of the Matanzas Inlet. These tidal inlets form the oceanic exchange for the 

estuarine ecosystem. The St. Augustine Inlet has been stabilized with north and south jetties and is the 

major entrance to the AIWW which runs through the Matanzas estuary. Matanzas Inlet is one of the last 

“natural” inlets on Florida’s east coast. It has no dredged channel and has limited armoring along its 

southern shoreline. The Matanzas inlet is characterized by a transitory offshore bar and inner shoal with 

high tidal currents. This inlet system is ideally suited to serve as a comparison site for other more altered 

inlets to examine physical and biological processes such as sediment transport, species migration, and 

larval recruitment. 

Surface waters within the GRMAP were designated as “Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) on May 14, 

1986. Because of their natural attributes, these waters are assigned additional protection through the DEP. 

The northern extent of the GTM Research Reserve consists of the GRMAP that encompasses the Atlantic 

Ocean, estuarine (tidal) waters of the Tolomato and Guana River, interior impoundments, marshes,

0 

swamps and five artesian wells (Figure 13). Surface waters within the GRMAP are further classified as 

Class III and Class II. Class III waters are designated for recreation and the propagation and maintenance 

of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. Class II waters are designated for shellfish 

propagation or harvesting. 

Ponte 

Vedra 

Beach 

]\ 

&> 

&> 

]\ 

&> 

]\ 

&> 

]\ 

]\ 

&> &> 

]\ &> 

&> 

^_ 

]\ 

Hydrologic Features 

&> Artesian Wells 

]\ Water Control Structures 

^_ 

£¤ 

Æ· A1A 

Tolomato River 

Guana Lake 

Æ· A1A 

GTM Research Reserve Offices 

GTM Research Reserve Boundary (North) 

Highways 

± 

0 1 2 Miles 

Data Source: Guana River Wildlife Management Area 

Atlantic 

Ocean 

May 2008 

Figure / Hydrology of the northern component of 

the GTM Research Reserve. 

The southern component of the GTM Research 

Reserve is comprised of Pellicer Creek, Moses 

Creek, and the Matanzas River (Figure 14). 

The Pellicer Creek was designated as an 

“Outstanding Florida Water” (OFW), on March 

1, 1979. National, state and county conservation 

areas surround Pellicer Creek making it one of 

the last undisturbed tidal marsh creek systems 

along the east coast of Florida. Moses Creek 

Conservation Area (2,173 acres) provides 

water quality protection to Moses Creek, the 

Matanzas River, and associated tidal marshes. 

Both water bodies are designated Class II 

shellfish waters by DEP and Moses Creek is 

one of a few undisturbed tidal creeks within the 

Northern Coastal Basin. In addition, Pellicer 

Creek Conservation Area, Princess Place 

Preserve, Matanzas State Forest, Fort Matanzas 

National Monument, The River to Sea Preserve, 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park and Faver 

Dykes State Park provide over 15,000 acres 

of watershed buffer protection to the aquatic 

resources of the GTM Research Reserve. 

Consolidating research and monitoring information 

from a variety of local, state and national 

programs is needed to produce a comprehensive 

watershed plan for sustainable protection of 

the water quality and coastal habitats of the 

GTM Research Reserve. The Research Reserve 

designation facilitates the coordination of efforts 

to build consensus among local, state and federal 

partners to implement a science-based approach 

to prioritize land acquisition, conservation, and 

restoration efforts and to identify the research, 

stewardship and educational programming 

needed to support this planning process. 

Groundwater 

Two aquifers are found in the region of the GTM 

Research Reserve (Hyde 1965). The shallow 

aquifer, which is non-artesian, consists primarily 

of Pleistocene and more recent deposits of sand 

and shell, but in some areas it extends down 

to Miocene or Pliocene deposits. This shallow 

aquifer recharges mainly from local rainfall. 

The Floridan aquifer along the east coast is 

highly mineralized and is thus a less used water 

source in this area. Recharge to the Floridan 

aquifer in the area is minimal (Fernald and 

Patton 1984). The top of the Floridian aquifer 

consists of the Ocala group (Eocene epoch, 

40-28 MYA). The Floridan Aquifer System is a 

layer of carbonate rock (e.g., limestone) that lies 

under most of the state of Florida and spreads

throughout the southeast (generally referred to as the “principle artesian aquifer” in Georgia, Alabama 

and South Carolina) (Miller, 1986). Being porous, this rock holds tremendous amounts of groundwater 

that has seeped from the surface over millennia. 

In the GTM Research Reserve, the depth of the top of the Floridan aquifer is shallowest in the south (175 ft., 

PCAP) and gradually deepens towards the north 

(350 ft., GRMAP) (Scott and Hajishafie, 1980). 

The aquifer has a thickness of approximately 

2,000 feet throughout the GTM Research Reserve 

(Miller, 1986). There is a submarine spring off the 

coast of Crescent Beach, just outside of PCAP 

that originates from this aquifer (Kinnaman, 2006). 

The influence of anthropogenic water diversions 

from aquifers for drinking water, irrigation and lake 

management on the GTM Research Reserve’s 

natural resources requires further study. 

Dependence on aquifers for regional drinking 

water supplies is not sustainable based on 

current water supply projections. Alternative 

sources of water including ocean desalinization 

and surface water will require careful planning to 

ensure coastal resources are protected. 

. . / Climate 

The climate of northeast Florida is classified 

as sub-tropical marine, characterized by long, 

warm, humid summers and mild winters. Average 

annual precipitation is about 55 inches, with 

approximately 56 percent occurring from June 

through mid-October as afternoon and evening 

thundershowers. Relative humidity ranges from 40 

to 50 percent in the afternoon to 90 or 95 percent 

in the early morning. Temperatures are moderated 

by close proximity to the ocean. Summer 

afternoon temperatures regularly reach 90°F or 

higher and nighttime temperatures drop to the 

low 70s. Average winter temperatures range from 

morning lows in the 30s to afternoon highs in the 

70s. Prevailing winds are easterly, but northwest or 

southwest winds are common. Summer westerly 

winds can last for several days, particularly during 

the early morning hours. 

Storm events at GTM Research Reserve 

include thunderstorms and hurricanes. With 

the exception of the September 9, 1964 landfall 

of category 2 hurricane Dora in St. Augustine, 

the areas now comprising the GTM Research 

Reserve have not experienced a hurricane’s 

eye wall landfall (Winsberg, 2003). Storms are 

often the cause of major shoreline changes, 

exacerbating the impact of other factors, such 

as sea level rise, inlet management, beach 

renourishment and channel dredging, on natural 

sediment dynamics (Michener 1997). The 

influence of global warming on sea level rise and 

the GTM Research Reserve’s habitat and species 

composition will need to be monitored closely to 

guide future long-term management strategies. 

§¨¦ 95 

j 

j 

!( 

£¤ 

Matanzas River 

j 

j 

!( 

Pellicer Creek 

!( 

Æ·A1A 

!( Non-ASR Class V Injection Well 

^_ 

GTM Research Reserve Offices 

GTMNERR 

Highways 

Hydrologic Features 

Atlantic 

Ocean 

± 

Crescent Beach 

Submarine Spring 

^_ 

0 1 2 

Miles 

May 2008 

Figure / Hydrology of the southern component of 

the GTM Research Reserve.

. . 0 / Natural Communities 

The natural community classification system used in the text of this plan was developed by the Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and the DEP. In order to achieve consistency with NOAA/NERRS classification 

standards the habitat map provided in this plan is based on the Coastal Change and Analysis Program 

(C-CAP) scheme (Figure 15). C-CAP is a nationally standardized database of land cover and land change 

information, developed using remotely sensed imagery, for the coastal regions of the U.S. C-CAP products 

inventory coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands with the goal of monitoring these habitats 

by updating the land cover maps every five years. The development of standardized, regional land cover 

information enables managers to coordinate the planning of shared resources, facilitating an ecosystem 

approach to environmental issues that transcends local and state regulatory boundaries. A C-CAP/FNAI 

crosswalk table is provided to explain the relationship between these two classification systems (Table 1.). 

Table / Coastal change analysis program (C-CAP) and the Florida natural areas inventory habitat 

classification crosswalk. 

CCAP Classification FNAI Classification 

Mixed Forest Upland Mixed Forest 

Deciduous Forest Upland Hardwood Forest 

Evergreen Forest Xeric Hammock 

Evergreen Forest Maritime Hammock 

Evergreen Forest Sandhill 

Evergreen Forest Mesic Flatwoods 

Evergreen Forest Scrubby Flatwood 

Scrub/Shrub Scrub 

Scrub/Shrub Coastal Strand 

Scrub/Shrub Coastal Berm 

Palustrine Forested Wetland Floodplain Swamp 

Palustrine Forested Wetland Dome Swamp 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Floodplain Swamp 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Basin Marsh 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Coastal Interdunal Swale 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Depression Marsh 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Flatwoods/Prairie/Marsh Lake 

Estuarine Forested Wetland Tidal Swamp 

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Tidal Swamp 

Estuarine Emergent Wetland Tidal Marsh 

Unconsolidated Shore Marine Unconsolidated Substrate 

Unconsolidated Shore Mollusk Reef 

Unconsolidated Shore Estuarine Unconsolidated Substrate 

Unconsolidated Shore Marine Consolidated Substrate 

Barren Land Shell Mound 

Barren Land Beach Dune 

Water Open Water 

Water Blackwater Stream 

High Intensity Developed Ruderal 

Medium Intensity Developed Ruderal 

Low Intensity Developed Ruderal 

Developed Open Space Ruderal 

Cultivated Ruderal 

Pasture/Hay Ruderal 

Grassland Ruderal

The community types are defined by a variety of factors, such as vegetation structure and 

composition, hydrology, fire regime, topography and soil type. The community types are named 

for the most characteristic biological or physical feature (FNAI and DEP, 1990). Since boundaries 

between habitats tend to be more gradual than those typically defined in habitat maps all acreage 

estimates are approximate. 

The GTM Research Reserve contains twenty-three 

distinct FNAI natural communities in addition to 

ruderal areas. FNAI status and rankings for these 

habitats and specific acreages can be found in 

Appendix A. Specific natural communities and 

management recommendations are provided 

in Chapter six and Appendices A 7 and A 9. 

Temporally replicated species inventory and 

habitat mapping to support change detection are 

essential needs for managing these ecosystems. 

Ultimately, habitat suitability modeling or similar 

efforts should be implemented as a predictive 

tool to guide management decisions affecting 

natural biodiversity. 

Sandhill - (synonyms: Longleaf Pine-Turkey Oak, 

Longleaf Pine-Xerophytic Oak, Longleaf Pine- 

Deciduous Oak, High Pine). Sandhill habitats are 

characterized as a forest of widely spaced pine 

trees with a sparse understory of deciduous oaks 

and a fairly dense ground cover of grasses and 

herbs on rolling hills of sand. 

Fire is a dominant factor in the ecology of this 

community. Sandhills are a fire climax community, 

being dependent on frequent ground fires to 

reduce hardwood competition and to perpetuate 

pines and grasses. The natural fire frequency 

appears to be every 2 to 5 years. Without frequent 

fires, Sandhills may eventually succeed to 

Xeric Hammock. Unburned Sandhills may be 

dominated by turkey oak. 

Scrub - (synonyms: Sand Pine Scrub, Florida 

Scrub, Sand Scrub, Rosemary Scrub, Oak 

Scrub). Scrub occurs in many forms, but is 

often characterized as a closed to open canopy 

forest of sand pines with dense clumps or 

vast thickets of scrub oaks and other shrubs 

dominating the understory. 

Scrub is essentially a fire maintained community. 

Ground vegetation is extremely sparse and 

leaf fall is minimal, thus reducing the chance of 

frequent ground fires. As the sand pines mature, 

however, they retain most of their branches 

and build up large fuel supplies in their crowns. 

When a fire does occur, this fuel supply, in 

combination with the resinous needles and high 

stand density, ensures a hot, fast burning fire. 

Such fires allow for the regeneration of the Scrub 

community which might otherwise succeed to 

Xeric Hammock. The minerals in the vegetation 

are deposited on the bare sand as ashes, and the 

heat of the fire generally facilitates the release of 

pine seeds. As discerned from the life histories 

of the dominant plants, scrub probably burns 

St.Johns 

County 

^_ 

0 3 6 Miles 

High Intensity Developed 

Medium Intensity Developed 

Low Intensity Developed 

Developed Open Space 

Cultivated 

Pasture/Hay 

Grassland 

Deciduous Forest 

Evergreen Forest 

Mixed Forest 

St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Flagler 

County 

Data Source: 2001 NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program 

Matanzas 

Inlet 

^_ 

± 

Scrub/Shrub 

Palustrine Forested Wetland 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 

Estuarine Forested Wetland 

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 

Unconsolidated Shore 

Bare Land 

Water 

June 2007 

Figure / Habitats of the GTM Research Reserve.

Isolated freshwater depression marshes are a critically endangered habitat and vital for recharging 

groundwater aquifers with clean freshwater. 

catastrophically once every 20 to 80 years or longer. Scrub is also readily damaged by off-road vehicle 

traffic or even foot traffic, which destroys the delicate ground cover and allows the loose sand to erode. 

Once disturbed, ground lichens may require 50 years or more to recover. 

Xeric Hammock - (synonyms: Xeric Forest, Sand Hammock, Live Oak Forest, Oak Woodland, Oak 

Hammock). Xeric Hammock is characterized as either a scrubby, dense, low canopy forest with little 

understory other than palmetto, or a multi-storied forest of tall trees with an open or closed canopy. 

Xeric Hammock is an advanced successional stage of Scrub or Sandhill. The variation in vegetation 

structure is predominantly due to the original community from which it developed. In all cases, however, 

the soils consist primarily of deep, well-drained sands that were derived from old dune systems. The 

sparsity of herbs and the relatively incombustible oak litter preclude most fires from invading Xeric 

Hammock. When fire does occur, it is nearly always catastrophic and may revert Xeric Hammock into 

another community type. Xeric Hammock only develops on sites that have been protected from fire for 30 

or more years. 

Beach Dune - (synonyms: Sand Dunes, Pioneer Zone, Upper Beach, Sea Oats Zone, Coastal Strand). 

Beach Dune is characterized as a wind-deposited, foredune and wave-deposited upper beach that are 

sparsely to densely vegetated with pioneer species, especially sea oats. 

Plants of the Beach Dunes are extremely vulnerable to human impacts particularly soil compaction. 

A footpath or off-road vehicle trail over the beach dunes damages the vegetation, increasing erosion 

by wind and water. Once begun, gaps continually widen unless they are revegetated and stabilized. 

The sand from the gap moves inland, and rapidly buries vegetation, destabilizing the beach dunes 

and disturbing adjacent communities. Gaps also increase erosion caused by storms. Because of their 

vulnerability, Beach Dunes require protection from trampling (i.e., boardwalks for beach access) and offroad 

vehicles. 

Coastal Berm - (synonyms: Shell Ridge, Coastal Levee, Coastal Forest, Buttonwood Embankment, 

Mangrove Hammock). Coastal Berm applies to a variety of plant associations that develop on ridges of 

storm deposited sand, shells, and debris. These associations include dense thickets of large shrubs and 

small trees, hammocks, or sparse shrubby vegetation with spiny xerophytic plants. Coastal Berm habitats 

are similar to Coastal Strand habitats in their physiography and resilience.

Coastal Strand - (synonyms: Shrub Zone, Maritime Thicket, Coastal Scrub). Coastal Strand is 

characterized as stabilized, wind-deposited coastal dunes that are vegetated with a dense thicket of salttolerant 

shrubs. 

Coastal Strand dunes are generally quite stable but are susceptible to severe damage if the vegetation is 

disturbed. Shrubs in the Coastal Strand are frequently dwarfed and pruned as a result of the salt sprayladen 

winds that kill twigs on the seaward side, producing a smooth, dense upward-slanting canopy 

resembling a sheared hedge. Coastal Strand is actually an ecotonal community that generally lies 

between Beach Dune and Maritime hammock. It may also grade into Scrub, and it often shares many of 

the same species that occur in Coastal Berm. Fire may reduce succession towards Maritime Hammock. 

However, maritime landuse alone will often suffice to inhibit succession to forest. 

Coastal Strand is one of the most rapidly disappearing community types in Florida. It is most extensive 

along the Atlantic Coast where, being elevated and next to the coast, it is prime resort or residential 

property. Coastal Strand originally occurred as a nearly continuous band along the Atlantic shorelines. 

Now it occurs largely as broken and isolated small stretches. Along with other coastal communities, 

Coastal Strand protects inland communities from the severe effects of storms. 

Coastal Interdunal Swale - Habitats that occur where 1) dune and swale topography has developed 

within the past 5000 years, 2) a lens of groundwater intersects the bottom of the swales, and 3) extensive 

flooding by saltwater is infrequent. Critical to the existence of this habitat is a subsurface hydraulic 

connection with the barrier island’s water table. The water levels in the interdunal wetlands are strongly 

tied to local rainfall events. Consequently, the community varies from flooded to completely dry 

depending on rainfall, as well as area and elevation of the surrounding dunes. 

Little in the way of active management is required other than to prevent disruption by vehicles or 

excessive foot traffic or disruption of natural hydrology. Fires occasionally burn through the swales but the 

dominant factor in this community’s development and maintenance is hydrology. 

Maritime Hammock - (synonyms: Coastal Hammock, Maritime Forest, Tropical Hammock). Maritime 

Hammock is characterized as a narrow band of hardwood forest lying just inland of the Coastal Strand 

community. 

The generally mesic conditions and insular locations of well-developed Maritime Hammock communities 

inhibit natural fires, which occur no more frequently than once every 26 to 100 years. In mature Maritime 

Hammock, fire may alter the original appearance, obscuring former beach ridge vegetation patterns and 

creating a diversity of plant sub-associations. Nutrient recycling is generally accomplished by biological 

based processes instead of by fire. 

Maritime Hammock is the terminal stage of succession in coastal areas. Maritime Hammock is prime 

resort and residential property because of its relatively protected location along the coast. Although 

it originally occurred in virtually continuous bands with Coastal Strand, Maritime Hammock is now 

dissected into fragments by development and is rapidly disappearing. Maritime Hammock is reasonably 

resilient so long as the canopy remains intact and the landform stable. 

Shell Mound - (synonyms: Midden, Indian Mound, Tropical Hammock, Maritime Hammock, Coastal 

Hammock). Shell Mound is unusual among the biological communities in that it is largely a result of the 

activities of Native Americans, instead of natural physical factors. Shell Mound is generally characterized 

as an elevated mound of mollusk shells and aboriginal refuse on which a hardwood, closed-canopy forest 

develops. 

Being constructed of archaeological remains, Shell Mounds are vulnerable to damage by artifact-seekers 

and archaeological excavations. Sites where visitor use is not monitored should not be publicized and 

public access should be discouraged. Archaeological investigations should be conducted with care to 

protect important unique botanical features. 

Mesic Flatwoods - (synonyms: Pine Flatwoods, Pine Savannahs, Pine Barrens). Mesic Flatwoods are 

characterized as an open canopy forest of widely spaced pine trees with little or no understory but a 

dense ground cover of herbs and shrubs. 

Mesic Flatwoods occur on relatively flat, moderately to poorly drained terrain. The soils typically consist 

of 1-3 feet of acidic sands generally overlying an organic hardpan or clayey subsoil. The hardpan 

substantially reduces the percolation of water below and above its surface. During the rainy seasons, 

water frequently stands on the hardpan’s surface and briefly inundates much of the flatwoods; while 

during the drier seasons, ground water is unobtainable for many plants whose roots fail to penetrate the 

hardpan. Thus, many plants are under the stress of water saturation during the wet seasons and under 

the stress of dehydration during the dry seasons.

6 

Another important physical factor in Mesic Flatwoods is fire, which probably naturally occurred every 1 

to 8 years. Nearly all plants and animals inhabiting this community are adapted to periodic fires; several 

species depend on fire for their continued existence. Without relatively frequent fires, Mesic Flatwoods 

succeed into hardwood-dominated forests whose closed canopy can essentially eliminate the ground 

cover herbs and shrubs. Additionally, the dense layer of litter that accumulates on unburned sites can 

eliminate the reproduction of pines which require a mineral soil substrate for proper germination. Thus, 

the integrity of the Mesic Flatwoods community is dependent on periodic fires. However, fires that are 

too frequent or too hot would eliminate pine recruitment and eventually transform Mesic Flatwoods into 

Dry Prairie. 

Scrubby Flatwood - (synonyms: Xeric Flatwoods, Dry Flatwoods). Scrubby Flatwoods are characterized 

as an open canopy forest of widely scattered pine trees with a sparse shrubby understory and numerous 

areas of barren white sand. The vegetation is a combination of Scrub and Mesic Flatwoods species; 

Scrubby Flatwoods often occupy broad transitions or ecotones between these communities. 

Scrubby Flatwoods generally occur intermingled with Mesic Flatwoods along slightly elevated relictual 

sandbars and dunes. The white sandy soil is several feet deep and drains rapidly. However, the water 

table is unlikely to be very deep. Scrubby Flatwoods normally do not flood even under extremely wet 

conditions. The temperature and humidity of air and soil in Scrubby Flatwoods fluctuate substantially 

more than in most other communities because the scattered overstory, sparse understory, and barren 

sands of Scrubby Flatwoods do not buffer daily and seasonal changes very well. 

Although the elevated, deeper sandy soils of scrubby flatwoods engender a drier environment than the 

surrounding mesic flatwoods, the general sparsity of ground vegetation and the greater proportion of 

relatively incombustible scrub-oak leaf litter reduce the frequency of naturally occurring fires. Only after 

a long absence of fire and during periods of drought does the leaf litter become sufficiently combustible 

and concentrated enough to support an ecological burn. Several species of plants in Scrubby Flatwoods 

are typical scrub plants which endure only when long intervals between fires occur. Thus, a periodicity of 

approximately 8 to 25 years between fires appears to be natural for this community. 

Upland Mixed Forest - Upland Hardwood Forest and Upland Mixed Forest - (synonyms: Mesic 

Hammock, Climax Hardwoods, Upland Hardwoods, Beech-Magnolia Climax, Oak-Magnolia Climax, Pine- 

Oak Hickory Association, Southern Mixed Hardwoods, Clay Hills Hammocks, Piedmont Forest). 

Upland Mixed Forests are characterized as well-developed, closed canopy forests of upland hardwoods 

on rolling hills. 

Soils of Upland Mixed Forests are generally sandy-clays or clayey sands with substantial organic and 

often calcareous components. The topography and clayey soils increase surface water runoff, although 

this is counterbalanced by the moisture retention properties of clays and by the often thick layer of leaf 

mulch which helps conserve soil moisture and create mesic conditions. Furthermore, the canopy is 

densely closed, except during winter in areas where deciduous trees predominate. Thus, air movement 

and light penetration are generally low, making the humidity high and relatively constant. Because of 

these conditions Upland Mixed Forests rarely burn. 

Upland Mixed Forests are climax communities for their respective geographic locations. They are often 

associated with and grade into Upland Pine Forest, Slope Forest or Xeric Hammock. Occasionally, 

Upland Mixed Forests may also grade into Maritime Hammock or Prairie Hammock. During early stages 

of succession, Upland Mixed Forest may be difficult to distinguish from Upland Pine Forests that have not 

been burned for several years. Disturbed sites may require hundreds of years to reach full development 

with species compositions representative of climax conditions. 

Silvicultural, agricultural, industrial, and residential developments have already eliminated the vast bulk of 

these communities. These activities are continuing at an accelerated pace in many areas, such that the 

few remnant mature examples are in urgent need of protection and proper management. 

Depression Marsh - synonyms: Isolated Wetland, Flatwoods Pond, St. John’s Wort Pond, Pineland 

Depression, Ephemeral Pond, Seasonal Marsh). Depression Marsh is characterized as a shallow, usually 

rounded depression in sand substrate with herbaceous vegetation often in concentric bands. 

Depression Marshes occur where sand has slumped and created a conical depression subsequently 

filled by direct rain fall, runoff, or seepage from surrounding uplands. The substrate is usually acid sand 

with deepening peat toward the center. Some depressions may have developed or be maintained by a 

subsurface hardpan. Hydrological conditions vary, with most Depression Marshes drying in most years. 

Hydroperiods range widely from as few as 50 days or less to more than 200 days per year.

Research and monitoring is essential for guiding, prioritizing, and assessing GTM Research Reserve’s 

management strategies. 

Fire is important to maintaining this community type by restricting invasion of shrubs and trees and the 

formation of peat. Fire frequency is often greatest around the periphery of the marsh and least toward 

the center. Severe peat fire can lower the ground surface and create a pond at the center of the marsh. 

Hydrologic conditions and species composition must be monitored and used assess ecological targets to 

guide fire management. 

Dome Swamp - (synonyms: Isolated Wetland Cypress Dome, Cypress Pond, Gum Pond, Bayhead, 

Cypress Gall, Pine Barrens Pond). Dome Swamps are characterized as shallow, forested, usually circular 

depressions that generally present a domed profile because smaller trees grow in the shallower waters at 

the outer edge, while bigger trees grow in the deeper water in the interior. Pond cypress, swamp tupelo, 

and slash pine are common plants. 

Dome Swamps typically develop in sandy flatwoods areas where sand has slumped creating a conical 

depression. Soils are composed of peat, which becomes thickest toward the center of the dome, and are 

generally underlain with acidic sands and then limestone, although other subsoils may also occur. Some 

domes have a clay lens that helps retain water levels. 

Dome Swamps often derive much of their water through runoff from surrounding uplands, but they may 

also be connected with underground channels, in which case subterranean flows would dominate the 

hydrological regime. Dome Swamps generally function as reservoirs that recharge the aquifer. The normal 

hydroperiod for Dome Swamps is 200 to 300 days per year with water being deepest and remaining 

longest near the center of the dome. 

Fire is essential for the maintenance of a cypress dome community. Without periodic fires, hardwood 

invasion and peat accumulation would convert the dome to Bottomland Forest or Bog. Dome Swamps 

dominated by bays are close to this transition. Fire frequency is greatest at the dryer periphery of the 

dome and least in the interior where long hydroperiods and deep peat maintain high moisture levels for 

most of the year. The normal fire cycle might be as short as 3 to 5 years along the outer edge and as long 

as 100 to 150 years towards the center. The profile of a Dome Swamp (i.e., smaller trees at the periphery 

and largest trees near the center) is largely attributable to this fire regime. The shorter hydroperiods along 

the periphery permit fires to burn into the edge more often, occasionally killing the outer trees. Cypress 

is very tolerant of light surface fires, but muck fires burning into the peat can kill them, lower the ground 

surface, and transform the dome into a pond.

Floodplain Swamp - (synonyms: River Swamp, Bottomland Hardwoods, Seasonally Flooded Basins or 

Flats, Oak-Gum-Cypress, Cypress-Tupelo, Slough, Oxbow, Back Swamp). Floodplain Swamps occur on 

flooded soils along stream channels and in low spots and oxbows within river floodplains. 

Soils of Floodplain Swamps are highly variable mixtures of sand, organic, and alluvial materials, although 

some sites, especially within sloughs or on smaller streams, may have considerable peat accumulation. 

Floodplain Swamps are flooded for most of the year, with sites along channels inundated by aerobic 

flowing water while those of sloughs and backswamps are naturally flooded with anaerobic water for 

extensive periods of time. Soils and hydroperiods determine species composition and community 

structure. Seasonal and often prolonged inundations restrict the growth of most shrubs and herbs, 

leaving most of the ground surface open or thinly mantled with leaf litter. Floods redistribute detritus to 

other portions of the floodplain or into the main river channel. This rich organic debris is essential to the 

functional integrity of downriver ecosystems such as estuaries. These swamps are usually too wet to 

support fire. 

Alteration of the hydroperiod by impoundments, canals or river diversions and the disruption of floodplain 

communities by forestry residential development or agriculture have consequences to the entire river and 

bay system. Many plant and animal species, both onsite and down river, depend upon the presence and 

natural fluctuations of these swamps for survival and reproduction. 

Flatwoods/Prairie/Marsh Lake - (synonyms: Flatwoods Pond, Ephemeral Pond, Grass Pond, St. John’s 

Wort Pond, Freshwater Lake, Pineland Depression, Swale, Prairie Pond). The distinctions between 

these communities, and from Depression Marsh, are often quite subtle, because of their successional 

interrelationships. 

Water for this habitat is derived mostly from runoff from the immediately surrounding uplands. This habitat 

functions as aquifer recharge areas by acting as reservoirs. Water generally remains throughout the year 

in a Flatwoods/Prairie Lake or a Marsh Lake, although water levels may fluctuate substantially. Alterations 

in natural hydrologic conditions and water quality are the primary disturbances to this habitat. 

Blackwater Stream - (synonyms: Blackwater River, Blackwater Creek). Blackwater Streams are 

characterized as perennial or intermittent seasonal watercourses originating deep in sandy lowlands 

where extensive wetlands with organic soils function as reservoirs, collecting rainfall and discharging it 

slowly to the stream. The tea-colored waters of Blackwater Streams are laden with tannins, particulates, 

and dissolved organic matter and iron derived from drainage through swamps and marshes. 

Blackwater Streams are the most widely distributed and numerous Riverine systems in the southeast 

Coastal Plain. Very few, however, have escaped major disturbances and alteration. Clearcutting adjacent 

forested lands and disruptions to natural hydrology are two of the more devastating alterations for 

this community. Additionally, limited buffering of Blackwater Streams from development intensifies the 

detrimental impacts of agricultural, residential and industrial polluted runoff. 

Estuarine Tidal Marsh - (synonyms: Saltmarsh, Brackish Marsh, Coastal Wetlands, Coastal Marshes, Tidal 

Wetlands). Marine and Estuarine Tidal Marshes are Floral Based Natural Communities generally characterized 

as expanses of grasses, rushes and sedges along coastlines of low wave energy and river mouths. 

Adverse impacts of urban development of Tidal Marshes include degradation of water quality, filling of 

marshes, increased erosion, and other alterations such as bulkheading, dock construction and beach 

renourishment. Offshore and watershed based pollution from oil spills, litter and polluted storm-water 

runoff can also have detrimental impacts to Estuarine Tidal Marsh habitats. 

Estuarine Unconsolidated Substrate - (synonyms: Beach, Shore, Sand Bottom, Shell Bottom, Sand Bar, 

Mud Flat, Tidal Flat, Soft Bottom, Coralgal Substrate, Marl, Gravel, Pebble, Calcareous Clay). The GTM 

Research Reserve’s estuarine unconsolidated substrate supports salt marshes that are rich in estuarine 

invertebrates. While these areas may seem relatively barren, the densities of infaunal organisms in 

subtidal zones can reach the tens of thousands per meter square, making these areas important feeding 

grounds for many bottom feeding fish, such as redfish, flounder, spot, and sheepshead. 

This habitat is vulnerable to compaction associated with vehicular traffic on beaches and disturbances 

from dredge and fill activities and low dissolved oxygen levels, all of which can cause infaunal organisms 

to be destroyed or to migrate out of the area. Generally these areas are easily recolonized either by 

the same organisms or a series of organisms which eventually results in the community returning to its 

original state once the disturbance has ceased. In extreme examples, significant alterations of elevation or 

sediment grain size distribution can also cause long-term impacts to this habitat. 

This habitat is also susceptible to the accumulation of toxic levels of heavy metals, oils, and pesticides 

associated with fine-grained sediments and organic matter. Significant amounts of these compounds

Archaeological resources provide valuable insight into past cultures and enhance visitor experiences at 

the GTM Research Reserve. 

in the sediments will harm the infaunal organisms, thereby eliminating or contaminating a food source 

for certain fishes, birds, and other organisms. Such problems occur in some of the major cities, in areas 

where there is heavy industrial development, near sewage treatment plant outfalls, and along major 

shipping channels where oil spills are more likely to occur. Improperly treated stormwater runoff from 

residential areas is becoming a progressively more important source of pollutants as human population 

densities increase along the coast. 

Estuarine Mollusk Reef - (synonyms: Oyster Bar, Oyster Reef, Oyster Bed, Oyster Rock, Oyster 

Grounds, Mussel Reef, Worm Shell Reef, Vermetid Reef). Marine and Estuarine Mollusk Reefs are Faunal 

Based Natural Communities typically characterized as expansive concentrations of sessile mollusks 

occurring in intertidal and subtidal zones. 

The most common type of Mollusk Reef in the GTM Research Reserve, oyster mollusk reefs, occur 

in water salinities from just above fresh water to just below full strength sea water, but develop most 

frequently in estuarine water with salinities between 15 and 30 ppt. Their absence in marine water is 

largely attributed to the many predators, parasites, and diseases of oysters that occur in higher salinities. 

Prolonged exposure to low salinities (less than 2 ppt.) is also known to be responsible for massive 

mortality of oyster reefs. Thus, significant increases or decreases in salinity levels through natural or 

unnatural alterations of freshwater inflow can be detrimental to oyster Mollusk Reef communities. The 

condition of this community provides a valuable performance indicator for restoring natural freshwater 

inflows to altered estuarine habitats. 

Mollusk Reefs occupy a unique position among estuarine invertebrates and have been an important 

human food source since prehistoric times. They present a dynamic community of estuarine ecology, 

forming refugia, nursery grounds, and feeding areas for a myriad of other estuarine organisms. 

The major threats to mollusk reefs continue to be pollution and substrate degradation due, in large part, 

to upland development. Mollusks are filter feeders, filtering up to 100 gallons of water a day. In addition to 

filtering food, they also filter and accumulate toxins from polluted waters. Sources of these pollutants can 

be from considerably distant areas, but are often more damaging when nearby. Substrate degradation 

occurs when silts, sludge and dredge spoils cover and bury the Mollusk Reefs. Declining oyster and 

other Mollusk Reef populations can be expected in coastal waters that are being dredged or are receiving

0 

Upland habitats, like hardwood hammock forests, serve as efficient buffers that filter pollutants from 

stormwater and also provide important wildlife habitat for migrating songbirds. 

chemicals mixed with rainwater flowing off the land, or from drainage of untreated residential or industrial 

sewage systems. 

Marine Consolidated Substrate - (synonyms: Hard Bottom, Rock Bottom, Limerock Bottom, Coquina 

Bottom, Relic Reef). This community is represented by an outcrop of coquina rock called the Anastasia 

Formation that is supratidal to subtidal. Zonation of the plants and animals is driven by the tides, with 

the supratidal zone labeled the black zone, followed by the yellow zone, the green zone, and the red 

zone. Colors are the result of the dominant alga. Well over 100 species of plants and animals have 

been identified from this formation in Washington Oaks State Garden. The resilience of this habitat to 

anthropogenic disturbance requires further study. 

Marine Unconsolidated Substrate - (synonyms: Beach, Shore, Sand Bottom, Shell Bottom, Sand Bar, 

Mud Flat, Tidal Flat, Soft Bottom, Coralgal Substrate, Marl, Gravel, Pebble, Calcareous Clay). The portion 

of the beach, which lies seaward of the beach dune community, is categorized as marine unconsolidated 

substrate. This community is largely devoid of plant species. Marine unconsolidated substrate is critical 

habitat for shorebirds (for breeding, resting, and feeding), and nesting/hatching sea turtles. 

Marine Unconsolidated Substrates are also sensitive to disturbances from coastal erosion, dredging 

activities and low dissolved oxygen levels. Generally these areas are also easily recolonized once 

the disturbance has ceased. Toxic levels of heavy metals, oils, and pesticides can accumulate within 

Unconsolidated Marine Substrates particularly smaller grain sized substrates. 

Open Water - This is a non-FNAI categorized marine habitat consisting of pelagic water areas of 

marine habitat within state waters that extend three nautical miles off of the Florida east coast. The 

subtidal oceanic portion of the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve is an example of this habitat type. 

This location has been identified as an important habitat for the endangered North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). 

Ruderal - Natural ground cover severely disturbed by human influence. Developed land within the GTM 

Research Reserve consists of the maintenance and office facilities, parking lots, trails, roads, nature

centers, restrooms and other structures found within the boundary. To minimize the environmental impact 

of these structures careful planning is needed to limit impervious surfaces, select environmentally friendly 

landscaping, construction and maintenance materials and monitor the surrounding natural environment 

for unintentional harm. 

. . / Listed Species 

Listed species are those which are listed by the FNAI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS) as endangered, threatened or of special concern. Specific management 

strategies will be addressed later in this plan. All management actions will be in compliance with the 

recovery plans for these species. Eight plant and forty-eight animal species inhabiting the GTM Research 

Reserve have been listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern (Appendix A 6). 

The GTM Research Reserve contains approximately 13 miles of beachfront property including nearly 

five miles of virtually undeveloped Atlantic Ocean beach dune habitat. This unique habitat has some of 

the highest dunes in Florida. Beach dunes in Northeast Florida are potential habitat for the endangered 

Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma). Monitoring of this habitat for these 

species has been a priority for the GTM Research Reserve’s resource management program. The 

Anastasia Island beach mouse was reintroduced to the GTM Research Reserve’s beach dunes in 1992 

as part of the recovery plan (USFWS 1993). The founder population consisted of 55 individuals. GTM 

Research Reserve staff continues to monitor for the presence of this species although recent catch 

results suggest the reintroduction was unsuccessful. Further assessment is needed to determine 

if prescribed fire or other compatible management techniques might restore more suitable habitat 

conditions for this species. 

The GTM Research Reserve’s beach habitats also provide sites for the threatened nesting least 

terns and for three listed species of sea turtles: the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), the leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacia) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Sea turtles use the sandy beach 

between the high tide line and the base of the dunes for nesting, with nesting occurring between May 

and October. The GTM Research Reserve staff monitors sea turtle nesting activity. The GTM Research 

Reserve’s beach habitat is an active nesting beach that is part of the statewide Index Nesting Beach 

Survey compiled annually by the FWC. Most of the nests are deposited by loggerhead sea turtles, 

but nests of the endangered green and leatherback sea turtles have also been documented. Nests 

are marked and, after hatching, are excavated for evaluation of hatching success and hatchling 

emergence. Least tern nesting areas along the GTM Research Reserve’s beaches are also posted to 

alert people using the beach of this important habitat. 

West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) are occasionally observed in the Guana River 

and Pellicer Creek during their seasonal migrations along the AIWW. The gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus), a keystone species and a species listed as threatened, lives in several habitats in the GTM 

Research Reserve. There are also several active bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests within the 

GTM Research Reserve. Gopher frogs (Rana capito), diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) and 

striped newts (Notophthalmus perstriatus) also occur within the GTM Research Reserve. In addition, 

the GTM Research Reserve’s open-water oceanic habitat is identified as a critical calving habitat for the 

endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

The FWC has proposed that the wetlands of east St. Johns County be considered a Strategic Habitat 

Conservation Area for rare wading birds (e.g. wood stork (Mycteria americana), little blue heron 

(Egretta caerulea)). The Twelve Mile Swamp and Snowden Bay drainage basins (located in GRWMA 

as well as the uplands directly managed by the GTM Research Reserve) also constitute a Strategic 

Habitat Conservation Area due to their populations of Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), 

American swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), 

Bartram’s ixia (Sapingostylis coelestinum) and rare wading birds including wood storks and little blue 

herons (Cox et al., 1994). 

. . / Invasive Species 

Invasive species, also known as exotic species, are those wild or feral plants or animals that are not native 

to Florida, but were introduced as a result of human-related activities. Exotic species typically have fewer 

natural enemies and may have a higher survival rate than do native species. They may harbor diseases 

or parasites that significantly affect non-resistant native species. All invasive exotic species are a threat to 

the integrity of the GTM Research Reserve’s natural communities and are in direct conflict with its mission

to encourage sustainable conservation of natural biodiversity. The degree of threat posed by these 

species differs within managed areas comprising the GTM Research Reserve. Therefore, the policy of the 

GTM Research Reserve and its partners is to remove exotic species incompatible with each location’s 

management goals. 

Prevention is the best strategy to protect the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources from damage 

by invasive exotic species. Many of these species are introduced to the GTM Research Reserve by well 

intentioned individuals, are escaped pets, or are carried on boats or in ballast water. The threats caused 

by exotic species and prevention strategies must be continually included in educational materials to 

emphasize the severity of this issue and to promote voluntary action. In addition, stewardship and 

research strategies are needed to quickly identify new invasions and assess the impact to native flora 

and fauna. Climate change and its impact on range extension of exotic species from south Florida is an 

increasing topic of concern for the GTM Research Reserve. 

A majority of the past focus of the GTM Research Reserve has been on terrestrial exotic species; 

however, estuarine, oceanic and freshwater invasive species are equally damaging. Recent invasions 

by Asian green mussels (Perna viridis) and titan acorn barnacles (Megabalanus coccopoma) have been 

documented in the GTM Research Reserve. As with many aquatic managed areas a comprehensive 

management strategy to quickly detect estuarine invasive species and, when feasible, to control new 

introductions does not exist. The GTM Research Reserve will continue to serve as a clearinghouse for 

science-based trends in detection and control methods for terrestrial and estuarine invasive species. 

Details of the GTM Research Reserve invasive and nuisance species management issues and strategies 

can be found in Appendix A 7. 

. . / Problem/Nuisance Species 

Problem species are defined as native species that cause specific management problems or concerns. 

Occasionally, problem species are also a listed species, such as alligators. The GTM Research 

Reserve and its partners will consult and coordinate with appropriate federal, state and local agencies 

for management of listed species that are considered a threat or problem. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) 

are problem species in the picnic grounds and refuse collection points within the GTM Research 

Reserve where they scavenge for food. Education of the GTM Research Reserve visitors related to the 

consequences of feeding wildlife will continue. 

Outbreaks of mosquitoes and other biting flies are perceived as a problem by some GTM Research 

Reserve visitors. The marshes and freshwater wetlands can be breeding sites for mosquitoes. The GTM 

Research Reserve is partnering with the Anastasia Mosquito Control District to explore creating a cofunded 

biologist position to study the non-target impact of mosquito control techniques and to guide 

the development of strategies to selectively control mosquitoes in areas with high human use while 

minimizing damage to the GTM Research Reserve’s natural biodiversity. 

. . / Forest Resources 

Forest resources vary within the management units that comprise the GTM Research Reserve. State 

agency specific information is available within each unit’s Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) 

approved management plan. The most practical application of silviculture within the CAMA managed 

lands of the GTM Research Reserve is as a tool in achieving restoration objectives and for reducing 

wildfire hazards. In the best case scenario the revenue potential of timber harvest in the GTM Research 

Reserve is low to average (Appendix A 8). 

. . / Archaeological and Historical Resources 

Modern northeast Florida’s appearance is the result of a long interaction of humans and nature. The 

region is of special interest because of the comprehensive documentary record of human settlement and 

landscape modifications beginning at an early date. The detailed records of the mid-sixteenth century, 

Native American, Spanish, French, British and American inhabitants indicate that these cultures adapted 

in very different ways. Burning, clear cutting, plowing, dredging, filling, ditching and drainage are all 

evident throughout the historical record. 

The first inhabitants of northeast Florida adapted to Late Glacial conditions with a technology and 

settlement pattern suited to the hunting of scarce and large animals in a dry climate. Even at quite 

low population densities the environmental landuse of these Paleo Native Americans may have 

included hunting to extinction a number of large vertebrate species (Miller, 1991). Between 10,000 

and 5,000 years ago, the most fundamental changes to the environment were natural in origin. As

sea level rise slowed to its pre-industrial rate, water resources, small game, and plant resources 

became more accessible. This condition enhanced settlement in coastal locations. By about 5,000 

years ago the coastal environment of Florida had become similar to the present day situation. Native 

Americans living on the coast took advantage of the relatively stable and abundant seafood, an 

important source of protein. As human populations became more sedentary in response to stable 

conditions, opportunities for specialized collection and domestication of plants increased along with 

the duration of settlements. 

There are currently 61 recorded archaeological sites within the boundaries of the area directly managed 

by the GTM Research Reserve (Figure 16). Known sites include a burial mound, numerous shell middens, 

a Spanish mission (probably La Natividad de Nuestra Senora de Tolomato), and homestead sites from the 

British, Second Spanish and Territorial Periods (Newman 1995). 

Some of the major prehistoric and historic cultural sites in the GTM Research Reserve include: 

Northern Component (Figure 16) 

SJ00032 Shell Bluff Landing - This is an 

extensive midden site located on the west side 

of the Guana peninsula long the shoreline of 

the Tolomato River. Artifacts representing the 

cultures of the area from the Orange Period 

(ca. 2500 BC) to recent times have been 

found at the site. A 19th century Minorcan 

well, constructed of coquina blocks, was 

discovered at the site and dated to about the 

1800-1820 period. On February 8, 1991, the 

Florida Register Review Board approved the 

nomination of Shell Bluff Landing for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

SJ02554 Guana River Shell Ring - This large, 

100 meter diameter shell ring is made up of 

oyster, clam, and coquina shells on the east 

side of the Guana peninsula adjacent to Lake 

Ponte Vedra (formerly part of the Guana River). 

Artifacts found at the site indicate a late Archaic 

Period (ca. 500-1000 BC) date for the ring's 

construction. This is the only Archaic shell 

ring reported to date in the state of Florida. It 

is considered eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

SJ02463 Guana River Site - This extensive 

shell midden extends over 100 meters along 

a ridge overlooking Lake Ponte Vedra. The 

midden is made up of layers of zones believed 

to date from the preceramic Archaic Period 

(prior to 2500 BC) in the lowest zone to historic 

European occupation, Spanish or British (ca. 

AD 1763-1900), in the upper zone. 

SJ00004 Sanchez Mound - An earthen mound 

of stone celts, whetstones and human bundle 

burials on the Guana Peninsula. There has been 

no formal archaeological survey of this site. 

SJ02548 Little Orange Site - A small shell 

midden located on the western shoreline of the 

Guana River. Shells, as well as fire-tempered 

shards (ca. 2500 BC) and a Strombus pick were 

collected at this site. 

Tolomato 

Bar 

Anchorage 

Site 

On the 

Line 

Stokes 

Creek 

Barges 

^_ 

Guana 4 

Guana 

Ruins 

Vilano 

Beach 

Rudder 

The data compiled 

for this map excludes 

any sites with 

Native American 

artifacts. 

± 

GTM Research Reserve Northern Component 


Guana River Marsh AP Sites 

^_ GTM Research Reserve Office 

0 2 4 

Miles May 2008 

^_ 

St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Data Source: Florida Department of Historical Resources 

Figure 6 / Cultural resources of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s northern component excluding sites with 

known native american artifacts.

Southern Component (Figure 17) 

SJ00046 Summer Haven Site - A late Orange Period archaeological site. Archaeological digs at this 

site found tools, fiber tempered pottery, and other evidence indicating that Native Americans used water 

transportation and engaged in fishing in the area. 

Faver-Dykes State Park has five identified sites with artifacts from the full range of cultural periods: 

Orange, St. Johns, Saint Augustine and Second Spanish from the Hepworth Carter Plantation site. 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park has several nineteenth and early twentieth century sites 

associated with the Bella Vista Plantation, as well as sites associated with the ornamental gardens dating 

from the late 1930s - 1950s. In addition the area has several middens in fair to good condition. 

Princess Place Preserve has Florida’s oldest commercial orange groves planted in the early 1800’s. 

The land is part of the original land grant from the Spanish Government in the late 1700’s; it may be the 

only contiguous land grant remaining from that time period. The site contains one of Florida’s first inground 

pools. 

SJ00044 Matanzas Inlet, at Fort Matanzas National Monument, was the scene of crucial events in 

Spanish colonial history. The defeat of French soldiers here in 1565 initiated Spain’s establishment of its 

first permanent colony in Florida. The construction of Fort Matanzas in 1740-42 was Spain’s attempt to 

stop British encroachments on St. Augustine (Smith 2006). 

^_ 

Archaeological Sites 

Within GTM Research Reserve (South) 

^_ GTM Research Reserve Office 

Pellicer Creek AP 

0 0.75 1.5 

Miles 

Cluster 1 

Data Source: Florida Department of Historical Resources 

Ft. Matanzas 

National Monument 

Princess Place 

Manor House 

Figure / Cultural resources of the GTM Research reserve’s southern component excluding sites 

containing known native american artifacts. 

^_ 

± 

May 2008

Although likely to be significant, much less is known about underwater archaeological resources in the 

GTM Research Reserve. The GTM Research Reserve recently cosponsored, along with the Lighthouse 

Archaeological Maritime Program (LAMP) in St. Augustine, a symposium on underwater archaeology 

to bring together experts in this field and to promote collaboration on future research and educational 

initiatives within the GTM Research Reserve. It is one of the GTM Research Reserve’s goals to enhance 

regional understanding, interpretation and preservation of cultural resources by proactively working 

with state, federal and local agencies, academic institutions, private industry and citizens. 

. / Compatible and Traditional Uses 

Community leaders along with state, federal and 

local governments have preserved extensive 

areas within the watershed of the GTM Research 

Reserve. This opportunity provides a unique 

setting for ecosystem level scientific research and 

monitoring necessary to study and set restoration 

goals for conserving the natural biodiversity in 

the region. Serving as a living laboratory and 

classroom, the GTM Research Reserve is well 

suited to encourage compatible use by present 

and future generations. 

Compatible consumptive and nonconsumptive 

use of the GTM Research Reserve’s natural 

resources provides a valuable resource for the 

local community. Ecotourism and recreational 

uses within the GTM Research Reserve 

including boating, picnicking, swimming, sport 

fishing, cast netting, hunting, group camping, 

primitive camping, hiking, biking, horseback 

riding, canoeing, kayaking and nature study 

are outstanding. There are ample public 

access points (Figures 18, 19). Currently there 

are eleven boat ramps, four picnic areas, 

twelve parking lots, eight trail heads and three 

designated camping areas in the GTM Research 

Reserve with many public access sites serving 

multiple functions. 

The GTM Research Reserve also contains 

magnificent vistas and photographic 

opportunities across expansive salt marshes 

and miles of undeveloped beaches. Wildlife 

viewing, especially birds, is excellent. 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park has 

an extensive plant garden for viewing along 

the Matanzas River and a unique coquina 

rock outcrop, the Anastasia Formation. Fort 

Matanzas National Monument provides exhibits 

and tours of historical significance. Faver- 

Dykes State Park provides for nature study, 

camping, picnicking and canoeing. Princess 

Place Preserve has many unique cultural 

features and is managed by Flagler County 

for its historical preservation and recreational 

value. The GRWMA provides outstanding 

resources for hunters and nature enthusiasts. 

Sport fishing for estuarine species includes 

drum, menhaden, spotted sea trout, weakfish, 

spot and flounder. Oceanic sport fishing species 

include blue fish, sharks, wahoo, barracuda, 

!y 

!B 

!y 

!5 

!B 

!i 

!y 

!i 

!i 

!B !y 

!i 

Properties Within GTMNERR (North) 


Deep Creek State Forest 

Guana River Wildlife Management Area 

Stokes Landing Conservation Area 

Guana River Uplands 

!y Boat Ramp 

!9 Camp Sites 

!j Parking 

!5 Picnic Area 

!B Trailhead 

Note: Boat Ramps 

and Trailheads 

also include Parking. 

P alm 

C oast 

± 

0 1 2 Miles Sept 2008 

Figure / Public access points within the northern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve.

6 

mackerel, mahi mahi, cobia, snapper and grouper. Limited recreational oyster and hard clam harvesting 

throughout the estuary occurs as well. The natural resources of the GTM Research Reserve are also 

valued commercially through aquaculture (oyster and clam leases), ecotourism, fishing charters, tackle 

shops and other marine trade businesses. 

!B 

!j 

!9 

!y 

!9!5 

!9 

!B !B 

!y !y 

!y 

!y 

!5 !y !9 

!j !B 

!j 

!j 

!9!y !j 

!B 

Properties Within GTMNERR (South) 


River To Sea Preserve 

Pellicer Creek AP Unit 

Faver-Dykes State Park 

Ft. Matanzas National Monument 


Moses Creek Conservation Area 

Pellicer Creek Conservation Area 

Princess Place Preserve 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park 

!y Boat Ramp 

!9 Camp Sites 

!j Parking 

!5 Picnic Area 

!B Trailhead 

Note: Boat Ramps 

and Trailheads 

also include Parking. 

!j 

!j 

!j 

!5 

Palm 

Coast 

± 

0 1 2 Miles Sept 2008 

Figure / Public access points in the southern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve. 

There are currently six aquaculture leases within 

the GTM Research Reserve totaling 42 acres. 

Other consumptive commercial resource use in 

the estuarine system include fishing for penaeid 

shrimp, blue crabs, clams, scallops, oysters, 

and various finfish species. Of these, blue 

crabs and shrimp are the most predominant. 

Sustainability of the habitats that support these 

resources is a management priority for the GTM 

Research Reserve. 

The beaches along the Atlantic Ocean are one of 

the main reasons that tourists are attracted to the 

area. CAMA directly manages nearly five miles of 

virtually undeveloped Atlantic coastal beachfront. 

The beach dunes are some of the highest in 

Florida. Combined with the availability of platform 

overlooks, these beach dunes accommodate 

tens of thousands of visitors each year with grand 

vistas of some of Florida’s last remaining barrier 

island scenery. The dune system represents 

some of the last undisturbed high dune habitat 

along the Atlantic coast. Additionally, there are 

numerous historical attractions and cultural 

resources which must be carefully studied 

and interpreted, some of which have yet to 

be discovered. A scientific means to define 

sustainable carrying capacity is essential to 

ensure long-term conservation of these habitats. 

Another identified need is to conduct a scientific 

evaluation of the economic relevance of coastal 

resource protection for the region to evaluate the 

costs and benefits of conservation efforts. 

GTM Research Reserve staff recently 

completed a year-long Visitor Use Survey 

to document relative frequencies of various 

types of recreational public use, including 

the Guana Dam, the trail system, and the 

Atlantic beaches (Figure 20). The survey 

was administered to visitors randomly over a 

variety of time periods from January through 

December 2006. 

The Visitor Survey also provided an opportunity 

for visitors to provide recommendations 

for improvements to the visitor experience. 

Some of these recommendations were readily 

implemented when determined to be consistent 

with the GTM Research Reserve’s resource 

protection goals. Such recommendations 

included additional benches and picnic tables at 

the dam and on the trail system, and additional 

interpretive kiosks on the trail system. 

The visitors survey identified the need for 

additional signage for visitors at the four beach 

dune crossovers, including interpretive signage

egarding the North Atlantic right whale, nesting shorebirds, and general public information. Stewardship 

staff has initiated work to meet these needs and will continue to do so as needed. 

The visitor survey also suggests that fishing is the single most frequent public use of the surveyed 

areas. The Guana Dam is the most popular location for fishing, crabbing and shrimping, and is open 

to the public from 4:00 AM to 11:00 PM daily. Fishing pressure at the dam can be intense during peak 

conditions, and may be applying excessive pressure on the natural resources there. As Guana Lake 

is managed by FWC, discussions with the staff of the Guana River Wildlife Management Area might 

provide some guidance on gamefish stocks there. Access to the dam and lake shore is managed by GTM 

Research Reserve, so any changes in management of this public opportunity would need to be resolved 

cooperatively between the two agencies. 

GTM Research Reserve staff has occasionally received requests from the public for overnight access to 

the dam. These requests are primarily from fishermen and shrimpers, but also include astronomy clubs 

wishing to take advantage of the dark skies of the GTM Research Reserve. The GTM Research Reserve 

may wish to explore the need to issue special permits for overnight access to the dam, but any decision 

regarding that would need to include the elements of public security and resource protection. 

GTM Research Reserve staff recently concluded a pilot project for expanded equestrian opportunities. 

Based on the lack of evidence of bacteriological contamination, horseback riding on the beach will be 

allowed to continue. Horseback riding on the beach is allowed with the following conditions: horses are 

allowed only below mean high tide, within 3 hours of daily low tide. These restrictions are necessary for 

resource protection. The trail system will also remain open for equestrian user groups seven days per 

week. Additional restrictions may be necessary but only if scientifically-based monitoring results indicate 

natural resource damage. 

GTM Research Reserve staff work cooperatively with several local Boy Scouts of America (BSA) troops 

and 4-H clubs to provide public use amenities and resource restoration projects. A new interpretive 

Number of people 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Canoe 

Uses of GTMNERR Resources - January thru December, 2006 

Kayak 

Powerboat 

Fish 

View Birds 

View Plants 

View Wildlife 

Activity 

Figure 0 / Relative public use by type based on a one-year survey conducted at the GTM Research 

Reserve from January through December of 00 . 

Horseback Riding 

Historical/Cultural Study 

Hike 

Bike 

Photography 

Wilderness Experience 

Jogging 

Classroom Study 

Organized Event 

Beach Activities

kiosk was constructed and installed by BSA at Shell Bluff Landing in 2006. This kiosk provides 

interpretive information on some aspects of the cultural significance of the Guana peninsula. Additional 

interpretive kiosks on the trail system are needed to provide information on the rich archaeological and 

cultural history of this site. 

Table / Compatible public use within the GTM Research Reserve. 

Analysis of Multiple-Use Potential for the GTM Research Reserve 

Activity Approved Conditional Rejected 

Protection of endangered and threatened species X 

Ecosystem maintenance X 

Soil and water conservation X 

Hunting 

Fishing X 

Wildlife observation X 

Hiking X 

Bicycling X 

Horseback riding X 

Timber harvest X 

Cattle grazing X 

Camping X 

Apiaries X 

Linear facilities 

Off road vehicle use X 

Environmental education X 

Citriculture or other agriculture X 

Preservation of archaeological and historical sites X 

(Other uses as determined on an individual basis) X 

Most of the waters of GTM Research Reserve are currently managed for multi-use functions, 

including research, education, and public recreation. The waters of the GRMAP and the PCAP 

are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). The submerged lands within the northern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve and along populated shorelines of the Matanzas River are 

mainly classified as conditionally restricted with regards to shellfish harvesting. Submerged lands 

within PCAP are unclassified therefore shellfish harvesting is not permitted pending bacteriological 

and sanitary surveys. The most extensive area of conditional approved shellfish harvesting occurs 

along the western shore of the Matanzas River just south of the CR206 Bridge. More detailed and 

up-to-date information concerning shellfish harvesting can be found at www.floridaaquaculture.com/ 

SEAS/SEASmngmt.htm. 

Alternative uses of properties within GTM Research Reserve have on several occasions been proposed 

by sectors of the public. Proposals for alternative use have involved various public infrastructure 

projects, including a public high school, highway lane expansions, and a cell phone tower. GTM 

Research Reserve staff refrained from support of these projects as the best available information 

indicated that these activities were inconsistent with the mission of the NERRS and the conservation/ 

recreation goals of state acquisition. 

Fee based public recreation that is consistent with resource protection continues to offer the preferred 

revenue generation opportunity of the GTM Research Reserve. An automatic pay entry station was 

installed by GTM Research Reserve staff as part of the parking lot improvement project at the dam in 

2005. Entry fees to the Guana Dam and public trails are collected at this station and have significantly 

enhanced revenue generation versus the former honor system of payment.

Natural dunes protect inland areas from storm damage, serve as wildlife habitats, and support beach 

processes resulting in outstanding recreational opportunities. 

. / Non-CAMA Managed Public Lands within the GTM Research Reserve Boundaries 


FWC’s Guana River Wildlife Management Area 

(myfwc.com/RECREATION/guana_river/default.asp) 

The GRWMA is located about 15 miles south of the Jacksonville metropolitan area and 13 miles north of 

St. Augustine. It is within the northern component of the GTM Research Reserve. The southern boundary 

is shared with the CAMA managed unit, and the western boundary connects to the Tolomato River. This 

area consists of central and northern marshes, interior uplands and Lake Ponte Vedra and is composed 

primarily of coastal maritime ecosystems. It is uniquely situated to afford recreational opportunities to a 

large segment of Florida’s population, as well as to tourists who traditionally visit the area. 

Water resources on GRWMA are among the most prominent features in the area, and include estuarine 

(tidal) waters of the Tolomato River, interior impoundments, marshes, swamps and five artesian wells. 

These waters are currently designated as OFW under section 17-3.041(c), Florida Administrative Code. 

The GRWMA is unique in that it contains a vast diversity of natural, cultural and recreational 

resources. There is an extensive area of undisturbed scrub vegetation; a large maritime hammock 

containing an unusual natural association of mature trees; extensive estuarine wetlands; extensive 

areas of pine flatwoods; bird rookeries, including a sizable population of the endangered wood stork; 

and extensive aboriginal middens, aboriginal burial mounds and artifacts of aboriginal and Spanish 

colonial origin. 

The diversity of the vegetative communities on GRWMA is one of the GTM Research Reserve’s most 

striking features. These communities, which are highly influenced by coastal maritime conditions, are 

also characteristic of the Sea Island Coastal Region of southern Georgia. A formal survey of vegetative 

species composition, density and frequency of occurrence within plant communities was initiated in

0 

the spring of 1989. The purpose was to develop a characterization of vegetative communities within 

GRWMA. There are approximately 1,918 acres of pine stands of various ages and densities on Guana 

GRWMA. Approximately 779 acres of the pine area is comprised of commercial plantations, with the 

remainder comprising natural stands of various densities. Scenic features include upland vegetation 

characteristic of mature maritime forest hammocks. 

Florida Division of Forestry’s Deep Creek State Forest 

(www.fl-dof.com/state_forests/) 

These lands are managed for multiple uses including, but not limited to, timber management and 

restoration, low impact recreational opportunities, and protection of archaeological and historic sites. 

St. Johns River Water Management District’s Stokes Landing Conservation Area 

(www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/n15/l) 

This conservation area is located in St. Johns County, approximately 3 miles north of downtown St. 

Augustine. Stokes Landing Conservation Area is open to the public for recreational activities such as 

hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing, and fishing. 

The Stokes Landing Conservation Area is composed of approximately 226.78 acres (75%) of uplands and 

74.39 acres (25%) of wetlands. The property encompasses five different natural communities: tidal marsh; 

depression marsh; maritime hammock; flatwoods; and scrubby flatwoods. The property adjoins the tidal 

marshes of the Tolomato River. Stokes Landing Conservation Area is a key tract in linking several other 

public lands in Eastern Florida. The conservation area is adjacent to the Northeast Florida Blueway Phase 

II Florida Forever Project. 


National Park Service’s Fort Matanzas National Monument 

(www.nps.gov/foma/) 

Fort Matanzas National Monument is located about 15 miles south of the historic district of St. Augustine, 

Florida with access via an entrance on SR A1A. Fort Matanzas guarded the southern inlet leading to the 

first permanent European settlement in the continental United States. As such, Fort Matanzas, built in 

1741, represents one of the oldest and most well preserved historical structures within GTM Research 

Reserve. Fort Matanzas was designated as a National Historic Site in 1924. 

The original national monument site consisted of only the fort on Rattlesnake Island. Through the years, 

however, the National Park Service has been able to acquire additional land both on Rattlesnake and on 

adjacent Anastasia Island to conserve a portion of an intact barrier island ecosystem. The river and ocean 

beaches as well as the 0.6 mile nature trail offer visitors the opportunity to view a variety of plants and 

wildlife native to this ecosystem. 

The distinct habitats located within Fort Matanzas National Monument harbor a number of species, 

several of which are listed as endangered or threatened. From May to August, the ocean beach is the 

nesting site for sea turtles, including the threatened loggerhead and the green and leatherback, both 

of which are endangered. The beach is also home to the least tern, and presumably the endangered 

Anastasia Island beach mouse. 

The gopher tortoise, a species of special concern in Florida, is found in the scrub habitat along with the 

endangered eastern indigo snake and five-lined skink. Herons, egrets, and endangered wood storks feed 

on the mud flats which are also the home of fiddler and hermit crabs. Ospreys, bald eagles, skimmers, 

pelicans, terns, and gulls can be seen flying over the Matanzas River, and it is not unusual to sight 

dolphins or manatees. 

Fort Matanzas National Monument is an important historical location in northeast Florida. Initial 

construction at Fort Matanzas started in 1569 with a wooden watchtower and thatched hut. These 

structures were later replaced with a coquina fort. The fort was critically important in guarding Matanzas 

Inlet, which was the key to guarding St. Augustine. Ownership of St. Augustine was constantly contested 

between the British and Spanish empires, and the fort was a witness to important historical battles. This 

included the blockade of St. Augustine by James Oglethorpe in 1740. The fort helps to ensure that the 

history and importance of this area will continue to be known and understood.

Forests are needed for clean air and water, to cycle and move nutrients, maintain biodiversity, and 

moderate the impact of climate change by storing atmospheric carbon. 

Florida Park Service’s Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 

(Washington Oaks Gardens State Park) 

(www.floridastateparks.org/washingtonoaks/) 

Washington Oaks Gardens State Park is located in Flagler County about 20 miles south of the City of 

St. Augustine. The park is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the AIWW on the west and 

consists of 423.31 acres. In the management of Washington Oaks Gardens State Park emphasis is placed 

on the natural and cultural resources and the maintenance and enhancement of the historic gardens. 

Recreational uses are passive. Activities in the park have been limited to the gardens, picnicking, nature 

trails and necessary support facilities. Park programs emphasize interpretation of the park’s natural and 

cultural resources. 

The park contains nine distinct natural communities in addition to ruderal and developed areas; beach 

dune; coastal strand; maritime hammock; mesic flatwoods; scrubby flatwoods; shell mound; estuarine 

tidal marsh; marine consolidated substrate; and marine unconsolidated substrate. The hammock, scrub, 

and coastal strand communities and the rock outcroppings on the beach provide habitat for a variety of 

wildlife. A total of 45 listed species have been documented in or over the park. Their occurrences range 

from full-time residences breeding in the park to casual visitors. Two species of marine turtles have been 

documented nesting on the park beach, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas). Gopher tortoises are found throughout the park and Florida scrub-jays were once residents as 

well. The park also contains a rare Anastasia Formation outcrop on the beach. This outcrop provides an 

important source of hard bottom substrate that is colonized by a large number of unique plants and animals. 

There are many opportunities for visitors to observe a wide variety of plant and animal species in the park. 

East central Florida has a rich cultural prehistory and history. The area that today is Washington Oaks 

Gardens State Park saw occupation and/or utilization by a cultural sequence of Archaic, Mount Taylor, 

Orange, Transitional, St. Johns, First Spanish Period, British Period, Second Spanish Period, Territorial 

and Seminole (Milanich 1980).

Washington Oaks contains evidence of prehistoric occupation as well as historic use. Washington Oaks 

also has a substantial historic component. This includes nineteenth- and early twentieth century sites 

associated with the Bella Vista Plantation, as well as sites associated with the ornamental gardens dating 

from the late 1930s - 1950s. 

Access to the AIWW bordering the western shoreline of the park is available for fishing and scenery 

appreciation. The Atlantic beachfront contains unique natural coquina rock outcroppings. This park 

provides quality visual resources. The ornamental gardens are particularly attractive, as are the 

hammock, coastal strand, scrub, and beach communities. Scenic vistas are available from both shoreline 

areas of the park. 

Florida Park Service’s Faver-Dykes State Park 

(www.floridastateparks.org/faver-dykes/) 

Faver-Dykes State Park is located in St. Johns County and is bordered east, north and south with 

conservation lands. Although some of this property was logged prior to state purchase and is being 

restored, the overall significance of this property remains. At Faver-Dykes State Park, public outdoor 

recreation and conservation is the designated use of the property. Faver-Dykes State Park contains 

6,045.89 acres. 

The park contains thirteen natural communities in addition to ruderal and developed areas: coastal 

berm; mesic flatwoods; sandhill; scrubby flatwoods; upland mixed forest; basin swamp; depression 

marsh; dome swamp; floodplain swamp; flatwoods lake; blackwater stream; and estuarine tidal marsh. 

The variety of plant communities accounts for the abundant wildlife present. Pellicer Creek is home 

to waterfowl, alligators, otters and raccoons. Deer, turkey, hawks, owls, squirrels, bobcats, foxes and 

opossums range throughout the uplands. Ten listed plant species and 26 listed animal species occur at 

Faver-Dykes. The park records occasional sightings of Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus). 

Gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), gopher frogs (Rana capito), and striped newts (Notophthalmus 

perstriatus) also occur within the unit. There is a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest within the 

park and three more within five miles of the park. 

Northeast and East Central Florida have a rich cultural prehistory and history. The area around Pellicer 

Creek was occupied and utilized by Native Americans during the full sequence of Precolumbian cultural 

periods, beginning with the Paleo Indian, and continuing through the Archaic, Mount Taylor, Orange, 

Transitional and St. Johns Periods. Technological changes observed in the archaeological record, and 

evidence of increasing populations, marked each progressive period. The list of Native American cultures 

also includes the Seminole, although they are descended from Lower Creeks who fled from Georgia and 

Alabama to north Florida in the 18th century (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980, Milanich 1994, Milanich 1995, 

Stanton 2001). 

The park contains magnificent vistas across expansive salt marsh along both Pellicer Creek and the 

Matanzas River. The salt marsh is of high quality, reflected in the variety of fish and wildlife resources that 

occur at this site. Wildlife viewing, especially birds, is particularly good. The expanse of marsh, the quiet 

waters of Pellicer Creek and the changing banks of the blackwater stream are significant. 

St. Johns River Water Management District’s Moses Creek Conservation Area 

(www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/n10/) 

Moses Creek Conservation Area is located in St. Johns County south of St. Augustine and is within the 

Northern Coastal Basin. The property lies in the area of confluence of Moses Creek and the Matanzas 

River. The property is bounded to the north by a housing development, to the west by schools, and to the 

south by small neighborhoods and SR 206. The entire eastern boundary of the property is the Matanzas 

River. Moses Creek Conservation Area comprises approximately 2,173 acres. 

Moses Creek contains thirteen natural communities: flatwoods; slope forest; sandhill; scrub; tidal marsh; 

blackwater stream; freshwater tidal swamp; upland mixed forest; tidal flats; depression marsh; basin 

swamp; dome swamp; and floodplain swamp. 

The diversity of natural communities at Moses is so great that the creek itself runs through three separate 

communities within the conservation area boundary. Slope forest grades into the creek as it enters the 

property. The slope forest community then gives way to tidal swamp Finally the creek winds through tidal 

marsh for a majority of the its route through the conservation area. Other communities represented on 

the conservation area include flatwoods, sandhill, scrub, depression marsh, upland mixed forest, strand 

swamp, and tidal flats.

The Anastasia Island beach mouse is one of many rare or endangered resident species that depend on 

the conservation of natural lands within the GTM Research Reserve. 

Moses Creek Conservation Area surrounds one of the last undisturbed tidal marsh creek systems 

along the east coast of Florida. Additionally, the property has a diverse system of upland and 

wetland communities. 

St. Johns River Water Management District’s Pellicer Creek Conservation Area 

(www.sjrwmd.com/recreationguide/nc07/) 

Pellicer Creek Conservation Area is located in northeastern Flagler County, lies along the southern 

shoreline of Pellicer Creek and contains approximately 2,997 acres. The site has about 6.3 miles of 

frontage along Pellicer Creek and is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the Matanzas River, which is 

part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. 

The District and the FWC have worked together to establish a Fish Management Area within the 

conservation area. 

Approximately 34 percent of the Pellicer Creek Conservation Area is wetland and 66 percent is 

upland. Much of the vegetation present on the property reflects its previous management as a pine 

plantation. The area contains ten natural communities: tidal marsh; blackwater stream; upland mixed 

forest; sandhill; pine flatwoods; scrubby flatwoods; floodplain swamp; dome swamp; depression 

marsh; and scrub. 

An extensive network of public land surrounds Pellicer Creek Conservation Area. Collectively, these lands 

make up the Pellicer Creek Conservation Corridor. 

Flagler County’s Princess Place Preserve 

(www.flaglerparks.com/princess/preserve.htm) 

The Princess Place Preserve is located on a knoll overlooking the confluence of Pellicer Creek and the 

AIWW, the estate was once home to a Russian Princess. It was built as a hunting lodge in 1886 by Henry 

Cutting and is the oldest standing structure in the county. Princess Place has a rich history and contains 

1500 pristine acres.

The preserve is an important component of Flagler County’s system of parks. There are many 

opportunities for wildlife viewing. For more information on Princess Place Preserve, its resources, and 

how it is managed, please refer to that site’s management plan which can be acquired by contacting 

Flagler County. 

The preserve attracts nature enthusiasts from near and far. Visitors can enjoy the environment using 

the many hiking trails, fishing in the salt marshes along the Matanzas River and Pellicer Creek, or by 

camping. The preserve is also a popular spot for equestrian enthusiasts. 

Flagler County’s River to Sea Preserve 

(www.flaglerparks.com/riversea/preserve.htm) 

The River to Sea Preserve is located on both sides of SR A1A in Marineland. It is jointly owned by 

Flagler County and the Town of Marineland. Beginning at the beach of the Atlantic Ocean and reaching 

west to the Matanzas River, the River to Sea Preserve protects a rapidly disappearing maritime scrub 

environment. The 90 acre preserve offers walking trails, nature vistas, ecological education opportunities 

as well as public access to the beach. 

Oak scrub and hardwood hammock cover the preserve on the west side of SR A1A, and beach 

environments can be found east of SR AIA. Bird and plant life abound.

The GTM Research Reserve is habitat to migrating species such as loggerhead sea turtles, North Atlantic right 

whales, and peregrine falcons. 

Part Two 

Management Programs and Issues 

Chapter Five 

Program Accomplishments 

. / Current Status of the Ecosystem Science Program at the GTM Research Reserve 

The role of the GTM Research Reserve Ecosystem Science Program is (in order of a logical progression) to: 

1. Provide logistic support for visiting scientists toward expanding our understanding of basic and 

applied ecological processes related to the reserve and its watershed, 

2. Summarize existing scientific information with the purpose of communicating the status and trends 

in pollutants, habitats, and biological diversity of the reserve’s ecosystems and to identify additional 

research needs to obtain this information, 

3. Initiate new research initiatives and monitoring projects to fill gaps in our understanding key 

ecosystem functions and services pertaining to pollutants, habitats, and biological diversity, and 

4. Develop and guide best management practices as solutions to harmful trends in pollutants, habitats, 

and biological diversity as detected by scientific research. To date, most of the activities of the GTM 

Research Reserve estuarine research program have focused on logistic support of visiting scientists 

to understand ecological processes related to the reserve and its watershed. The goals, strategies, 

and objectives of this management plan (Ecosystem Science Strategies Chapter 6) represent a 

significant enhancement of the reserve’s ability to prioritize research needs and integrate the results 

into its education and resource management programs. 

Development of the facilities and acquisition of equipment needed to support research and monitoring 

activities has been a major part of implementing the GTM Research Reserve ecosystem science

6 

Research is necessary to follow trends and sustain local recreational and commercial fisheries. 

program. Particular effort has been devoted to bringing the various elements of the National Estuarine 

Research Reserves’ System Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) into operational status in compliance 

with the national directives. This program now includes four water quality monitoring stations at which 

YSI 6600 datasondes are deployed and collect a suite of abiotic parameters at 15 minute intervals, 

a weather station that collects a variety meteorological data at 15 minute intervals and nutrient plus 

chlorophyll analyses of water samples collected monthly at each of the water quality stations in addition 

to a diel sampling regime carried out once a month at the Pellicer Creek site. Both the weather station 

and the water quality station at Pellicer Creek have satellite telemetry which provides near real-time 

data availability. 

Beyond the SWMP initiatives, a range of mapping, research, monitoring and modeling activities prior 

to and following establishment of the GTM Research Reserve in 1999 have helped provide important 

information on several aspects of its estuarine systems and associated issues of concern. Much of the 

work has been pioneering for this relatively unstudied region of northeast Florida, affording important 

baseline information and understanding for a broad array of the complex natural systems and processes 

of the GTM estuaries. These studies have ranged from hydrodynamic modeling to fisheries and microbial 

investigations, performed chiefly by various agencies or students and researchers from academia. A lead 

role on many of these efforts has been taken by the NCB Program of the SJRWMD, often in partnership with 

the GTM Research Reserve. It is also noteworthy that several projects have been performed by graduate 

students supported through the NERR’s Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) Program, an initiative that 

provides master’s degree students and Ph.D. candidates with an opportunity to conduct research of local 

and national significance that focuses on enhancing coastal zone management. Together, the knowledge 

gained from these diverse studies has importantly contributed to a foundation upon which future ecosystem 

science initiatives can build and has served as a vital part of the platform from which informational gaps and 

issues have been identified in the formulation and focus of this management plan. 

A comprehensive summary of all past and ongoing research, monitoring and mapping activities for 

the GTM Research Reserve is provided in its site profile. This document also reiterates many of the 

research/monitoring informational gaps and needs that are addressed in the goals, objectives and 

strategies of this management plan. Selected examples of past and present ecosystem science 

activities are briefly summarized below to illustrate the range of work that has contributed to our

understanding of different elements of the GTM estuarine system. The reader is referred to the Site 

Profile for a more detailed discussion and bibliography. 

1. A three-year fisheries monitoring project initiated in November of 2001 focusing on surveying 

the distribution and abundance of fish species as a function of habitat and season within the 

GTM Research Reserve south to Ponce Inlet. It was funded and managed through the Northern 

Coastal Basin (NCB) Program of the St. Johns River Water Management District in conjunction 

with the USGS Biological Resources Division, and involved cooperation with a number of partner 

agencies in terms of resources and field assistance. This was the first survey of its kind within the 

GTM Research Reserve’s estuaries, and yielded important insights on the seasonal diversity and 

distribution of fish species. 

2. Development of a 2-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the GTM Research Reserve; again, funded 

through the NCB program. A work in progress, it can be used to predict changes in water level and 

velocity for specific ocean tides and wind conditions. This effort has contributed to a fundamental 

understanding of circulation patterns within the GTM system. 

3. Delineation of emergent marsh vegetation within the GTM Research Reserve. This recently completed 

GIS-based project was a partnership study with the SJRWMD funded in part by the GTM Research 

Reserve. This work was a pilot “bio-monitoring” study to map marsh vegetation as a step towards 

assessing historical differences and future change. 

4. Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas Shellfish Task Force Report. Generated prior to the GTM Research 

Reserve designation, this report by a multi-agency and university task force was an analysis 

of fecal coliform levels in shellfish harvesting waters. The task force was assembled to identify 

potential sources of fecal coliform that led to re-classification of shellfish harvesting waters in St. 

Johns County. 

5. A GRF project to understand the southerly fall migration of bluefish to over wintering grounds. The 

study examined the abundance and distribution patterns of this species during the fall and winter 

months in the vicinity of both the St. Augustine and Matanzas Inlets. The project analyzed aspects 

of distribution, essential habitat, diet and condition. The work yielded detailed information on use 

patterns of the Matanzas River estuary by bluefish during the winter. 

6. Development of molecular tools for measuring levels of Vibrio vulnificus (a food borne pathogenic 

microorganism) in estuarine waters. Infections from this bacterium are most frequently contracted 

after raw oyster consumption. Real-time PCR assays were developed that are sensitive, specific and 

quantitative for V. vulnificus in water samples and oyster tissue. The assays may therefore be useful 

tools for rapid detection of the pathogen in shellfish and estuarine waters. 

7. A long-term project to understand and document calving behavior and population dynamics of the 

critically endangered right whale. From December through March researchers fly aerial surveys 

to locate right whale mothers as they migrate to the waters off Florida and Georgia to have their 

calves. The ability to identify individual whales through photo identification allows researchers to 

collect an entire life history of each right whale and to track their movements and associations with 

other whales. 

8. Use of the GTM Research Reserve as a model system for comparing the effects of different nutrient 

load scenarios in highly flushed estuaries. The objective of this in-progress GRF project is to 

determine the differences in the response of selected components of the benthic and attached biota 

to nutrient load profiles. 

9. A project to assess the response of the GTM Research Reserve to extreme events (i.e., tropical 

cyclones, strong coastal upwelling events, northeasters). This ongoing GRF project uses numerical 

models of estuarine hydrodynamics, calibrated and verified by field measurements, to synthesize 

data and assess this ecosystem response. 

10. Development of a multi-channel handheld analyzer to detect estuarine microbial contaminants based 

upon Nucleic Acid Sequence Based Amplification. This CICEET funded, technology-development 

project has the objective of generating a faster, more sensitive method of detecting harmful algal 

blooms in coastal waters. 

The GTM Research Reserve’s GIS program has experienced increasing demands to support its 

research, education, and stewardship programs with mapping products. The GIS lab has been 

established within the southern wing of the Environmental Education Center. The GTM Research 

Reserve’s Biological Scientist and Information Technology Specialist provide the technical expertise 

for this program. Additional advanced training has been completed in recent months by staff to remain

abreast of current technology. The GTM Research Reserve has hosted an advanced GIS training class 

available to cooperating agencies in the area to help improve GIS capabilities for these partners. 

As the ecosystem science program has grown, efforts have been made to support science 

information transfer for use by the GTM Research Reserve education sectors. These have included, 

for example, assistance in the development of Coastal Training Program (CTP) activities and 

workshops, guidance of a teacher intern in the development of a curriculum based on the SWMP 

data, contributing to the seminar programs, and developing informational posters on research 

activities for the Environmental Education Center (EEC). Similarly, cooperative efforts of research 

and resource management staff have emerged on various fronts, particularly for sea turtle nest 

monitoring and invasive species mapping and monitoring. 

. / The Current Status of the Resource Management Program at the GTM Research Reserve 

The Resource Management Program addresses how CAMA manages the GTM Research Reserve and its 

resources. The GTM Research Reserve accomplishes resource management by physically conducting 

management activities on the resources for which it has direct management responsibility, and by 

influencing the activities of others within and adjacent to its managed areas and within its watershed. 

Watershed and adjacent area management activities, and the resultant changes in environmental 

conditions, affect the condition and management of the resources within our boundaries. CAMA 

managed areas are especially sensitive to upstream activities affecting water quality and quantity. CAMA 

works to ensure that the most effective and efficient techniques used in management activities are utilized 

consistently within our sites, throughout our program, and when possible, throughout the state. The 

strongly integrated Ecosystem Science, Education and Outreach, and Public Use Programs, provide 

guidance and support to the Resource Management Program. These programs work together to provide 

direction to the various agencies that manage adjacent properties, our partners and our stakeholders. 

The GTM Research Reserve also collaborates with these groups by reviewing various protected area 

management plans. The sound science provided by the Ecosystem Science Program is critical in the 

development of effective management projects and decisions. The nature and condition of natural and 

cultural resources within GTM Research Reserve are diverse. This section explains the history and current 

status of our resource management efforts. 

Since its designation as a NERR in 1999, resource management has focused on the following areas: 

listed species monitoring and protection, reintroduction of prescribed fire as a restoration tool to 

appropriate upland communities within the watershed, control of invasive and nuisance species, 

protection of non-listed species, habitat restoration, land acquisition within the GTM Research Reserve 

watershed, cultural resource protection, and shoreline erosion control. 

Past and ongoing resource management activities include: 

1. GTM Research Reserve stewardship staff has assumed responsibility as primary permit holder for 

Marine Turtle Permit #140, in cooperation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC). Under authority of this permit, the staff has lead responsibility for daily monitoring of 1 

state index nesting beach covering 5.2 miles of Atlantic beach. The permit authorizes specific GTM 

Research Reserve staff and volunteers to conduct daily activities related to nest monitoring, stranding 

and salvage incidents of sea turtles on these beaches. 

2. GTM Research Reserve stewardship staff has reintroduced prescribed fire as a management and 

public safety tool for appropriate fire dependent natural communities within the CAMA managed 

uplands of the GTM Research Reserve. GTM Research Reserve Prescribed Plan has been recently 

updated and revised. Included within the plan are 20 acres of mesic flatwoods, 45 acres of freshwater 

marsh, 15 acres of oak scrub, 2 acres of sand pine scrub, and 677 acres of coastal strand. Specific 

details of the GTM Research Reserve Prescribed Fire Plan (Appendix A 9). 

3. GTM Research Reserve staff has detected the presence of several invasive exotic species in its waters 

and on its uplands in recent years. The predicted temperature increase associated with climate 

change is likely to increase the GTM Research Reserve’s susceptibility to invasion by exotic species 

that have overwhelmed the south Florida landscape. Research indicates that rapid detection and 

eradication of initial recruits is the most cost-effect method to deal with this problem. 

4. GTM Research Reserve staff has confirmed isolated cases of harm or harassment of non-listed plant 

and wildlife species within GTM Research Reserve boundaries. These cases are most evident on 

the CAMA managed uplands of The Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve. All plants and animals 

within the CAMA managed uplands are protected and cannot be collected without permission or a

Real-time monitoring of weather conditions contribute to a nationwide network of climate change information 

being compiled by the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program. 

permit. The prevention of illegal removal of the natural resources of GTM Research Reserve requires a 

cooperative effort involving staff, local law enforcement, and the public. 

5. The natural communities of GTM Research Reserve are subject to a variety of pressures, including 

local development, watershed impacts, climate change, invasive species, and unauthorized 

recreational use. GTM Research Reserve staff is actively restoring this degraded mesic flatwoods 

through prescription burning with a goal of increased biodiversity of its uplands and enhance 

buffering to the watershed of the Guana and Tolomato rivers. GTM Research Reserve staff is 

coordinating with the Division of Forestry regarding an assessment of an additional 50 acres of slash 

pine that have invaded a freshwater marsh on the Guana Peninsula. GTM Research Reserve staff 

has determined that removal of this timber would be consistent with resource management goals 

including hydrological restoration of this marsh. The DOF assessment will determine if the timber is 

of commercially viable quantity and quality (Appendix A 8). DOF works exclusively with contractors 

who are experienced in timber removal on environmentally sensitive lands in order to insure minimal 

disruption to resources. 

6. Recent property acquisitions have added several parcels within the boundaries of GTM Research 

Reserve. Several parcels were recently acquired either by fee simple purchase on the east shore of 

the Matanzas River one mile north of Matanzas inlet. A conservation easement was acquired for a 

seven acre parcel located immediately north of Fort Matanzas National Monument, which the U.S. 

National Park Service has agreed to manage. Two smaller parcels were purchased immediately to 

the north, which St. John’s County has agreed to manage. All three parcels provide physical buffers 

to the Matanzas River and its marshes. They also provide added protection to the view shed of Fort 

Matanzas National Monument. 

7. The Northeast Florida Blueways (NEFB) program, a component of the Florida Forever Program, 

has served as the primary instrument for identifying potential parcels for acquisition within the GTM 

Research Reserve watershed. The majority of the parcels that were originally identified through NEFB 

have been developed, removed from consideration by the landowner, or acquired by the State of 

Florida. Two parcels, the Rogers Parcel and Hat Island remain within the GTM Research Reserve’s

60 

Conservation of natural biodiversity depends on science-based management the GTM Research 

Reserve’s natural resources. 

boundary. The GTM Research Reserve should also pursue a boundary expansion that reflects the 

growth of public lands adjacent to its boundary. Specifically, memoranda of understanding with 

Faver Dykes State Park and the Matanzas State Forest should be updated to reflect recent changes. 

Future plans for purchase or annexation of lands for inclusion into the GTM Research Reserve will be 

described in more detail in the GTM Research Reserve Acquisition Plan (Chapter 9). 

8. With the rising prices for coastal property, the GTM Research Reserve may now need to focus on 

conservation easements and less than fee simple options for privately owned parcels as the best 

option for long-term watershed protection. In addition to the NEFB program, the GTM Research 

Reserve is obligated to form partnerships to support watershed scale planning beyond its immediate 

boundaries to ensure flow-ways and appropriate buffers are identified and conserved. 

9. Current records indicate at least 25 known archaeological sites at GTM Research Reserve, located 

primarily on the CAMA managed uplands of the Guana Peninsula. Among the more significant known 

sites are Sanchez Mound, Wright’s Landing and Shell Bluff Landing. Measures have recently been 

implemented to protect Sanchez Mound, a pre-Columbian burial mound, from feral hog damage by 

replacing 400 feet of hog fence around the perimeter of the site. Human looting of GTM Research 

Reserve archaeological sites is not known to be a significant problem currently. 

10. Shoreline erosion appears to be a significant issue at several locations, including the western 

shoreline of Guana Peninsula and on the Atlantic beaches. Erosion on the eastern shore of the 

Guana River was stabilized in 2006 with the Environmental Education Center Dock and Shoreline 

Stabilization Project, in which 900 feet of shoreline was stabilized with a demonstration project that 

included revegetation with native north Florida coastal plant species. 

11. Shoreline erosion on the eastern shore of the Tolomato River presents a threat to several cultural sites, 

including Shell Bluff Landing and Wright’s Landing. Shell Bluff Landing is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. It consists of a large pre-Columbian shell midden and a coquina well whose origins 

have been dated to the early 19th century. Wright’s Landing is the site of an historic wharf used during 

the English occupation (1764-1789) of the region and is also believed to be the site of a 17th century 

Spanish mission, the Nativity of Our Lady of Tolomato. There is also a prehistoric earthen burial ground 

located at the Wright’s Landing site. The site has been nominated as a National Historic Site. Marsh 

restoration might be a viable strategy for protecting Wright’s Landing from future deterioration.

. / Current Status of the Education and Outreach Program of the GTM Research Reserve 

The Education and Outreach Program components are essential management tools used to increase 

public awareness and promote informed stewardship by local communities. Programs include on 

and off-site education and training activities. These activities include: field studies for students and 

teachers; the development and distribution of media; the dissemination of information at local events; 

the recruitment and management of volunteers; and, training workshops for local citizens and decisionmakers. 

The design and implementation of education programs incorporates the strategic targeting 

of select audiences. These audiences include all ages and walks of life; however, each represents key 

stakeholders and decision-makers. These efforts by the Education and Outreach Program allow the 

GTM Research Reserve to build relationships and convey knowledge to the community; invaluable 

components to successful management. The Education and Outreach Program encompasses the 

components of the NERR System K-12 Estuarine Education Program and Coastal Training Program. 

Education programs are offered at the GTM Research Reserve Marineland office at the River to Sea 

Preserve and the Environmental Education Center. The opening of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

Environmental Education Center in Ponte Vedra Beach on September 2005 has provided a state of the 

art facility that lead to a significant expansion of education and interpretive programs in the northern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve. Demand for programs at all levels continues to increase. 

New programs are developed as a result of informal market analysis, needs assessments and public 

requests for topics and type of programs. During the next phase of the Education Program development, 

program evaluations will be designed and implemented to determine program impact and discern any 

tangible results gained by program participants. Programs will then be adjusted to improve desired results. 

The GTM Research Reserve Education Team strives to meet the needs of a variety of audiences. 

There are three major components of the Education Program at the GTM Research Reserve: K-12 and 

Professional Teacher Development, Adult and Community Education, and the CTP. 

Past and ongoing education and outreach activities include: 

K -12 and Professional Teacher Development - Students and Teachers Program: 

1. Students have the opportunity to visit the Environmental Education Center and the GRMAP as an 

extension of their classroom learning. The grade specific curriculum teaches the importance and 

interconnectedness of Florida’s coastal resources, identifies the uniqueness of estuaries and provides 

students with the tools and increased knowledge needed to make difficult decisions about the future 

of these valuable coastal resources. The curriculum is correlated to the Sunshine State Standards in 

Science, and when feasible Math, Social Studies, and Language Arts. Pre and post visit lesson plans 

are available for use by the classroom educators. A High School Water Quality Curriculum has been 

written that uses GTM SWMP water quality data. This curriculum is available in hardcopy or CD upon 

request. Currently guided field trip programs have been developed for 4th grade, 7th grade (Living in 

Florida’s Environment or LIFE Program) and high school. Fourth grade focuses on the estuary food 

web; 7th grade focuses on estuarine interactions and beach connections; and high school students 

study water quality. All students depart from the GTM Research Reserve knowing that they have 

a Research Reserve in their area, the importance of habitats, and what an estuary is. Curriculum 

for other grades may be developed in the future based on need and staffing levels. Additionally 

programs will also be offered in the southern component of the GTM Research Reserve as staffing 

and funding allow. The GTM Research Reserve school programs are offered at no charge which helps 

to keep programs attractive to teachers and students who may have financial constraints. However, 

diminishing school budgets have the potential to impact school visits. A shift in program focus to 

Teacher Trainings will allow teachers to take their students to closer field trip locations or conduct 

virtual field trips while still teaching about estuaries. 

2. The LIFE Program establishes a series of field-based, environmental-science, education programs 

around the state. This program is a partnership between the GTM Research Reserve/DEP and 

Sebastian Middle School /St. Johns County School District. The goal of the LIFE Program is increased 

student achievement and teacher professional development in 7th grade science. The LIFE Program 

is a multi-day, field experience emphasizing current technologies for environmental science. The 

program emphasizes observation and inference as critical components of the scientific method, and 

integrates all subject areas by connecting field experiences with pre- and post- classroom lessons. 

3. Self guided programs are available for the other grades that wish to visit the EEC. Teacher training 

workshops are being developed to enhance the self guided programs. 

6

6 

4. Workshops are offered to teachers and other professional educators. These professional teacher 

development programs promote the use of the GTM Research Reserve as a place for field trip/field 

study opportunities. These experiences also provide teachers with information and activities that 

they can use in the classroom or other field locations that may be closer to their school. In the 

future, these teacher trainings will instruct teachers on how to access SWMP data and use the 

CDMO website. In addition, the GTM Research Reserve partners with environmental education 

agencies and organizations throughout Florida to provide educators with a variety of professional 

development and training opportunities. 

Adult and Community Education Program 

1. A variety of educational activities are available at the GTM Research Reserve. Activities emphasize 

knowledge of, appreciation for and interaction with natural resources, such as seining, lectures, 

nature walks, and marsh ecology, along with nature movies, laboratory and exhibit hall experiences 

and craft sessions. 

2. Outreach presentations are available to the general public and outside organizations. These 

presentations may include but are not limited to such topics as the GTM Research Reserve itself, 

volunteer opportunities, environmental and research topics, and coastal issues. A wide variety of 

groups such as Elderhostel, garden clubs, civic organizations, church groups and others request 

education programs offered by the GTM Research Reserve. The GTM Research Reserve also 

participates in many community events such as Earth Day, Estuaries Day, Beach Cleanups, Photo 

and Nature Festivals. 

3. Tours of the GTM Research Reserve property emphasize natural and cultural resources. Self-guided 

walking tours are available to all during regular public-access hours. Guided walks, bicycle tours and 

kayak tours are scheduled throughout the year. 

4. All programs for the general public are scheduled on a monthly basis and published in the GTM 

Research Reserve’s email newsletter and website. The calendar announcements are also given to 

the local press for publication. The public programs can also be specially scheduled for large groups 

upon request and depending upon staff availability. 

Partnering to offer education programs and information is a very effective strategy in times of tighter 

budgets. The GTM Research Reserve has formed extensive partnerships with local, State and Federal 

agencies and organizations. A few examples of the GTM Research Reserve working with partners at the 

national level are: Sea Grant to offer an Exploring our Environment class for adults that focuses on coastal 

conservation issues; the National Marine Fisheries Service on the protection of right whales; and the 

National Weather Service on lectures about hurricanes and climate change. Many additional partnership 

opportunities are built into our strategies over the next 5 years. 

In addition to the onsite programs (Table 3) the GTM Research Reserve also has a very active outreach 

program. Outreach activities have focused on increasing public awareness about the GTM Research 

Reserve and involve the public in stewardship through the volunteer program, Friends of the GTM Research 

Reserve and community projects such as annual beach cleanups. Since many outreach activities take place 

at community fairs and festivals, it is difficult to estimate the # of citizens impacted. The GTM Research 

Reserve is working on a way to determine the impact and benefit of effort put into outreach activities. 

Table / Numbers of individuals reached with on-site education programs. 

State Fiscal Year 

(July-June) 

K-12 

Students 

Teachers/ 

Chaperones 

Non-K-12 Program 

Attendees 

Environmental Education 

Center Visitors 

2005-2006 1015 258 888 16,073 

2006-2007 2694 568 1200 14,993 

2007-2008 2304 360 3360 15,490 

One way is to look at the effectiveness of outreach programming is to examine the increase in volunteer 

numbers (Table 4.). Reserve volunteers are active in every aspect of reserve operations - stewardship, 

research, education and administration. The 2008 International Coastal Clean-up attracted 75 

volunteers collecting close to 600 lbs. of trash from the 5 miles of coastline spanning the Guana and 

Marineland beaches.

Table / Volunteers. 

Year Active volunteers Hours served 

2005 128 4900 

2006 143 10700 

2007 141 10454 

2008 258 7322 and counting 

Coastal Training Program Workshops 

1. Get Ready, Get SET; Your Stormwater Education Toolkit Training: MRI, Inc. developed a toolkit 

to assist agencies that fall under the NPDES permit requirements for a stormwater education 

component. DEP NPDES regulatory office gave a presentation on the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES). Four case studies were conducted by teams in the workshop to discuss 

who the target audience should be for each case and how the training should be conducted. 

2. River to Sea Preserve at Marineland Coastal Habitat Restoration Public Meeting/Workshop: 

General fire ecology and river to sea coastal strand restoration plan and public input taken. Many 

meetings were held to resolve the issue of restoring coastal scrub habitat, ranging from stakeholder 

meetings to public meetings to consultations with environmental experts. Restoration options for 

the coastal scrub portion of the preserve were discussed with Flagler County Parks and Recreation 

resource managers, and a plan was designed in a February 2005 governmental agency stakeholders 

planning meeting. This plan was presented to the March 2005 workshop audience. 

3. Energy and Resource Efficient Landscape Design: The GTM Research Reserve partnered with 

University of Florida’s (UF) St. Johns County IFAS Extension to offer an Energy and Resource Efficient 

Landscape Design Workshop on May 28, 2005 to improve the watershed and the surrounding 

Northeast Florida ecosystems by improving water quality. Carol Bennett from St. Johns County IFAS 

Extension’s Horticulture program taught local residents about the importance of conserving energy 

and water in yards and how to create space for wildlife. 

4. Marine Invasive Species: Whitman Miller, Assistant Director, Invasion Ecology Research Program 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center presented an evening at Whitney sponsored by the 

GTM Research Reserve. (June 2003) 

5. Florida Fire Ecology/Florida Firewise Program Workshop: As a follow-up to the March 2005 

workshop, a Fire Ecology and Florida Firewise Program Seminar was offered in July 2005 to teach 

the public, planners, emergency management and elected officials about prescribed burning and 

the River to Sea Preserve restoration plan. The GTM Research Reserve partnered with the Florida 

Division of Forestry to offer the Fire Ecology and Florida Firewise Program. This workshop helped to 

improve ability of coastal decision makers to understand prescribed fire management within the GTM 

Research Reserve, to value the benefits of prescribed fire, and comprehend Florida fire regulations. 

6. Water Quality and Citizen Involvement Workshop: In August 2005 The GTM Research Reserve 

partnered with the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Flagler County Sportsfishing 

Club to offer the Water Quality and Citizen Involvement Workshop. Citizens and county staff learned 

about water quality monitoring in Flagler County, about groups that they can join to help improve 

water issues, and participated in focus group sessions to identify issues that should be addressed in 

their county. 

7. DEP and Stormwater Academy NPDES Phase II Stormwater Education Workshop: In September 

2005 The GTM Research Reserve hosted the Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater 

Academy NPDES Phase II Stormwater Education Workshop. The workshop served county officials in 

the Northeast Florida area, discussed the requirements to obtain permits and provided examples of 

local storm water education programs. 

8. Stormwater, Erosion and Sedimentation Inspector Training Class: The GTM Research Reserve 

hosted a Stormwater, Erosion and Sedimentation Inspector Training class for 36 Environmental 

Professionals. The goal of the program was to increase the proper design, construction, and 

maintenance of erosion and sediment controls during construction and to assure the proper longterm 

operation and maintenance of stormwater systems after construction is completed. The 

program curriculum was developed to educate the inspector on proper installation, inspection and 

maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use during and after construction to minimize 

erosion and sedimentation and to properly manage runoff for both stormwater quantity and quality. 

6

6 

9. Southeast Implementation Team for the North Atlantic Right Whale Meeting: The Southeast 

Implementation Team (SEIT) for the Recovery of the North Atlantic Right Whale Conference was 

held at the GTM Research Reserve as right whale scientists on the Nation’s east coast prepare for 

the year’s calving season. SEIT is a multi-agency and citizen advisory group. The team develops 

management and research recommendations and assists in implementing the recovery plan. This 

conference is reoccurring once a year since 2005. 

10. DEP Train the Trainer Erosion and Sediment Control: In November 2005 Train the Trainer 

workshops were offered by the DEP in order to prepare new instructors for implementation of the 

inspector’s training program. The workshop covered the guidelines that instructors were required 

to follow in order to teach the class, plus also it allowed instructors the time to work on both their 

teaching skills and speaking abilities. 

11. Utilizing Science in Estuarine Management: The GTM Research Reserve hosted University of 

Florida Estuarine Extension Agent Dr. Charles Jacoby for the Coastal Science Seminar on Thursday, 

November 17, 2005 “Utilizing Science in Estuarine Management: A Case Study from Australia.” 

12. Prescribed Fire Workshop: Prescribed Fire Workshop was held to share information about 

upcoming prescribed fire activities at the GTM Research Reserve. GTM staff, Partner Agencies 

and local citizens were involved in this workshop that explained logistics involved in performing a 

prescribed burn. (February 2006) 

13. Florida Landscaping Industry BMP: Landscaping BMP workshop (February 2006) was offered 

to the landscaping and pest management industries in St Johns County. The primary goals of this 

workshop were to teach best management practices and increase awareness and compliance with 

the St Johns County Fertilizer ordinance. Topics included turf management, irrigation, landscape 

design, and pesticide BMP. 

14. Sea Turtle Patrol Coordination Training: NE FL Sea Turtle Patrol Coordination meeting: The GTM 

Research Reserve staff coordinated a gathering of all Duval, St Johns and Flagler County sea turtle 

patrol organizations. This meeting helped to increase communication amongst patrol organizations, 

and provide for networking and additional training. (annually since April 2006) 

15. Southeast Regional Fire Learning Network: The GTM Research Reserve hosted and participated in 

the First Southeast Regional Fire Learning Network lead by the Nature Conservancy. The vision of this 

network is to develop partnerships which will work to enhance ecosystem restoration, conservation 

and risk reduction through the successful application of prescribed fire, foster innovation, and transfer 

lessons learned to other projects, scientists, and key decision-makers. NGOs, local, state and federal 

agencies were in attendance at this meeting. (April 2006) 

16. Managing the Impacts of Residential Docks & Piers in Florida 

Day 1: Regulatory staff of DEP NED, CAMA AP Managers and other State agencies. 

Day 2: Targeted local planners, regulators, natural resource managers, marine contractors, 

construction companies, non-profit agencies, and homeowners. 

The GTM Research Reserve partnered with NOAA’s Coastal Service Center (CSC), Rookery Bay 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) & Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve 

(ANERR) to bring the workshop to the state, this workshop provided information on the construction 

and permitting of private docks and piers as well as, skills and tools to evaluated and manage 

environmental, visual, navigational and public access aspects. 

17. Green Lodging Workshop 2006: Through this rapidly growing program DEP encourages the 

lodging industry to conserve and protect Florida’s natural resources. The Florida Green Lodging 

Program is unique in that it covers an all-inclusive list of environmental initiatives that are specific to 

protecting and preserving Florida’s environment 

18. Law Enforcement Cultural Resource Training: The Training on Archaeological Resource Protection 

is a six hour course designed to familiarize state, federal, and county law enforcement agencies with 

archaeological resources and the laws that protect them. Agenda Highlights: Introduction to Cultural 

Resource Management, Archaeology and the Law, Responding to Archaeological Resource Crimes 

and “real-life” Scenario Discussion and Conclusions. 

19. Volunteer Cultural Resource Training: This training was provided in a cooperative effort with Florida 

Department of Historical Resources staff. This was a two day training course was designed to train 

GTM Research Reserve volunteers to assist the stewardship staff meet their legal obligations while 

performing routine duties on Florida State lands so that the NERR complies with state and federal 

cultural resource protection laws.

Science-based education and outreach is a fundamental part of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

management strategies. 

20. Geographical Information System (GIS) Training: This training was a cooperative effort between 

St. Johns County and the GTM Research Reserve. This was a six day training session. The first two 

day session (1/9/07 -1/10/07) was a beginners’ introduction to ArcGIS. The second two day (1/11/07 

-1/12-07) was a second beginners’ course. The third two day session (1/16/07 – 1/17/07) was an 

advanced course in ArcGIS. 

21. Inaugural Northeast Florida Underwater Archaeological Symposium: The GTM Research Reserve 

in partnership with the St. Augustine Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program, Inc. (LAMP), The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The Florida Public Archaeology Network, 

Florida Division of Historical Resources, St. Johns County and the St. Augustine Archaeological 

Association. The symposium covered a host of topics including pre-historic underwater archaeology, 

the archaeology of several shipwreck sites in Florida, agency jurisdictions of submerged cultural 

resources, international shipwreck projects and graduate student archaeological research projects 

22. Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection a Multi-Regional Project: International 

Visitors Corps of Jacksonville and the State Department requested that we host and put together 

a one day workshop on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection. Representatives 

deemed up and coming decision makers from 20 countries spent the day at the GTM Research 

Reserve. Topics covered at this workshop were: Coastal Restoration – Taylor Engineering (using 

case studies), Aquaculture – Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (FDOA&CA), 

Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) and Surface 

Water Improvement Management (SWIM) Program, St. Johns River Water Management District. 

23. Professional Progress - Environmental Ethics: This course was the last module of a 7 module 

program called Professional Progress put together in a cooperative effort between First Coast 

Manufacturer’s Association (FCMA) and DEP called Professional Progress. The course included 

many environmental professionals from many diverse occupations. This full day workshop included 

the following subjects on the agenda: Environmental Law Enforcement – DEP Law Enforcement 

Division, Stewardship – The Green Trail Team Project, Environmental Law and Ethics associated with 

the Timucuan Preserve, the GTM Research Reserve and field components using the trail system. 

6

66 

Sustaining public use requires careful monitoring to ensure the quality of the environment is not degraded. 

24. Green Lodging Workshop 2007: (64+ participants) Through this rapidly growing program DEP 

encourages the lodging industry to conserve and protect Florida’s natural resources. The Florida 

Green Lodging Program is unique in that it covers an all-inclusive list of environmental initiatives 

that are specific to protecting and preserving Florida’s environment. This became a high priority 

item when Florida Governor Crist issued EXECUTIVE ORDER 07-126: “Leadership by Example: 

Immediate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Florida State Government”. Section 

4 of Executive Order 07-126 states: “Effective January 1, 2008, state agencies and departments 

under the direction of the Governor may not contract for meeting and conference space with hotels 

or conference facilities that have not received the DEP’s ‘Green Lodging’ program designation 

for best practices in water, energy, and waste efficiency standards, except when certified to the 

Governor by the responsible agency head that no other viable alternative exists. 

25. The Northeast Florida Coastal Habitat Restoration Workshop: (67 participants) The GTM Research 

Reserve in partnership with NOAA, St. Johns River Water Management District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Florida Inland Navigation District, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the 

Nature Conservancy for a one day workshop on Wednesday October 17, 2007. Agencies on the federal, 

state and local level presented on: available grant funding opportunities, technical resources, and 

coastal restoration capabilities. 

26. PRIMER-6 Software Package Training: PRIMER 6 (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological 

Research) consists of a wide range of univariate, graphical and multivariate routines for analyzing 

the species/samples abundance (or biomass) matrices that arise in biological monitoring of 

environmental impact and more fundamental studies in community ecology, together with associated 

physicochemical data. 

27. Matanzas Inlet Workshop: (97 participants) The GTM Research Reserve, in partnership 

with NOAA, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Inland Navigation District, The 

University of Florida and the South Anastasia Communities Association hosted a one day workshop 

on Wednesday November 14, 2007. This workshop brought diverse expertise together for a 

comprehensive discussion of the Matanzas Inlet System (the last natural inlet in northeast Florida) in

terms of the physical and biological state of knowledge (and gaps therein) related to understanding 

the implications of dredging operations in the vicinity by the Florida Inland Navigation District. 

28. 2nd Annual Northeast Florida Symposium on Maritime Archaeology: (Averaged approximately 

80 participants per day) Hosted by the GTM Research Reserve in partnership with the St. 

Augustine Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program, Inc. (LAMP), NOAA, The Florida Public 

Archaeology Network, Florida Division of Historical Resources, St. Johns County and the St. 

Augustine Archaeological Association. The symposium covered a host of topics including maritime 

archaeological sites in the GTM Research Reserve, pre-historic underwater archaeology, the 

archaeology of several shipwreck sites in Florida, agency jurisdictions of submerged cultural 

resources, international shipwreck projects and graduate student archaeological research projects. 

29. National Heritage Area Public Workshop and Public Meeting: This meeting was conducted 

in coordination of the NHA local partners, the GTM Research Reserve, St. Augustine Lighthouse 

and Museum, Lighthouse Archaeological and Maritime Program (LAMP) and St. Johns County. A 

“national heritage area” is a place designated by the United States Congress where natural, cultural, 

historic and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape 

arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography. 

The GTM Research Reserve’s Coastal Training Program has had a significant increase in participants 

since its inception (Table 5.). Future Coastal Training Program development and direction will be based 

on the program’s strategic documents which include issue/topic based needs assessments, Planning 

documents and the evaluations of CTP will inform reserve staff of the priority issues, technology needs, 

and preferred training delivery and logistics of coastal decision makers. 

Table / Numbers of participants in coastal training program workshops. 

Fiscal year Participants in CTP 

2005 - 2006 342 

2006 - 2007 235 

2007- 2008 718 

6

The GTM Research Reserve is actively monitoring exotic non-native invasive species and managing through 

practices of eradication to ensure biological diversity. 

Chapter Six 

Issues 

GTM Research Reserve Mission Statement: To achieve the conservation of natural biodiversity and 

cultural resources by using the results of research and monitoring to guide science-based stewardship 

and education strategies. 

6. / Introduction to Issue-Based Management 

The hallmark of the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) program is that each reserve’s 

management efforts are in direct response to, and designed for unique local and regional issues. The 

issues most relevant to the GTM Research Reserve can be categorized under five topic headings: 

1) Public Use, 2) Habitat and Species Management, 3) Watershed Landuse, 4) Cultural Resource 

Preservation and Interpretation, and 5) Global Processes. These topics were identified based on 

input from the Reserve’s Management Advisory Group, staff, volunteers, the general public, and other 

stakeholders over the two-year planning process leading to this plan. 

To meet the challenges of an identified issue a research reserve integrates ecosystem science, education 

and outreach, and resource management strategies to achieve measurable objectives (Figure 21). For 

example, a reserve may address declines in water clarity (issue) by first setting a measurable objective 

(improve water clarity), then studies are used to identify causes and potential solutions (e.g., ascertain links 

between stormwater runoff and water clarity; an ecosystem science strategy), planting eroded shorelines 

with marsh vegetation to create a natural buffer (a resource management strategy), creating a display 

or program on using native landscaping to encourage reduced fertilize use (an education and outreach 

strategy). Continued monitoring of water clarity allows the reserve to evaluate progress toward the objective 

(performance measures) and, if needed, adaptively adjust the strategies to achieve this objective. 

Management strategies in this plan have been categorized as either core or secondary. Core strategies 

are those for which the GTM Research Reserve staff will actively devote existing resources, and pursue 

additional funding and partnerships to accomplish. Secondary strategies are beyond our current abilities 

but will be accomplished as partnerships or other opportune funding sources become available. 

6

0 

Introduction to Issue-Based Adaptive Management 

Natural resource management efforts 

are in direct response to, and designed 

for, unique local and regional issues. 

Challenges of an identified issue are 

met by integrating research, education 

and stewardship strategies. 

Objectives are measurable. 

Continued monitoring allows the reserve 

to evaluate progress and, if needed, 

adaptively adjust strategies to achieve 

the desired objective. 

Figure / Issue-based adaptive management. 

To be successful the objectives identified in this plan will be accomplished in partnership with 

local citizens, city, county, state, and federal officials, college and university students and faculty, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the business community. Strategies are linked to these objectives 

through performance measures. Strategies can be viewed as tools in a toolbox. It is not necessary to 

fully implement every strategy as long as the performance measures indicate an objective has been 

accomplished. Implementation of the strategies identified in this management plan is also dependent 

upon administrative support for reassigning or otherwise acquiring staff, volunteers, contract services, 

equipment, training, and supplies. (figure 21) 

6. / Public Use 

Issues 

Goals & Objectives 

Strategies 

Annual Assessment 

Goal: Ensure user experiences are sustainable and consistent with natural and cultural resource 

protection for the benefit of existing and future generations. 

Introduction: Encouraging public use that is compatible with natural and cultural resource protection 

is a priority of the GTM Research Reserve. The natural and cultural resources of the GTM Research 

Reserve provide a unique user experience unavailable elsewhere. Consistent with public expectations 

and the GTM Research Reserve’s mission, sustainability will be used as a guiding principle for decisions 

affecting natural and cultural resources. 

The changing demographics of coastal Florida threaten the sustainability of natural resources. The 

GTM Research Reserve must work cooperatively with stakeholders to ensure information regarding the 

condition of the resources is known and that this information is used proactively to support compatible 

public use. Public users of the GTM Research Reserve are considered key stakeholders and primary 

stewards of its resources. Existing levels of use will be maintained unless research clearly identifies 

resource damage can be avoided. More intensive or novel activities will be limited to those activities 

that have a carrying capacity established using scientifically valid methods and to those that can be 

demonstrated not to conflict with existing user experiences.

Issue One: Need to proactively respond to multiple user conflicts associated with the trail system while 

sustaining habitat quality 

Introduction: In order for the quality of the trail experience to be sustained, the GTM Research Reserve 

must manage public use to address the needs of the existing and growing human population within its 

watershed. The GTM Research Reserve is also obliged to anticipate and reduce avoidable user group 

conflicts and resource damage. 

Objective One: Improve trail user satisfaction and sustain habitat quality by anticipating and reducing 

conflicts between trail users and tracking habitat condition. 

Integrated Strategies 

Ecosystem Science Strategies: 

Core Strategies 

1. Summarize carrying capacity research and user survey results for integration into the GTM 

Research Reserve’s education and stewardship programs. 

2. Monitor change in habitat condition immediately adjacent to the trails to detect impacts to natural 

biodiversity. 

Resource Management Strategies: 


1. Work cooperatively with specific user groups to develop and implement a comprehensive trail 

use plan. 

2. Encourage and facilitate additional staff and law enforcement presence on the trails. 

3. Develop and install signs to direct different user types to the most appropriate trails. 

Secondary Strategies 

1. Explore and, if feasible, install traffic calming techniques for the dam and trails used by vehicles to 

enhance public safety. 

2. Explore and, if feasible, develop a trail map that links trails between management units within the 


Education and Outreach Strategies: 


1. Provide part-time seasonal staff to guide and welcome users to enhance the appreciation of the 

resource and promote stewardship. 

2. Design all future signs and brochures using universal symbols. 

3. Periodically conduct professionally developed trail user satisfaction surveys. 


1. Train staff, volunteers and trail users by conducting a workshop focused on “Reducing User 

Conflicts within Multiuse Public Lands”. 

2. Develop and install trail etiquette signs. 

3. Publish trail educational opportunities in the local media. 

Performance Measures: 

1. Trends in trail user satisfaction. 

2. Trends in law enforcement citations/incidents. 

3. Trends in sensitive species or habitats immediately adjacent to the trails as compared to control sites. 

4. Trends in user patterns to assess the number of users by trail type and to detect changes to the 

distribution of user types.

Issue Two: Need to enhance access on the trail system for users with special needs 

Introduction: The natural and cultural resources experience of the GTM Research Reserve should be 

made more available to users with special needs. Following the lead of other managed natural areas the 

GTM Research Reserve should strive to enhance accessibility. 

Objective Two: Improve accessibility to the trail system and improve educational opportunities for user 

groups with special needs. 

Integrated strategies 



1. Maintain and summarize database of visitor use surveys for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 



1. Evaluate existing boardwalk design and, if feasible, retrofit to improve amenities for users with 

special needs. 


1. Evaluate and, if feasible, allow low impact vehicles, such as off-road segways on designated trails. 

2. Evaluate and, if feasible, obtain kiosk designs that accommodate users with special needs. 



1. Assess methods used by other “park” and wildlife management areas to improve interpretation 

programming for users with special needs. 

2. In partnership with other environmental educational organizations and agencies, increase 

educational programming for users with special needs. 


1. Trends in the use of the trails by visitors with special needs. 

2. Results of trail user surveys. 

Issue Three: Enhancing compatible use at the dam and the surrounding area 

Introduction: The GTM Research Reserve is committed to sustaining the quality of the experience 

presently realized by all users of this resource. One of the most effective methods of discouraging 

incompatible use is to encourage compatible use. The GTM Research Reserve will implement strategies 

to encourage compatible use. 

Objective Three: Enhance the amenities associated with compatible public use of the dam and 

surrounding estuaries. 




1. Summarize user survey information on amenities for integration into the stewardship and education 

program. 


1. Establish photo-points to evaluate boat ramp erosion and other infrastructure damage. 



1. Design and, if feasible, implement a solution to boat ramp and walkway erosion. 

2. Maintain two weekend year-round gate keepers on staff to increase staff member presence at the 

dam, to directly communicate with recreational users of this portion to the GTM Research Reserve, to

collect use data for performance measures, to ensure access is not dependent on gate function, and 

to alert users of parking lot capacity. 


1. Identify, implement and maintain paddling trails (guided and self-guided). 

2. Use the results of the user survey to prioritize stewardship activities associated with adding 

amenities to users of the dam and surrounding area. 

3. Explore and, if feasible, establish primitive camping sites on spoil islands of the GTM Research 

Reserve associated with the paddling trail experience. 



1. Provide a weekend part-time naturalist to conduct guided marsh and trail programs during peak 

tourist season. 

2. Design and conduct a user survey to prioritize implementation of resource compatible amenities 

and gauge satisfaction. 


1. In coordination with the Friends of the GTM Research Reserve conduct outreach programs 

targeting users of the dam area. 

2. Offer training workshops for ecotour operators. 

3. Continue to support locally sponsored catch and release kayak fishing tournaments within the GTM 

Research Reserve boundaries. 

4. Conduct multicultural and multilingual conservation workshops. 

5. In cooperation with FWC, conduct a locally sponsored kid’s fishing tournament (to teach 

conservation). 

6. Evaluate and, if feasible, initiate a compatible food/bait concession at the dam. 


1. Trends in user satisfaction surveys. 

2. Trends in attendance at events. 

3. Trends in user numbers accessing the dam and trails. 

Issue Four: Need to increase public awareness of the GTM Research Reserve 

Introduction: In order to be most effective at achieving conservation of coastal resources, the 

community surrounding the GTM Research Reserve must be aware of and supportive of its mission. 

Education and outreach strategies must be dynamic and respond correctly to the changing 

demographics of the surrounding watersheds. Community feedback and support is an essential 

component of GTM Research Reserve management. Marketing strategies must emphasize the unique 

resources of the GTM Research Reserve, promoting sustainable use through stewardship. 

Objective Four: Increase public awareness of the GTM Research Reserve and support of its mission. 




1. Develop a GTM Research Reserve Site Profile to summarize existing research information and to 

identify additional research needs for students and visiting investigators. 

2. Provide input into the GTM Research Reserve user guide and an annual “State of the GTM 

Research Reserve” workshop. 



1. Provide input into the GTM Research Reserve user guide and an annual “State of the GTM 

Research Reserve” workshop.



1. Develop a GTM Research Reserve user guide highlighting recreational and educational opportunities 

within the GTM Research Reserve’s entire boundary (partnering and coordinating with all agencies 

managing natural recreational lands within and adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve boundaries). 

2. In partnership with all agencies managing land within the GTM Research Reserve’s boundary 

organize and conduct annual “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop providing information 

to newspapers and other media to inform the local citizenry of the status and trends in species 

biodiversity, public use, pollution, and habitat conservation. 

3. Develop and update a formal marketing plan for the GTM Research Reserve 

4. Correct all traffic signs and maps locating the GTM Research Reserve and specific resources. 

5. Enhance and update all GTM Research Reserve affiliated Websites (local, State and NERR) as 

needed. 

6. Organize and implement events to highlight the GTM Research Reserve’s 10 year anniversary in 

2009. 

7. Continue to host annual National Estuaries Day and Florida’s Birding and Foto Fest. 

8. Work in cooperation with St. Johns County Government Television to develop programming that 

highlights the GTM Research Reserve’s resources and issues. 


1. Completed GTM Research Reserve site profile. 

2. “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshops conducted and attendance. 

3. Completed GTM Research Reserve user guide. 

4. Correct on signs and publications identifying or describing the GTM Research Reserve. 

5. Development and implementation of a formal marketing plan. 

6. Attendance at the 10 year anniversary events, Estuaries Day and the Birding and Foto Fest. 

7. Hours of government television programming developed. 

Issue Five: Need for up-to-date issue-based beach information kiosks and signage 

Introduction: The majority of the public visiting the GTM Research Reserve are accessing the beaches. 

The beach parking lots and access points provide a unique and valuable opportunity for public outreach 

and education. The GTM Research Reserve will develop and implement strategies to make better use of 

these locations for future educational programming. 

Objective Five: Enhance issue based information at the beach parking lots highlighting the GTM 

Research Reserve’s mission, current resource information (e.g., whale sightings, turtle nests etc) and 

recreational opportunities. 




1. Summarize beach species monitoring data for integration into the parking lot kiosks and beach 

nature walks. 



1. Explore, and if feasible, conduct native plant dune restoration projects in coordination with 

educational programming. 



1. Review existing signage and design new signs and kiosks allowing for dynamic resource updates 

that provide information on Environmental Education Center (EEC) location, resource issues, and 

current events within the GTM Research Reserve.

Sustaining habitats and natural biodiversity to support recreational fishing is a high priority for the GTM 


2. Design and conduct user surveys incorporating resource specific questions to test user knowledge 

of beach habitats and the mission of the GTM Research Reserve. 


1. Provide seasonal guided nature walks starting at the beach parking lots. 


1. Increasing trends in user knowledge of beach habitats and the GTM Research Reserve’s mission 

based on user survey responses. 

2. Decreasing trends in unauthorized dune crossovers, beach litter, and sea turtle/bird nest 

disturbance by humans and their pets. 

Issue Six: Unauthorized activities (e.g., artifact collection, plant harvesting, poaching, fishing violations) 

associated with the trail system 

Introduction: Being remote, yet easily accessible, the GTM Research Reserve has an elevated potential 

for unauthorized artifact collection and plant and animal harvesting. In order to sustain a high quality 

public use experience and protect the GTM Research Reserve’s resources unauthorized activities must 

be curtailed. 

Objective Six: Reduce unauthorized activities associated with the trail system. 




1. Monitor and record data regarding the disturbance of sentinel habitats and cultural resource sites. 

2. Summarize disturbance monitoring research results for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education and stewardship programs.

6 



1. Encourage additional law enforcement patrols. 

2. Increase staff time in the vicinity of cultural resources and sensitive natural resources at peak visitor 

use times. 

3. Install enforceable signage to educate trail users of the significance of the area’s natural and 

cultural resources and up-to-date regulations. 


1. Explore and, if feasible, initiate the use of remote cameras to monitor sensitive habitats or sites that 

show signs of unauthorized activities. 



1. Conduct annual Cultural and Natural Resources Law Enforcement workshops targeting the GTM 

Research Reserve staff, volunteers, law enforcement officials, and trail users. 

2. Develop enforceable signage to educate trail users of the significance of the area’s natural and 

cultural resources and up-to-date regulations. 

3. When feasible, include a natural and cultural resources section to trail etiquette signs. 

4. Submit information to newspaper and other public media on the topic of cultural and natural 

resource stewardship and the trail experience. 


1. Provide natural resource educational experiences and materials designed for the cultural diversity 

of our user groups. 


1. Trends in law enforcement activities and citations. 

2. Trends in site disturbance. 

3. Trends in user behavior patterns within the trail system. 

Issue Seven: Littering and unauthorized paths in the marsh adjacent to the dam 

Introduction: Litter and unauthorized trails adversely affect aesthetics and damage marsh habitats. 

Hooks, broken bottles, monofilament fishing line, fish bones and other trash is also dangerous to people, 

their pets and wildlife. Resiliency studies have shown that foot traffic can cause long-term damage 

to marsh habitats. Promoting a “leave no trace” ethic will ensure sustainability of the recreational 

experience of this area. 

Objective Seven: Reduce the daily accumulation of litter at the dam to quantities that can be collected 

by volunteers and staff to improve public and wildlife safety. 




1. Periodically generate and summarize a dataset that identifies the amount and type of litter 

generated. 


1. Maintain a database of wildlife injury/mortality rates associated with monofilament. 

2. Establish fixed photo points in locations subject to excessive littering or marsh habitat damage. 

3. Summarize ecosystem science strategies results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s 

education and stewardship program.



1. Enforcement of anti-litter laws and habitat protection rules. 

2. Increase staff member presence at this high use recreational location. 

3. Conduct community/volunteer cleanup days. 

4. Maintain monofilament recycling stations. 

5. Install signage using universal symbols to ensure clear communication with all user groups. 

6. Install wildlife proof trash bins to prevent raccoons from pulling trash out of containers at night. 

7. Empty trash containers more frequently to prevent containers from filling. 


1. Explore and, if feasible, work with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to 

modify the dam spillway to lessen monofilament line snags. 

2. Replant and install interpretive signs in marsh habitat damaged by unauthorized access. 



1. Design signage using universal symbols to ensure clear communication to all user groups. 

2. Staff a part-time naturalist specially trained in rules and common violations to be at the dam during 

peak fishing times. 


1. Develop and implement an outreach program targeting the local fishing community emphasizing 

the need to “leave no trace”. 

2. Develop and implement an “Adopt-a-lot” program for the parking area surrounding the dam. 

3. Help to promote/increase awareness of the monofilament recycling program. 


1. Decreasing trend in litter generated at the dam. 

2. Increasing trend in the amounts of voluntarily collected monofilament. 

Issue Eight: Need for consistent enforcement of fishing regulations at the dam 

Introduction: The GTM Research Reserve will continue the existing hours of public entry into the dam 

fishing area. Law enforcement records and staff observations indicate that fishing violations increase 

after sunset. In order to protect the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources additional scrutiny of the 

nighttime activities at this location is necessary. 

Objective Eight: Reduce the number of fishing regulation violations at the dam between sunset and closing. 




1. Obtain law enforcement activity reports and create a database of fishing regulation violations for 

integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 



1. Increased ranger and law enforcement presence between sunset and closing, and document 

number of patrols in area for performance measuring. 

2. Increase ranger interaction with recreational users between sunset and closing to promote 

compliance of rules.



1. In cooperation with FWC, conduct fishing clinics that emphasize conservation messages targeting 

users between sunset and closing. 


1. Provide up-to-date fishing limits on signs and distribute information to users (e.g., Florida 

Sportsman’s LAWSTICK) that reflect current regulations. 


1. Decreasing trend in the number of law enforcement citations versus patrols conducted between 

sunset and closing. 

Issue Nine: Beach litter 

Introduction: Beach litter is more than aesthetically undesirable; it can actually lead to serious injury 

of wildlife and beach goers. Unfortunately, as the coastal population grows the amount of beach litter 

is likely to increase. The user groups, issues and solutions associated with beach litter are significantly 

different than those associated with the trails and therefore require different strategies. The GTM 

Research Reserve will work cooperatively with its partners and volunteers to proactively address the 

beach litter issue. 

Objective Nine: Reduce the amount of beach litter and identify the source 




1. In coordination with community clean-up events and the International Coastal Clean-up conduct an 

assessment of litter by type and amount. 

2. Summarize the results of these ecosystem science strategies for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education and stewardship program. 

3. Maintain and summarize a beach wildlife injury database. 



1. Continue to maintain trash containers and monofilament recycling stations in beach parking lots. 

2. Provide additional raccoon-proof trash containers on the beach side of boardwalks to increase 

likelihood of users to dispose of trash properly. 

3. Increase weekend ranger and volunteer presence on the beach to improve compliance and 

cleanup during patrols. 

4. Establish volunteer ranger positions to patrol beaches in morning to pick up trash. 


1. Support initiatives to require helium filled balloons to be made of biodegradable plastic and to 

prohibit intentional open-air releases. 



1. In cooperation with Flagler and St. Johns counties support an “Adopt a Beach” program. 

2. Host community beach clean-up events. 

3. Highlight the danger of litter to wildlife in education programs with beach kiosks. 

4. Update parking lot signage to reflect the “leave no trace” theme. 


1. Reducing trends in the quantity the most damaging and preventable beach litter. 

2. Reducing trends in the number of litter-associated wildlife injuries.

Issue Ten: Unauthorized beach parking beyond hours of operation having negative effects on sensitive 

wildlife habitats and public safety 

Introduction: It is in the best interest of public safety and habitat conservation to discourage public 

access to the GTM Research Reserve’s beaches outside the normal hours of operation. Due to reduced 

visibility and remoteness, public safety cannot be ensured after closing. In addition, it is also important to 

reduce nighttime disturbance of nesting sea turtles, birds, and other species that use the GTM Research 

Reserve’s beaches as critical habitats. 

Objective Ten: Reduce disturbance of nocturnal species and sensitive habitats and improve public 

safety by discouraging parking beyond the hours of operation at the beach parking lots. 




1. Maintain a database of parking violations to track repeat offenders, the numbers of vehicles parked 

beyond hours of operations by parking lot, overnight habitat damage and law enforcement citations. 

2. Summarize data from this database for incorporation into the GTM Research Reserve’s 

stewardship program. 



1. Issue warning notices for late parkers, issue tickets with fines, and as a last resort tow vehicles of 

repeat violators. 

2. Explore feasibility of installing automatic gates or pass dispensers at the entrances to the beach 

parking lots. 

3. Install signs at beachside that clearly state that the lot closes at sunset and the penalties for violations. 


1. Explore, and if feasible, contract with a security agency or install monitored security cameras. 



1. Clearly inform the public of the hours of operation and consequences of remaining in the lot after 

hours (e.g., fines). 


1. Trends in the number of cars parked beyond the hours of operation and repeat offenders. 

2. Trends after hours law enforcement citations at the beach and parking lots. 

3. Trends in overnight human disturbance of beach habitats and species. 

Issue Eleven: Unauthorized docks and structures within the aquatic preserves 

Introduction: Aquatic preserves are protected under Florida law by having special public interest criteria 

that must be considered as a part of the permit process for docks and other structures. In addition, the 

aquatic preserves within the GTM Research Reserve are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. This 

water quality designation discourages human activities that alter ambient conditions. Through education 

and outreach the GTM Research Reserve will strive to encourage better stewardship of these important 

resources and compliance with existing regulations. 

Objective Eleven: Improve compliance of future docks with Aquatic Preserve rules. 




1. Conduct or facilitate and review scientific literature examining the impact of docks on benthic 

community structure.

0 

2. Maintain a database of authorized docks and structures in the GTM Research Reserve’s Aquatic 

Preserves’ boundaries. 

3. Integrate information from literature reviews into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and 




1. Ensure that Aquatic Preserve boundaries are known by dock permit applicants and reviewers. 

2. Proactively identify projects for meeting public interest criteria linked to the Reserves 

management plan strategies. 

3. Wherever practical post the Aquatic Preserve boundary. 

4. Use GIS to identify and document existing and new dock locations relative to the GTM Research 

Reserve’s Aquatic Preserves’ boundaries. 

5. Track authorized dock permits within the aquatic preserves’ boundaries. 

6. Determine ownership and post CAMA managed spoil islands within the GTM Research Reserve. 

7. Promote the use and distribution of the Aquatic Preserve Rule training video. 



1. Conduct periodic Aquatic Preserve Rule training workshops for regulatory staff as requested. 

2. Conduct dock builder workshops. 

3. Encourage comprehensive marine, mooring and dock planning that considers long-term 

cumulative effects. 

4. Provide workshops and technical assistance as requested by county and city governments. 


1. Develop an Aquatic Preserve Boat Map and User Guide. 

2. Conduct a vista ordinance workshop. 


1. Reducing trends in the number of unauthorized structures or docks within the Aquatic Preserves. 

2. Trends in the development and implementation of comprehensive marina, mooring and dock 

planning by local governments. 

Issue Twelve: Domestic animals on the beach can negatively impact protected species 

Introduction: Unleashed dogs or cats are not allowed on the beaches within the GTM Research Reserve 

(18-23, F.A.C.). Despite this rule there have been many documented cases where unleashed animals 

have been observed harassing wildlife and damaging dune habitats. The GTM Research Reserve 

will strive to conserve the sustainability of the beach and dune habitat by proactively discouraging 

unauthorized activities on these beaches. 

Objective Twelve: Reduce damage to beach habitats and instances of wildlife harassment by unleashed 

domestic animals 




1. Review and summarize the scientific literature to ascertain the critical alarm distance for nesting 

birds for various domestic animal activities. 

2. Summarize research results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and 


3. Maintain and summarize a database of wildlife harassment incidents and habitat damage 

associated with domestic animals.



1. In cooperation with FWC and other wildlife management agencies encourage consistent enforcement 

of applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances, particularly during least tern and sea turtle nesting season. 

2. Clearly post regulations at all legal crossover locations. 

3. Create beach patrol volunteer positions and/or staff to regularly patrol and monitor the beach on 

the weekend to encourage proper beach etiquette. 

Education and Outreach: 


1. Provide up-to-date information on the sensitivity of nesting birds to unleashed dogs and cats 

(beach signage, educational programming and outreach) using alarm distance research. 


1. Reducing trends in the number of turtle and least tern nests damaged due to domestic animals. 

2. Reducing trends in the number of incidents of wildlife harmed or harassed by unleashed 

domestic animals. 

6.3 / Habitat and Species Management 

Goal: Improve the conservation of natural biodiversity by implementing the principles of adaptive 

management and ecosystem science. 

Introduction: There is an immediate need to evaluate existing ecosystem science information to 

establish baseline conditions in order to evaluate and prioritize future management activities. With 

the exception of nutrients and bacteria and one NOAA National Status and Trends Station, long-term 

systematic monitoring of pollutants, habitats, and estuarine species has not been initiated in the GTM 

Research Reserve’s boundaries. The initial Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (GRMAP) and Pellicer 

The condition of high level predators, such as alligators, provide a useful indicator of the health of the 

surrounding environment.

Creek Aquatic Preserve (PCAP) management plans include habitat and species inventories (1991) that 

should be updated. Techniques used for these original inventories are not documented. Because of this 

the GTM Research Reserve’s initial evaluation of changes of biodiversity and habitat will be limited to 

presence and absence data. It is recommended that subsequent species and habitat data be collected 

and analyzed using standardized methods that are well documented to allow for more rigorous methods 

of change detection. 

Long-term standardized monitoring is necessary to assess trends in the condition of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s water quality and biological resources. The initiation of the NERR System-wide Monitoring 

Program (SWMP) represents a significant accomplishment toward this goal however trends in important 

indicators (e.g., duration of hypoxia, salinity change, turbidity) requires data analyses and interpretation 

on an annual cycle. In order to fully characterize the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources and 

fulfill its mission additional monitoring and modeling capabilities will be necessary. Existing datasets 

should be analyzed for trends and used to guide future monitoring locations and protocols. 

Ideally, biological monitoring should focus on multiple trophic levels (e.g., phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fishes, and marine mammals) and habitats incorporating 

measures of both species/habitat biodiversity and condition. Predictive models must also be 

developed that link management activities to outcomes in order to guide future decisions. Equally 

important is an integrated educational and resource management strategy to interpret the results 

of research and modeling to coastal decision makers and stakeholders implementing restoration/ 

conservation planning. 

Given appropriate resources, the GTM Research Reserve will strive to initiate and implement a sciencebased 

adaptive management strategy consistent with the following process: (1) characterization of 

the problem, (2) diagnosis of causes, (3) identification and implementation of management strategies, 

(4) assessment of the effectiveness of these strategies, (5) re-evaluation of causes, and (6) continued 

assurance of effectiveness and, if necessary, the refinement of strategies. To be successful each step 

of this process must be fully integrated with the GTM Research Reserve’s education and stewardship 

programs. This scheme will create the cycle of management necessary to identify, solve, correct, and 

follow trends in ecosystem integrity. 

Monitoring strategies for listed species will be in accordance with approved recovery plans. 

Opportunities for partner agencies within the GTM Research Reserve to coordinate efforts to enhance 

limited resources will be actively encouraged. 

Submerged and Tidal Communities 

The GTM Research Reserve submerged habitats are not well characterized. Lack of appropriate baseline 

information regarding habitats and species composition (native and exotic) is an overriding issue which 

limits the GTM Research Reserve’s effectiveness to manage its resources. Therefore the objectives 

listed below prioritize the establishment of an up-to-date baseline inventory of habitats and species and 

development of protocols for conducting change analyses and predictive modeling. To complement 

these efforts, the GTM Research Reserve will also acquire information concerning the status and trends 

in recreational and commercial fisheries within its boundary. 

Issue Thirteen: The absence of baseline maps for submerged and tidal habitats precludes informed 

decisions concerning resource condition or trends 

Introduction: Establishing long-term baseline mapping of the GTM Research Reserve’s habitats is 

necessary to track short-term variability and long-term trends. The ultimate goal of this endeavor is to 

conduct change analyses. Habitat change monitoring is necessary to set management priorities and to 

assess the resiliency of the GTM Research Reserve’s habitats. 

Objective Thirteen: Develop a habitat map for the GTM Research Reserve’s tidal and submerged 

resources to support change analyses. 




1. Conduct or facilitate research to map submerged habitat sediment grain size, bathymetry, hardbottom 

resources and tidal marsh to serve as baseline for future change analyses and habitat 

suitability modeling efforts.



3. Continue existing and develop new partnerships with other agencies and universities to accomplish 

benthic mapping needs of this region. 

4. Assist the Friends of the GTM Reserve and other partners in pursuit of grants to help fund and 

administer positions for conducting research and resource management projects. 



1. Provide GIS and GPS support for habitat mapping and ground truthing. 

2. Use the results of habitat change analyses to guide and assess the GTM Research Reserve’s 

restoration activities. 



1. Incorporate habitat change information as it becomes available into educational programming and 

outreach materials. 

2. Conduct workshops on tidal and submerged habitat mapping and change technologies. 

3. Incorporate the results of the GTM Research Reserve’s habitat change assessment into an annual 

“State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop. 


1. The percent area mapped by coverage type. 

2. An accuracy assessment of data generated from mapping effort. 

3. Initiation and implementation of mapping projects for trend analysis. 

Issue Fourteen: Establishing long-term baseline information regarding estuarine and oceanic 

species composition 

Introduction: Establishing long-term biological monitoring of composition of estuarine and oceanic 

species will allow the GTM Research Reserve to track short-term variability and long-term trends. As 

with habitat mapping, the ultimate goal of this endeavor is to conduct change analyses and to use the 

information to set future management priorities. Initially the scope of this activity will be limited to presence 

and absence data obtained from existing sources. The GTM Research Reserve will seek opportunities to 

expand on this dataset through partnerships that support long-term biological monitoring. 

Objective Fourteen: Initiate long-term biological monitoring of estuarine species composition (including 

nonnative species) to support change analyses of the GTM Research Reserve estuarine biodiversity. 




1. Facilitate or conduct projects to initiate long-term biological monitoring at multiple trophic levels 

within selected habitats. 

2. Facilitate or conduct creel census or otherwise obtain data related to the GTM Research Reserve’s 

recreational and commercial fisheries productivity to follow and report on trends in species 

biodiversity, biomass and abundance. 


stewardship program 


1. Scuba or remote-sensing based resource inventory of offshore area of GTM Research Reserve to 

document natural communities and species composition.



1. Provide GIS and GPS support for habitat biological monitoring. 



1. Incorporate biodiversity information as it becomes available into educational programming and 

outreach materials. 

2. Conduct workshops on GIS modeling to support conservation of biodiversity. 

3. Provide training opportunities to staff and volunteers for recording, managing and analyzing trends 

in ecological datasets. 


1. Number of long-term monitoring projects initiated. 

2. Number of samples collected or surveys completed. 

3. GIS products produced that support habitat change initiatives. 

Issue Fifteen: Damage to salt marsh habitats by unauthorized access of vehicles along the 


Introduction: Salt marsh habitats are extremely sensitive to off-road vehicle traffic. It takes only one 

off-road vehicle incident to cause long-term damage to salt-marsh vegetation. The best strategy for 

conservation is prevention, however, once damage has occurred restoration can be used to accelerate 

the recovery of affected marshes. 

Objective Fifteen: Reduce the frequency of off-road vehicle damage and restore damaged salt marsh 

habitat along the Tolomato River. 




1. Facilitate or conduct research and summarize published literature on salt marsh resiliency to 

physical damage. 

2. Summarize information from GTM Research Reserve affiliated research projects and literature 

reviews for integration into its education and stewardship program. 

3. Establish a photo-point database of off-road vehicle damage and habitat recovery projects by location. 



1. Report any unauthorized vehicle activities harming salt marsh habitat within the GTM Research 

Reserve to the appropriate regulatory and enforcement agency. 

2. When feasible, fence, post, and re-vegetate unauthorized access points. 

3. Provide GIS support to track damage by unauthorized vehicles. 

4. Conduct regular staff or volunteer patrols, including aerial, water, and terrestrial surveys, to monitor 

for vehicle and other damage. 



1. Provide information concerning marsh habitat resiliency through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K- 

12 programming, and public outreach activities. 

2. Produce press releases for newspapers about the issue and its ecological effects. 

3. Partner with homeowners associations and ATV distributors to promote awareness of marsh 

habitats and their sensitivity to vehicle traffic.


1. Develop posters and kiosks for education centers and parks in communities adjacent to marshes 

explaining damage caused by unauthorized vehicles. 


1. Trends in patterns or frequency of salt marsh damage attributed to off-road vehicles. 

2. Trends in the number of staff/volunteer patrols of salt marsh habitat along the Tolomato River. 

Issue Sixteen: Sources, biological significance, and status and trends of pollutants affecting the GTM 

Research Reserve’s habitats and water quality require additional examination 

Introduction: Reserves are established to serve as platforms for research and education to understand 

natural coastal processes and to generate information to enhance our ability to manage natural 

resources. Pollutants have a direct and deleterious impact on this purpose. A fundamental need is to 

restore and maintain natural estuarine conditions to the fullest extent possible. The GTM Research 

Reserve will partner to facilitate and conduct research necessary to understand the status, trends and 

biological significance of pollutants to develop management priorities. 

Objective Sixteen: Identify the current status, biological significance, and source of water column, 

sediment and oyster tissue contaminants to support the tracking of long-term changes in the biological 

significance, source, and trends in water column, sediment and oyster tissue contaminants. 




1. In partnership with State Universities pursue National Science Foundation’s Long-Term 

Ecological Reserve network status for the GTM Research Reserve to focus additional scientific 

resources on this issue. 

2. Facilitate or conduct modeling and long-term monitoring to identify the current status, biological 

significance, source, and trends in water column nutrient concentrations and sediment and oyster 

tissue pesticide, PAH, and heavy metal concentrations. 

3. Support continuation and full implementation of the NERR System-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP). 

4. Conduct or facilitate monitoring along suspected pollutant gradients affecting the GTM Research 

Reserve (e.g., Ponte Vedra Lake drainage system, headwaters of Pellicer Creek, Tributaries of the 

Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers). 

5. Use SWMP datasets to examine indicators of estuarine health such as duration of hypoxia, salinity 

change, turbidity, and nutrient concentrations. 

6. Assist the Friends of the Reserve and other partners in pursuit of grants to help fund research and 

monitoring projects. 





1. Provide GIS and GPS support for water quality and contaminant monitoring. 

2. Develop trained volunteer based monitoring programs. 

3. Partner with DEP’s TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Program, St. Johns River Water Management 

District (SJRWMD), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and St. 

Johns County Department of Health (DOH) to obtain current data on water body classification 

affecting oyster harvesting. 



1. Incorporate water quality and contaminant information as it becomes available into educational 

programming and outreach materials.

6 

2. Incorporate information regarding pollutant sources, status and trends and potential solutions into 

an annual “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop. 

3. Initiate a volunteer based (e.g., Lakewatch) water quality monitoring program for Pellicer Creek 

and Guana River. 


1. Number of monitoring programs initiated by pollutant type. 

2. Number of biomonitoring tools tested, developed and implemented. 

3. Continued implementation of the NERR SWMP. 

4. Pollutant sources, status and trends are identified and prioritized. 

5. Trends in the duration of hypoxia, salinity change, turbidity, and nutrient concentrations are 

analyzed and interpreted. 

Issue Seventeen: Excessive by-catch associated with fishing at the dam 

Introduction: Reducing bycatch is one of the fundamental principles of sustainable fisheries. 

Species deemed undesirable by humans are food for other fish and crabs that may be economically 

important. Excessive by-catch can also accumulate at the Guana River Dam thereby reducing the 

aesthetics of the experience for other users. The GTM Research Reserve will implement strategies 

to reduce by-catch to protect the sustainability of the fisheries at this site and to improve the overall 

user experience. 

Objective Seventeen: Reduce mortality of by-catch associated with fishing activities at the Guana River Dam. 




1. Conduct periodic surveys to monitor the amount and type of by-catch 

2. Summarize by-catch monitoring results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s education 

and stewardship program. 



1. Identify and obtain local sponsorship for circle hook promotions. 

2. Estimate and record by-catch disposal at the dam through periodic patrols at the dam and during 

clean-ups. 

3. Increase staff/volunteer presence at the dam to promote compliance and encourage the release of 

by-catch. 

4. Promote catch and release fishing activities. 


1. Establish a volunteer ranger program trained in current fishing regulations and catch and release 

techniques. 



1. Provide educational material on the ecological importance of by-catch. 

2. Promote the use of circle hooks in cooperation with FWC. 


1. Partner with local fishing groups/Sea Grant/FWC to conduct catch and release fishing clinics. 


1. Trends in by-catch at the Guana River Dam based on the clean-up dataset.

Prescribed fire is a tool used by the GTM Research Reserve’s Resource Management Team to conserve 

natural biodiversity and prevent uncontrolled wildfires. 

Issue Eighteen: Sustainability of commercial and recreational fisheries resources at the dam 

Introduction: The dam across the Guana River has altered this estuarine system. Typically, the upper 

reaches of an estuary serve as a refuge from predators for juvenile fishes and crabs. Periodic up-river 

overflow of water at the dam carry juvenile and larval fish, shrimp, and crabs into the impoundment. 

During this event, adult fish and crabs previously trapped above the impoundment migrate to the dam to 

feed on the migrating prey items. 

Although this event produces a desirable fishing opportunity for local anglers, there is no scientific 

information regarding the long-term sustainability of this phenomenon. The GTM Research Reserve will 

strive to facilitate and conduct research to understand this complex interaction and make management 

recommendations that will ensure sustainability of the fishery while meeting the goals of the FWC 

managed Wildlife Management Area. 

Objective Eighteen: Achieve measurable progress toward resolving issues concerning the sustainability 

of the commercial and recreational fisheries at the dam to ensure spillway management support the 

sustainability of the commercial and recreational fisheries at the dam. 




1. Facilitate or conduct long-term monitoring of the Guana Estuary fish and shellfish populations 

and water quality conditions on either side of the Guana River Dam especially during spillway water 

releases and up-river overflow events. 

2. Summarize monitoring results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and 

stewardship program.

3. Obtain summary reports, and if feasible raw data, from all past fisheries monitoring efforts at the 




1. Encourage enforcement of up-to-date fishing regulations by increased patrols of ranger and law 

enforcement staff. 

2. Obtain and maintain records of catch statistics of commercial species caught at the dam. 



1. Conduct a workshop on the status and trends of local recreational and commercially 

important fisheries. 

2. Promote catch and release recreational fishing experiences. 


1. Partner with local fishing groups/Sea Grant/FWC to conduct catch and release fishing clinics and to 

distribute educational information regarding sustainable fisheries. 


1. Trends in catch rates, size, and biomass by species. 

2. Initiation of monitoring programs. 

3. Species and water quality below and above the dam are not significantly different or altered by 

spillway management. 

Issue Nineteen: Need for improved public awareness of the GTM Research Reserve and its mission 

relative to oceanic habitats 

Introduction: The GTM Research Reserve has direct management responsibility for twenty-five 

thousand acres of oceanic habitat as part of the GRMAP. Public awareness and involvement in the longterm 

management and conservation of this resource is fundamental to its protection. 

Objective Nineteen: Increase activities to explain the GTM Research Reserve’s mission to the general 

public and to pursue partnerships with the offshore recreational and commercial fishing community to 

ensure the GTM Research Reserve’s mission is understood and appreciated. 




1. Facilitate research to map seafloor habitats. 

2. Facilitate right whale research projects. 

3. Facilitate underwater archaeological surveys. 

4. Summarize research, surveys, and monitoring results for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education and stewardship program. 


1. Facilitate NOAA monitoring buoy expansion. 

2. Staff or volunteers record catch and bycatch as observers aboard recreational or commercial 

vessels within the GTM Research Reserve’s oceanic habitat. 



1. Confirm the GTM Research Reserve boundaries are accurately depicted on offshore navigational 

charts. 

2. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s staff presence within its oceanic habitats.

3. Obtain and maintain records of catch statistics of commercial species caught within the Reserves 

oceanic habitat for use in the GTM Research Reserve’s education and research program. 

4. Provide GIS support for ocean mapping projects. 

5. Work cooperatively with FWC to report encroachment by shrimp boats within legal state limit 

offshore. 


1. Identify potential user issues/conflicts relating to the GTM Research Reserve’s ocean habitat. 



1. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s involvement with the Clean Boater Program and Clean 

Marina partnership program. 

2. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s staff presence at offshore fishing tournaments, boat shows 

and similar events. 

3. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s oceanic habitat and fisheries resources through displays, 

fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach activities. 

4. Incorporate Ocean Literacy Standards into education programs. 


1. Connect to the fishing community through FWC’s circle hook program. 

2. Design and implement user surveys targeting boat shows and fishing tournaments. 


1. The location and boundaries of the GTM Research Reserve are labeled correctly on navigation 

charts (including GPS charts). 

2. Trends in attendance at GTM Research Reserve hosted functions targeting coastal ocean 

audiences and contact hours for GTM staff and volunteers at boat shows and fishing tournaments. 

3. Oceanic resources are quantified and mapped. 

Uplands and Freshwater Communities 

The uplands and freshwater habitats of the GTM Research Reserve have a long history of manipulation 

by humans. Despite this disturbance, these habitats are inhabited by a biologically diverse assemblage 

of flora and fauna. The active management tools available to GTM Research Reserve staff for affecting 

the biodiversity of these habitats are prescribed fire, mechanical manipulation of vegetation, exotic 

species control, re-vegetation, and hydrologic restoration. 

Details of the goals, strategies and objectives of the GTM Research Reserve’s CAMA managed lands 

prescribed fire program by habitat type and invasive species plan can be found in the appendices. The 

GTM Research Reserve will actively pursue opportunities to coordinate partnering agencies within the 

GTM Research Reserve to fulfill the resource conservation objectives identified in these plans. 

Issue Twenty: Improved integration of the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship, research, and 

education teams to support its prescribed fire program 

Introduction: Prescribed fire is an important tool that is used by the GTM Research Reserve’s resource 

management team to maintain and restore pyrogenic habitats. Public awareness of the benefits of an 

active prescribed fire program is essential to ensure public acceptance of the short-term inconveniences 

such as smoke and road closure. The GTM Research Reserve staff is also committed to applying 

scientific monitoring to understand the implications of its fire management program on habitats and 

species composition. 

Objective Twenty: Achieve measurable progress towards integrating the GTM Research Reserve’s 

education, research, and stewardship program to more effectively reduce hazards associated with past 

fire suppression, maintain natural fire ecology of pyrogenic habitats and to use fire as a tool to restore 

the natural succession of rare habitats or to support listed species recovery efforts.

0 




1. Conduct systematic monitoring of species composition (plants and animals) within experimental 

plots with an emphasis on the effects of fire on listed species and overall biodiversity. 

2. Conduct and facilitate research to evaluate methods of restoring the natural biodiversity and 

microclimate of coastal strand habitat. 



4. Repeat the gopher tortoise burrow census and conduct change analyses to document the 

distribution and trends in this keystone species. 



1. Establish plots within pyrogenic habitats to serve as long-term research sites. 

2. Establish mechanical removal versus fire treatment plots within the GTM Research Reserve coastal 

strand habitat. 

3. Conduct other activities as indicated in the GTM Research Reserve’s prescribed fire plan. 

4. Maintain and procure adequate and reliable equipment and ensure staff is adequately trained to 

implement the GTM Research Reserve’s prescribed fire program. 

5. Pursue continuing staff training on current DEP standards for prescribe fire implementation. 



1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s prescribe fire program through displays, fact-sheets, 

posters, K-12 programming (Fire in Florida’s Ecosystem), and public outreach activities. 

2. Deliver fire ecology programming to communities in high fire hazard areas adjacent to the GTM 



1. Acres of fire hazard reduced. 

2. Acres of habitats restored. 

3. Acres of habitats sustained in a prescribed successional rotation. 

4. Sustained natural biodiversity and enhanced listed species abundance. 

Issue Twenty-one: Improved integration of the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship, research, and 

education components of its invasive species control program 

Introduction: Displacement by exotic species is considered to be the second greatest threat to worldwide 

natural biodiversity. Lessons learned by exotic species research indicate that the most cost-effective strategies 

for responding to this threat are early detection and prevention. Global warming will likely cause a range 

expansion of tropical and subtropical species. The GTM Research Reserve’s location makes it particularly 

vulnerable to invasion by species established in south Florida. Several invasive exotic species, such as 

Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina sp.), are already found in surrounding 

landscapes but not yet established in the GTM Research Reserve. Diligence is necessary to ensure that these 

and other invasive exotic species do not become established in the GTM Research Reserve. 

Objective Twenty-One: Achieve integration of the GTM Research Reserve’s education, research, and 

stewardship program to more effectively control and, if possible, to eradicate Exotic Pest Plant Control 

Council (EPPC) category I and category II invasive exotic species within CAMA managed lands. 




1. Monitor changes in natural biodiversity in sensitive habitats. 

2. Monitor for new and established exotic species.

3. Summarize ecosystem science strategy results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s 

education and stewardship program. 



1. Proactively respond to new exotic species invasions. 

2. Control existing invasive species consistent with state and federal protocol to minimize nontarget 

damage. 

3. Build and maintain an exotic species GIS database. 



1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s invasive species control program through displays, factsheets, 

posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach activities. 

2. Deliver invasive species ecology programming to communities adjacent to the GTM Research 

Reserve and encourage native landscaping. 

3. Facilitate and support Florida Friendly Yards and native plant landscaping programs within the 

GTM Research Reserve and surrounding watershed communities. 


1. Serve as a clearinghouse concerning information relating to estuarine-based exotic species. 


1. Area or number of non-native species removed. 

2. Decreasing trend of ecological impact from non-native species as measured by loss of sentinel 

native species. 

3. The GTM Research Reserve’s CAMA managed habitats have fewer invasive species than adjacent 

unmanaged landscapes. 

Issue Twenty-Two: Dune habitat loss due to illegal crossovers 

Introduction: Within the GTM Research Reserve, dune habitats are critical for several listed species. 

Dunes not only benefit wildlife, they are essential barriers to storm surge associated with coastal storms. 

These habitats are particularly sensitive to foot traffic from humans and pets that access the beach 

across unauthorized points along the highway. Once established a crossover can be eroded by winds 

and destabilize adjacent areas. The GTM Research Reserve maintains beach access using several 

elevated boardwalks that safely allow beachgoers to access the waterfront with minimal disturbance to 

the dune system. 

Objective Twenty-Two: Reduce illegal dune crossovers and substantially restore impacted dune 

vegetation by limiting beach access to authorized dune crossovers and by restoring dunes damaged by 

unauthorized access. 




1. Establish photo points to document unauthorized dune crossovers and to assess the success of 

dune restoration projects. 

2. Summarize research results for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship and 

education program. 


1. Examine trends and patterns in unauthorized dune crossovers. 

2. Track restoration progress using photo-points.

The GTM Research Reserve serves as a clearinghouse for science-based information on coastal 

processes to guide informed decisions by the local community. 



1. Increase staff and law enforcement patrols along State Road (SR) A1A. 

2. Fence, re-vegetate, and irrigate all unauthorized dune crossovers until restored to a natural or 

stable condition. 

3. Provide GIS support for dune restoration and monitoring projects. 



1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve dune habitat restoration program through displays, factsheets, 


2. Deliver dune ecology programming to communities adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve and 

users of the beach. 


1. Reducing trends in unauthorized dune crossovers as measured by systematic photo point monitoring. 

2. Numbers of crossovers restored in dune habitats. 

Issue Twenty-Three: Fire suppression and hydrologic alterations have reduced natural biodiversity of 

the GTM Research Reserve’s freshwater depression marsh habitat 

Introduction: Freshwater depression marshes are a rare habitat in present day Florida. The area that 

is now the GTM Research Reserve once contained many more acres of this habitat. Mosquito ditching 

and other hydrological alterations, along with fire suppression, have reduced the extent of freshwater 

depression marsh habitat. In an effort to conserve natural biodiversity the GTM Research Reserve will 

restore this habitat and monitor its recovery. 

Objective Twenty-Three: Restore natural hydrologic cycle and fire ecology to the GTM Research 

Reserve’s depression marsh habitats within the CAMA managed area.




1. Monitor and prepare reports concerning the hydrology of the restored freshwater depression 

marsh habitat. 

2. Monitor and prepare reports relating to biodiversity of the restored freshwater depression 

marsh habitat. 




1. Facilitate or conduct laboratory studies on the non-target effects of mosquito control on non-target 

arthropod and amphibian populations within the freshwater depression marsh habitat. 



1. Use prescribed fire and vegetation removal to restore depression marsh habitats. 

2. In cooperation with FWC, fill ditches and restore hydrologic connectivity of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s freshwater marsh system. 

3. In cooperation with the Anastasia Mosquito Control District, ensure wildlife compatible methods of 

mosquito control are incorporated into the restoration plan. 

4. If feasible, reintroduce stripped newts and other compatible species to the restored depression 

marsh habitat in accordance with approved species recovery plans. 



1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s depression marsh restoration program through displays, 

fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach activities to highlight its resource 

management efforts. 

2. Deliver depression marsh ecology and restoration education programs to communities adjacent 

to the GTM Research Reserve and users of the trail system to promote community restoration and 

stewardship projects. 


1. Results of hydrologic and biological monitoring indicate restoration objectives were met. 

2. Acres of depression marsh habitat restored. 

Issue Twenty-Four: Direct human-related disturbance of sea turtle and least tern nesting habitats within 

beach and dune habitats 

Introduction: Unintentional disturbance of listed species by human activities requires continual 

evaluation. This issue is focused on direct human interactions with listed species and habitats. The 

cumulative impact of many brief disturbances can cause nesting birds to abandon their nests. Relocating 

sea turtle nests associated with beach re-nourishment activities may cause subtle changes in turtle 

behavior. The GTM Research Reserve will incorporate existing and future research results into its 

stewardship and educational programs to address this issue. 

Objective Twenty-Four: Reduce disturbance of sea turtle and least tern nesting habitats by 

human activities 




1. Conduct or facilitate research to establish protocols for evaluating disturbance. 

2. Establish baseline conditions for this evaluation protocol. 

3. Continued sea turtle and least tern monitoring of CAMA managed beaches.




1. Facilitate or conduct research to investigate the impacts of nest relocation on hatchling behavior. 



1. Install walkover and parking lot signage at beach access locations. 

2. Develop a GIS database that identifies sea turtle and least tern nesting sites. 

3. Install updated beach parking lot kiosks that alert beach goers to the current status of nesting 

turtles and birds. 

4. Train volunteers to assist with field monitoring programs and to serve as beach ranger courtesy officers. 

5. In cooperation with FWC and other wildlife management agencies encourage consistent 

enforcement of applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances affecting nesting, resting or foraging 

shorebirds and nesting sea turtles. 

6. In cooperation with FWC and other wildlife management agencies develop a plan to coordinate 

management of nesting, resting or foraging shorebird habitat. 



1. Interpret beach ecology through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public 

outreach activities. 

2. Initiate beach nature walks on weekends during peak tourist seasons. 

3. In cooperation with local property managers and owners, continue to develop and distribute new 

owner and tenant beach stewardship packets. 

4. Design up-to-date seasonal beach and parking lot educational kiosks. 

5. Recruit volunteers to assist with field monitoring programs. 


1. Increasing trends in the success of nesting sea turtle and least tern populations. 

2. Decreasing trends in the observations of incidents of nest site disturbance by humans. 

Issue Twenty Five: Excessive beach lighting during sea turtle nesting season 

Introduction: Disorientation from artificial lighting can lead to the death of sea turtle hatchlings. These 

hatchlings have an inborn tendency to move in the brightest horizon. On a natural beach, the brightest 

direction is most often the open view of the night sky over, and reflected by, the ocean. Hatchlings also 

tend to move away from darkly silhouetted objects associated with the dune profile and vegetation. 

Because any visible light from an artificial source can cause problems, the most reliable “instruments” 

to use when making judgments about problem lighting are the eyes of a human observer on the nesting 

beach. Any light source producing light that is visible from the beach is likely to cause problems for 

nesting sea turtles and their hatchlings. 

Objective Twenty-Five: Reduced wildlife impacts due to artificial lighting to non-detectable levels. 




1. Summarize research information regarding hatchling disorientation and beach lighting for 

integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 



1. Support and facilitate local community based beach lighting patrol programs for the beaches 

directly managed by CAMA.



1. Provide USFWS light switch stickers and other information in new home owner/ renter welcome packets. 


1. Support the International Dark Skies Initiative (IDSI) (e.g., host Star Parties for the local chapter). 

2. Recruit volunteers to support a community based beach lighting patrol program for the beaches 

directly managed by CAMA and in coordination with St Johns County lighting officer. 

3. Offer sample ordinances and workshops for local governments (IDSI). 


1. Reducing trends in beach lighting violations. 

2. Reducing trends in hatchling disorientation due to artificial light. 

Issue Twenty-Six: Beach erosion 

Introduction: Beach erosion can have a negative effect on beachfront property as well as on wildlife 

that depend on beach and dune habitats for survival. In order to understand this issue in an ecosystem 

context it is important to consider large-scale processes and to focus beyond specific stretches 

of coastlines. Ensuring long-term survival of dune and beach dependent species requires careful 

management of beach habitats and careful consideration of alternatives for beach habitat management. 

Past experience has shown that a “quick fix”, such as shoreline stabilization with jetties, can cause 

greater erosion and loss of adjacent habitats in the long-term. 

Objective Twenty-Six: Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning beach processes to guide 

decisions affecting local beach renourishment, inlet management, and stabilization projects. 




1. Summarize existing research information regarding coastal processes, inlet management and 

beach erosion from GTM Research Reserve affiliated workshops for integration into its education and 


2. Facilitate research to analyze beach profile data from the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 

and the Army Corps of Engineers to determine erosion rates and long-term effects of sea level rise. 

3. Facilitate research to conduct finer time-scale profile measurements of the GTM Research 

Reserve beaches. 



1. Report any unauthorized shoreline hardening or construction activities harming dune habitat within 

the GTM Research Reserve to the appropriate regulatory agency. 



1. Interpret beach processes through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public 


2. Deliver a coastal processes and beach erosion workshop to communities adjacent to the GTM 


3. Establish a long-term beach profile database from the existing GTM education activities. 

4. Deliver a Matanzas Inlet workshop to highlight the rarity of the existence of a non-modified inlet and 

the dynamic processes that affect this unique inlet. 


1. Workshop attendance and CTP attendee survey. 

2. Beach erosion response plans are based on the best available scientific information.

6 

6. / Watershed Landuse 

Goal: Reduce the impact of watershed landuse on coastal resources by identifying priority pollutants 

and encouraging best management practices. 

Introduction: To successfully sustain and improve the condition of the GTM Research Reserve’s natural 

resource management strategies must address watershed-scale issues. The primary objective of these 

strategies is to reduce or prevent nonpoint source pollution from contaminating the GTM Research 

Reserve’s habitats. Increasing coastal populations will require novel approaches to managing watershed 

landscapes and reducing pollutant loadings to sustain or improve coastal water quality. The GTM 

Research Reserve will actively encourage, coordinate or facilitate projects that reduce pesticide and 

fertilizer use, conserve water, encourage renewable energy technologies, promote native landscaping, 

and preserve land buffering wetlands, watershed flow-ways and shorelines. The GTM Research Reserve 

will also strive to serve as a demonstration site and a clearinghouse for innovative science-based 

technologies and methods that support this objective. 

Issue Twenty-Seven: There is a need for an improved and coordinated science-based approach to 

watershed management 

Introduction: Much of the GTM Research Reserve’s watershed is likely to be developed over the next few 

decades. The window of opportunity for wise watershed-scale planning is now. Scientists and engineers 

have research techniques and modeling approaches that are useful in predicting the necessary buffers for 

protecting water quality and wildlife corridors. The state, county and local agencies have identified impaired 

waters, in limited cases have identified probable pollutant sources, and have initiated the development 

of watershed basin or action plans. Implementation of these plans will involve a consolidated effort of 

government agencies, scientists, engineers, non-governmental organizations, private developers and 

citizens. Successful strategies must involve these stakeholders and provide solutions that do not infringe 

on the rights of private property owners or preclude long-term conservation of public trust resources. 

Objective Twenty-Seven: Facilitate the development of watershed management plans for the GTM 

Research Reserve’s watersheds that use conservation strategies focused on sustainable ecosystems. 




1. Facilitate or conduct research that identifies watershed flow-ways and adequate buffers that protect 

water quality, link wildlife corridors and greenways, and promote sustainable landuse practices. 

2. Ensure the GTM Research Reserve’s monitoring dataset is used by local, regional and State 

agencies to identify short-term variability and long-term trends in nutrient concentrations, dissolved 

oxygen, salinity, turbidity, and as an index of eutrophication. 

3. Summarize scientific information from GTM Research Reserve and partner affiliated activities and 

research projects for integration into its education and stewardship program. 



1. Provide GIS support for education and training programming targeting coastal decision makers to 

encourage best management practices for the GTM Research Reserve’s watershed as requested. 

2. Serve as a demonstration site and a clearinghouse for new technologies and methods that reduce 

pesticide and fertilizer use, conserve water, encourage renewable energy technologies, and promote 

native landscaping. 

3. Partner with St. Johns County and Flagler County to place signs along highways to identify 

the boundary of the GTM Research Reserve watershed and to increase public awareness of the 

connection between landscape and estuary. 

4. Partner with St. Johns County, Flagler County and the SJRWMD to map flow-ways, buffers, and 

storm water runoff entry points into the estuary. 

5. Encourage watershed-scale ecosystem management principles are included in the City and 

County Comprehensive Planning process.

6. Support and encourage land acquisition and less than fee simple conservation programs to 

encourage science-based strategies guided by sustainable land use concepts in GTM Research 

Reserve’s watershed. 



1. Deliver a series of workshops focused on proactive watershed- scale conservation and 

development planning to integrate planning and research efforts by the SJRWMD, DEP, county 

planners, city planners, universities, major landowners, and concerned citizens. 

2. Incorporate the results of these watershed workshops into the GTM Research Reserve’s factsheets, 


3. Explore, and if feasible, implement Non-point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) initiatives 

for the communities in the GTM Research Reserve’s watershed. 

4. Deliver periodic workshops on green building techniques, green lodging, green marina, renewable 

energy technologies and other State sponsored programs supporting sustainable landuse practices. 

5. Host workshops to encourage land acquisition programs and to explore alternative opportunities 

including mitigation banking and conservation easements. 


1. Positive changes in watershed landuse patterns (i.e., Flow-ways, buffers, and wildlife corridors are 

identified and conserved). 

2. Ecosystem-science-based watershed management is included in City and County Comprehensive 

Plans. 

3. The GTM Research Reserve’s monitoring dataset is used by local, regional and State agencies 

to identify short-term variability and long-term trends in nutrient concentrations, dissolved oxygen, 

salinity, turbidity, and as an index of eutrophication. 

Issue Twenty-Eight: Providing environmental education for the residents of the new town of Nocatee 

Introduction: The town of Nocatee will adjoin the GTM Research Reserve’s northern components 

western boundary along the Tolomato River. Nocatee has a 25-year projected build out totaling 30,000 

to 35,000 people and 14,200 homes, 5 million square feet of commercial and retail space, 270 acres of 

neighborhood and community parks and nine school sites. 

This community will also have significant conservation lands including the Nocatee Greenway, a 4,700acre 

network of upland and wetland habitat that provides and protects important wildlife corridors. The 

greenway will connect the St. Johns River, Durbin Creek, Twelve Mile Swamp, Tolomato River Basin and 

the Atlantic Ocean and provide migratory corridors for wildlife. It is also planned that this greenway will 

provide the public with many recreational opportunities such as bicycling, hiking, bird watching, jogging 

and horseback riding. In addition, 2,400 acres of waterfront buffer, fronting 3.5 miles of the Tolomato 

River and immediately adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve will be conserved. 

This development will alter the GTM Research Reserve’s ecology on a watershed scale. The GTM 

Research Reserve will partner with the planners, developers, home owner associations, and residents of 

Nocatee to provide education and outreach opportunities that encourage ecological stewardship. 

Objective Twenty-Eight: Proactively improve the environmental awareness and stewardship practices of 

residents of the Town of Nocatee so it may serve as a model of a sustainable coastal community. 




1. In cooperation with the Hastings Facility for Sustainability, conduct or facilitate research to examine 

technologies and landscaping alternatives to reduce nonpoint source pollutant runoff. 

2. Summarize scientific information from GTM Research Reserve affiliated workshops and facilitated 

research projects for integration into its education and stewardship program.



1. Apply and demonstrate environmentally compatible landscaping practices at the EEC and if 

feasible, within the Town of Nocatee. 

2. Provide feedback and recommendations for the management of the Nocatee Preserve. 



1. Facilitate and integrate Florida Native Plant Society and Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) 

concepts into the GTM Research Reserve’s EEC and educational programming. 

2. Deliver “sustainable living” workshops to Nocatee residents and developers. 

3. Develop teaching modules catered to Nocatee residents’ issues and needs as a model for other 

communities in northeast Florida. 

4. Export lessons learned in sustainable living to other communities. 

5. In partnership with the University of Florida Extension program develop a Green-Household and 

Landscaper Training Certificate Program. 


1. Interpret the effectiveness of green practices implemented at the EEC. 


1. Trends in the number of FYN certified yards established or Green-Household Certificates awarded 

in the Town of Nocatee. 

2. Trends in research projects conducted or facilitated with a nonpoint source pollutant reduction focus. 

3. Trends in water-use, fertilizer applied and electricity use in Nocatee. 

Issue Twenty-Nine: The need to continue to support the communities surrounding the southern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve as a center for environmental education and research 

Introduction: The Town of Marineland and surrounding communities have a long history of supporting 

environmental stewardship, research and education. Guided by the aspirations of this community, the 

GTM Research Reserve will seek partnerships to foster ecologically sustainable and economically viable 

solutions that are compatible with this unique locale. 

Objective Twenty-Nine: Increase the GTM Research Reserve education, stewardship and research 

programming within its southern component. 




1. Explore, and if feasible, coordinate a volunteer water quality monitoring program for Pellicer Creek 

linked to the GTM Research Reserve’s SWMP activities. 

2. Summarize information from GTM Research Reserve’s southern component affiliated volunteer and 

SWMP monitoring projects for integration into its education and stewardship program. 



1. Increase staff presence and stewardship activities in the GTM Research Reserve’s southern 

component. 



1. Increase efforts to interpret coastal habitats through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 

programming, and public outreach activities in the southern component of the GTM Research Reserve. 

2. Plan workshops using facilities located in Marineland. 

3. Increase Friends of the Reserve’s presence and activities at the south office.


1. Partner with Florida Audubon and Flagler County to increase opportunity for volunteer monitoring 

of bird populations and related educational opportunities within the conservation lands of the 

southern component. 


1. The number of educational programs completed in the southern component of the GTM Research 

Reserve. 

2. The number of workshops delivered at the Marineland facility and surrounding area. 

3. The number of research projects initiated in the southern component of the GTM Research 


4. The number of stewardship activities accomplished in the southern component of the GTM 


6. / Cultural Resources 

Goal: Enhance understanding, interpretation and preservation of the GTM Research Reserve’s 


Introduction: The lands and waters that make up the GTM Research Reserve have a rich history of 

human occupation. In order to adequately assess and interpret the full range of cultural resources the 

GTM Research Reserve will facilitate and conduct research to serve as a foundation for developing a 

comprehensive cultural resources management plan. All land management activities involving ground 

disturbing components will undergo a cultural resources assessment using best management practices 

as defined by the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources. 

Local leaders and educators are a primary constituency for environmental workshops and field studies.

00 

Issue Thirty: A cultural resources inventory for CAMA managed uplands at GTM Research Reserve has 

not been completed 

Introduction: CAMA managed lands within the GTM Research Reserve have a rich history of human 

occupation dating back over 5000 years. In order to better protect these valuable culture resources the 

GTM Research Reserve needs a detailed assessment of the location and description of these resources. 

Objective Thirty: Complete Phase I and Phase II archaeological surveys of CAMA managed lands on 

the Guana Peninsula. 




1. Summarize research information regarding cultural resources for integration into the GTM 


2. Working with partners, pursue grant funding to refine information on known archaeological sites 

and identify prehistoric settlement patterns. 



1. Complete Florida Master Site File forms for all known but unrecorded sites. 

2. Plan and initiate a program of professionally conducted cultural landscape studies throughout 

CAMA managed uplands incorporating Phase I and if feasible, Phase II archeological surveys. 

3. Provide GIS support for archeological surveys. 



1. Interpret the results of archeological surveys through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 

programming, and public outreach activities. 


1. Number of cultural sites surveyed using Phase I criteria. 

2. Number of cultural sites surveyed using Phase II criteria. 

3. Initiation of a Cultural Landscape Study for CAMA managed lands on the Guana Peninsula. 

4. Number of new sites recorded. 

5. Percent of the Guana Peninsula surveyed using Phase I Criteria. 

Issue Thirty-One: There is a need for a consolidated list of archeological artifacts collected from CAMA 

managed lands of the GTM Research Reserve 

Introduction: Archaeological artifacts have been collected from the GTM Research Reserve since the 

late 1800’s. Fortunately these collections have been documented and preserved at reputable institutions. 

Nevertheless a comprehensive description of the entire collection needs to be compiled and made 

accessible to educators and researchers to interpret and study. 

Objective Thirty-One: Develop the first complete scope of collections for all artifacts collected from 

CAMA managed lands. 




1. Identify the location, condition and obtain a digital photo and description of all artifacts previously 

collected by archaeologists. 



1. Assemble a “scope of collections” statement, including a catalog and inventory of all permanent 

collections held at the GTM Research Reserve or elsewhere. 

2. Provide GIS support for these archaeological inventories.



1. Interpret information, photos and collected artifacts through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 



1. Completion of the “scope of collections”. 

2. The number of artifacts cataloged. 

Issue Thirty-Two: Lack of public awareness relating to the significance of the cultural resources within 

CAMA managed lands and waters of the GTM Research Reserve 

Introduction: As the GTM Research Reserve’s archaeological surveys and artifact collection inventory 

are progressing this information will need to be incorporated into its education and outreach programs. 

Objective Thirty-Two: Enhance opportunities for the public to experience the significance of the cultural 

resources on CAMA managed lands within the GTM Research Reserve. 




1. Summarize information regarding cultural resources for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education and stewardship programs. 



1. Install adaptable-interpretive kiosks and displays to provide up-to-date information on cultural 

resources for visitors to the GTM Research Reserve. 

2. Work cooperatively with the Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program (LAMP) and other 

partners to explore and, if feasible, establish a Florida National Maritime Heritage Designation for the 

GTM Research Reserve and surrounding area. 



1. Seek training for staff and volunteers in cultural resource interpretation. 

2. Host Archaeology Symposia at the GTM Research Reserve. 

3. Develop a program involving docents to provide cultural resource information to trail users and 

EEC visitors 

4. Develop kiosks, displays, fact sheets and brochures to interpret specific cultural artifacts and 

resource sites such as Shell Bluff, Wright’s Landing, Sanchez Mound and other significant sites 

or artifacts. 

5. Include information on cultural resources and history in the GTM Research Reserve K-12 and adult 

education programming. 


1. Trends in user satisfaction survey responses regarding cultural resource interpretation on visitor 

use surveys. 

2. Increased partnerships with cultural resource based organizations, educators and scientists. 

3. Trends in educational opportunities involving the GTM Research Reserve’s archaeological resources 

including media coverage and the number of new kiosks, fact sheets, displays and brochures. 

Issue Thirty-Three: Degradation of known cultural sites on the Guana Peninsula 

Introduction: Coastal erosion, and to a lesser extent vandalism, threatens the integrity of the GTM 

Research Reserve’s cultural resources. This issue is principally associated with coastal erosion of Shell 

Bluff and Wright’s Landing sites along the Tolomato River and vandalism or hog damage occurring at 

cultural resource sites on the Guana Peninsula. Research indicates that the erosion of the Tolomato 

0

0 

shoreline is a combination of wave and current energy associated with boat wakes, tides, storms, and 

wind. Sea level rise may also be adversely influencing coastal erosion. The GTM Research Reserve will 

partner with other governmental agencies, universities, private groups and citizens to seek solutions to 

preserving the cultural heritage of the Guana Peninsula. 

Objective Thirty-Three: Develop an effective approach to maintain and conserve known 

archaeological sites and their associated artifact assemblage from vandalism, erosion and other 

forms of degradation. 




1. Monitor the condition of sites through the use of photo points. 

2. Summarize information from surveys and photo points for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education and stewardship programs. 



1. Regularly assess the condition of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources. 

2. Document vandalism and hog disturbance. 

3. Discourage vandalism and hog disturbance through fencing and other means as 

deemed necessary. 

4. Seek professional archaeological assessments to document and determine feasibility of relocation, 

re-creation and repair of historic structures. 

5. Work cooperatively with the FIND and other partners to explore, and if feasible, preserve and 

interpret historical maritime settlements threatened by coastal erosion. 



1. Develop kiosks, fact sheets and brochures to interpret repair, relocation, re-creation and 

rehabilitation of historic structures of cultural sites threatened by coastal erosion. 


1. Trends in visible damage through time as documented by photo points. 

2. Historic structures and artifacts are preserved, relocated, re-created or repaired. 

6.6 / Global Processes 

Goal: Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning global and meteorological processes and a 

demonstration site for green building technologies and practices. 

Issue Thirty-Four: The GTM Research Reserve’s EEC should serve as a model for the green building 

technologies for the community 

Introduction: On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Crist signed three climate change related 

executive orders. These orders set greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets for state 

agencies and departments of 10 percent below current levels by 2012, 25 percent below by 

2017, and 40 percent below by 2025. The order also adopts the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for all new state government 

facilities and all existing buildings owned by the Department of Management Services. 

Furthermore they require state-owned vehicles to be more fuel efficient and to use ethanol and 

biodiesel fuels when available. In addition, these orders set statewide GHG emission reduction 

targets to the year 2000 level by 2017, the level during 1990 by 2025, and 80% below 1990 levels 

by 2050. The order directs the Florida Secretary of Environmental Protection to immediately 

develop rules to adopt the California motor vehicle GHG emission standards. The Florida Energy 

Code for Building Construction will also be revised to increase the energy performance of new 

construction by at least 15% from the 2007 Building Energy Code Standards. The Florida Public

Service Commission has been requested to initiate rulemaking to require that utilities produce 

at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources. The Governor also created an Action 

Team on Energy and Climate Change to develop an Energy and Climate Change Action Plan to 

recommend ways to meet the new GHG reduction targets. The GTM Research Reserve’s EEC 

is uniquely suited to serve as a meeting place and a clearinghouse for information as well as a 

demonstration site for green building technologies. 

Objective Thirty-Four: Retrofit the GTM Research Reserve’s EEC to serve as a demonstration site for 

green technologies and to reduce its reliance on nonrenewable energy. 




1. Collect and summarize data regarding energy and cost savings associated with various retrofits 

and integrate this information into the education and stewardship program. 



1. Develop an Environmental Systems Management Plan for the GTM Research Reserve’s facilities 

and vehicles. 

2. Maintain on-site demonstration displays for FYN landscapes and renewable energy technologies, 

such as reducing the use of maintenance intensive sod for landscaping and replacing the areas of 

sod with native ground cover. 



1. Develop fact sheets and brochures to interpret EEC improvements (water conservation, energy 

demand and recycling). 

2. Conduct a workshop addressing green building retrofitting technologies. 

3. Develop on-site demonstration displays for FYN landscapes, green technologies, sustainable 

living, and best management practices (BMP’s). 

4. Develop a volunteer based committee to take ownership of landscaping and building technologies 

to implement portions of the Environmental Management System plan for the EEC (i.e., reduce areas 

to be mowed, decrease impervious surfaces, better manage landscape vegetation, research and 

recommend alternative energy sources, reduce energy consumption, and increase recycling). 


1. Coordinate with DEP’s Energy Office to provide information regarding grants and opportunities to 

the communities surrounding the GTM Research Reserve. 


1. Trends in the GTM Research Reserve’s water and fuel consumption, electricity used, and 

recycling program. 

2. Trends in public requests for green building and renewable energy information. 

Issue Thirty-Five: The need to disseminate the latest information on global climate change and sea 

level rise 

Introduction: Sea level rise and global warming will eventually influence all coastal communities and 

habitats throughout the world. NOAA and DEP are the federal and state agencies charged with taking 

the lead on global climate issues. Due to its affiliation with these agencies, the GTM Research Reserve 

is uniquely positioned to be a source of information regarding this important topic and to serve as a 

clearinghouse for the latest scientific information. 

Objective Thirty-Five: Disseminate up-to-date scientific information regarding climate change and sea 

level rise. 

0

0 




1. Partner with United States Geological Survey researchers to establish Sediment Elevation Table 

monitoring within the GTM Research Reserve. 

2. Facilitate or conduct species range expansion monitoring including invasive species. 

3. Partner with NOAA on sea level rise projects for access to the most current data sets and 

projections. 

4. Summarize information from the GTM Research Reserve’s workshops and monitoring programs for 

integration into its education and stewardship programs. 

5. Facilitate or conduct monitoring of long-term sentinel emergent marsh habitats associated with the 

GTM Research Reserve’s SWMP activities. 



1. Based on the current state of knowledge of sea level rise, assess potential natural and cultural 

resource losses and begin a long-term planning process. 

2. Provide GIS support to educational and research climate change and sea level rise initiatives. 

3. Work cooperatively with local and regional partners to develop and implement restoration or 

acquisition plans to respond to marsh habitat migration scenarios associated with predicted sea 

level rise. 



1. Develop fact sheets and brochures to interpret the fate of specific cultural and natural resources 

based on the best available information on global climate change and sea level rise. 

2. Include research results for the GTM Research Reserve’s sediment elevation tables into its 


3. Conduct workshops addressing climate change and sea level rise for the local community and 

northeast Florida region. 


1. Trends in requests for the GTM Research Reserve to provide information regarding sea level rise 

and climate change. 

2. Trends in sea level rise and climate change research projects initiated. 

3. Trends in long-term planning for habitat migration and cultural resources preservation.

Public access must be accompanied by assessments of habitat condition to ensure sustainable high 

quality user experiences. 

Part Three 

Additional Plans 

Chapter Seven 

Administrative Plan 

Background 

Administration of a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is accomplished through federal, 

state and local partnerships. At the national level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) is responsible for the administration of the NERR System. NOAA’s Estuarine Reserves Division 

(ERD) works with state agencies in developing a national network of estuarine research reserves. NOAA 

provides funding to eligible state agencies for the establishment and continued operation of reserves, as 

well as funding for construction and land acquisition activities; provides program guidance and oversight 

including review and approval of management plans; and conducts periodic evaluations to validate that 

operations are consistent with NERR goals and objectives. 

The DEP is responsible for local administration and management of Florida’s research reserves. CAMA, 

within DEP’s Division of Land and Recreation, administers on-site operations, hires GTM Research 

Reserve staff and reviews program content for each NERR in the state. CAMA also manages the state’s 

41 aquatic preserves and partners with NOAA in the management of the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary. It uses information developed within the NERR program to improve management in its other 

marine and estuarine program areas of responsibility. 

Current Staff 

The GTM Research Reserve staff assignments are organized to facilitate the implementation of this 

management plan and to accommodate the transition of the program’s roles and responsibilities in 

response to increased workloads associated with new facilities, public use, and performance based 

management since NERR designation in 1999. 

0

06 

GTM Research Reserve has established on-site management staff since designation to reach the 

current point of staffing. Current staff consists of an on-site manager; program coordinators for 

ecosystem science, education and outreach, the coastal training program, administrative services 

and resource management (public use, stewardship and facilities) and support staff. DEP will seek 

additional program development and staffing as appropriate for implementing the GTM Research 

Reserve management plan. 

As of September 30, 2008, the GTM Research reserve had fourteen State of Florida Career Service 

positions, one contracted employee, and seventeen non-career service positions for a total of thirty-two 

on-site staff. The following describes the GTM Research Reserve’s organization chart, and each program 

team’s staffing and primary responsibilities: 

Reserve Manager /Florida East Coast Aquatic Preserve Regional Administrator 

Primary Responsibilities: Directs and supervises education, coastal training, research, resource 

management, administration and facilities staff of the GTM Research Reserve in the implementation 

of policies and programs; acts as liaison for state, federal and local agencies in cooperative resource 

protection/management and overall operation of the GTM Research Reserve. As the CAMA East Coast 

Regional Administrator, this position also has oversight responsibilities for eleven aquatic preserves 

encompassing 261,500 acres of coastal resources with substantial influence on the coastal zone 

management policies within the region and the state. The CAMA East Coast region of Florida includes 

the Northeast Florida Aquatic Preserve, Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve, East Central Florida Aquatic 

Preserve and Southeast Florida Aquatic Preserve field offices. The Regional Administrator directly 

supervises a total of seven GTM Research Reserve Program Coordinators and four Aquatic Preserve 

Managers. Fifty-two employees are presently assigned to the CAMA east coast region. 

Ecosystem Science Team - Two Coordinators, Four Support Staff 

Primary Responsibilities: This team is responsible for overseeing the GTM Research Reserve’s 

research and monitoring, and database management program as required to implement the 

Science-based teacher training is a primary function of the GTM Research Reserve’s education program.

management plan. In addition this team provides logistic support for visiting investigators and 

ensures that NOAA SWMP protocols and research performance measures are maintained. 

This team also takes a lead role in maintaining and improving the GTM Research Reserve’s 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program. 

Resource Management Team (Stewardship, Public Use and Facilities) - Two Coordinators, Ten Support Staff 

Stewardship 

Primary Responsibilities: This team serves as the GTM Research Reserves primary habitat restoration, 

exotic and invasive species control, and watershed-scale land acquisition and conservation planning 

branch. It also is responsible for law enforcement coordination and implementing the GTM Research 

Reserve’s prescribed fire management objectives. 

Public Use and Facilities 

Primary Responsibilities: This team is responsible for public use and facilities management need 

of the GTM Research Reserve. The team ensures that the GTM Research Reserve lands are safe and 

available to the public through trails and signage. They also oversee contracted services for maintenance 

and operation of all facility needs for the GTM Research Reserve. This includes the 21,282 square foot 

Environmental Education Center at Guana River and the 2,500 square foot GTM Research Reserve office 

at Marineland. Services include: aquariums, salt-water supply and filtration systems, auditorium, audiovisual 

theater, exhibit area, gift-shop, dock, vehicles, boats and all air-conditioning, plumbing, security 

system, janitorial/cleaning services, waste management, pest control, landscaping, or other infrastructure 

related needs. In addition, this team is responsible assisting the CAMA central office staff to ensure all 

GTM Research Reserve construction projects are completed to the best possible specifications and within 

a reasonable timeframe. 

Administration/Operations Team - One Coordinator, Four Support Staff 

Primary Responsibilities: This team performs duties to include accounts payable/receivable, 

monitoring all expenditures, reconciles expenditures and receipts with Florida Accounting Information 

Resource (FLAIR) reports. Identifies errors in FLAIR report expenditures and prepares correction memo 

if necessary. The team is also responsible for guiding other staff in basic purchasing and contract 

processes and serves as the primary phone and front desk support staff. GTM Research Reserve 

revenue, grant and State funds are tracked and projected by this team to ensure proficiency in all fiscal 

matters. Another important role provided by this team is to serve as the Secretary for the GTM Research 

Reserve’s Management Advisory Group (MAG) and to function as the executive secretary to CAMA’s 

regional administrator and Reserve Manager. 

Education & Outreach Team - One Coordinator, Five Support Staff 

Primary Responsibilities: This team is responsible for the development and implementation of GTM 

Research Reserve’s public education and outreach programs. They recruit voluntary participation in 

GTM Research Reserve teaching and outreach programs, organize K-12 teacher, intern and volunteer 

training curricula, oversee the GTM Research Reserve Living in Florida’s Environment (LIFE) Program 

and develop community based outreach materials and programming to expand the GTM Research 

Reserve’s ability to implement its management plan. This program team serves as the GTM Research 

Reserve’s primary liaison with volunteers and its Citizens Support Group (Friends of the GTM Reserve). 

This team also tracks and reports NOAA education activity related performance criteria as required. 

Coastal Training Program Team - One Coordinator, One Support Staff 

Primary Responsibilities: This team is focused on the needs of government, academic, non-profit 

organizations, agriculture, developers, real estate, marine trades, homeowners associations, landscapers 

and other coastal decision makers for up-to-date information. This program team addresses these 

educational needs by cooperating with regional partners to deliver professional training programs and 

workshops based upon the best available scientific knowledge and expertise. This team also tracks and 

reports NOAA CTP-related performance criteria as required. 

0

0 

Anticipated Staffing Needs 

Change in Funding Source: 

To successfully achieve the GTM Research Reserve’s long-term management goals and objectives, and 

to comply with NOAA expectations for Research Reserve core positions (Manager, Education Coordinator 

and Research Coordinator) to be supported by partnering agencies two federally funded positions must be 

moved to State funding (GTM Research Reserve Manager and Research Coordinator). 

Position Conversions (Other Personnel Service to Career Service) 

In order to reduce staff turnover and improve long-term job satisfaction it is the goal of the GTM 

Research Reserve to seek opportunities to provide health and retirement benefits for all full-time 

employees. Positions described below do not represent an all inclusive list but merely an attempt to 

prioritize realistic staffing objectives for OPS to Career Service conversions over the next five years. 

When feasible, the GTM Research Reserve Administrative Team will also seek opportunities to contract 

with partnering agencies and organizations to provide benefits for these and other employees. 

Administration 

Administrative Assistant I/Executive Secretary (Additional Recurring Cost: $5,185) 

This position serves an essential role as the Environmental Administrator’s assistant, including scheduling 

meetings, travel and other organizational duties as assigned. This position also serves as the GTM 

Research Reserve’s Management Advisory Group’s Secretary. The stability provided by converting this 

position will directly benefit the GTM Research Reserve through continuity of administrative functions. 

Research 

Water Quality Monitoring Program Coordinator/Environmental Specialist II (Additional Recurring 

Cost: $7,421) 

The Research Assistant assists the Research Coordinator is an essential position of the GTM Research 

Reserve research program implementing all its research initiatives. This position serves as the GTM 

Research Reserve’s Water Quality Program Coordinator and is responsible for deployment, maintenance 

and data management of the meteorological and water quality monitoring instrumentation, providing 

logistical support to research project leaders in developing and implementing laboratory and field 

research studies; assisting in research data management/analysis and the preparation of reports; 

providing general care and maintenance for the GTM Research Reserve laboratory and field equipment. 

Biological Scientist II (Additional Recurring Cost: $6,306) 

This position is the GTM Research Reserve’s primary field biologist. Duties include addressing the 

biological science needs of the GTM Research Reserve. Areas covered include marine biology, wildlife 

biology, botany, taxonomy, coastal ecology, ecosystem management and habitat restoration science. 

Tasks involve issues of natural resource inventory and assessment; endangered species monitoring and 

protection; Planning, permitting and conducting of: prescribed fire management; restoration (habitat and 

hydrologic); and exotic-invasive plant and animal control. 

Education 

Volunteer Coordinator (Environmental Specialist II) (Additional Recurring Cost: $7,421) 

This position assists the Education Coordinator in the development and implementation of the GTM 

Research Reserve volunteer programs. Duties include recruiting and organizing the GTM Research 

Reserve volunteer workforce. These volunteers assist with all aspects of the GTM Research Reserve 

program including resource management, ecosystem science, education and outreach, and 

administrative activities. 

Events Planner/Public Information Specialist (Environmental Specialist II) (Additional Recurring 

Cost: $7,421) 

Duties include scheduling all GTM Research Reserve programs such as K-12 school programs, 

Brown bag lunch series, adult evening lecture series, nature walks, partner agency meetings, agency

Education strategies include the development and implementation of teacher training modules aligned to 

Florida standards. 

conferences, educational festivals such as Earth Day, etc. Manages events and serves as primary staff 

person on site to supervise all aspects of particular meetings or events. This position coordinates with 

staff/volunteers with regard to GTM Research Reserve events. This position also assists with various 

public relation operations to include the writing of monthly newsletter, calendar of events, andarticles for 

newspapers or magazines. 

Resource Management 

Park Service Specialist (Additional Recurring Cost: $5,683) 

Duties include insuring GTM Research Reserve rules are enforced pertaining to all natural, historical and 

archeological resources and associated public use facilities. This position assists with visitor education 

at GTM Research Reserve recreational areas regarding rules and regulations governing recreational 

fishing, boating, biking, hiking, kayaking, horseback riding and other activities. This position also 

assists with land management/stewardship programs as needed including prescribed fire and exotic 

species control. In addition, this position assists with protection of natural communities and maintains 

optimum species control via mechanical, natural and chemical means. The incumbent aids in training 

and oversight of volunteers involved with various GTM Research Reserve programs. The position is also 

responsible for opening up all GTM Research Reserve’s Guana River facilities, gates, doors, etc. on 

assigned days and maintaining the cleanliness of public use areas. 

New Positions 

Administration 

Assistant Manager (Additional Recurring Cost: $59,368) 

The current management organization structure of the GTM Research Reserve provides a supervisor to 

employee ratio of 1:11 for the Regional Administrator. Although this ratio might be considered optimum 

0

0 

for a single site, the range of duties and responsibilities currently assigned to the Environmental 

Administrator along with oversight responsibilities for five satellite offices (Marineland Office and four 

Aquatic Preserve Offices) requires an assistant manager position to improve regional communications 

and to delegate GTM Research Reserve responsibilities in a more efficient and effective manner. 

Operations and Management Consultant II (Additional Recurring Cost: $49,485) 

Growth of the GTM Research Reserve Staff, increasing requirements to administer multiple grants 

and contracts, and regional duties have grown significantly since the original designation of the GTM 

Research Reserve. In order to reduce turnover in the lead grants and contracts administration position a 

competitive salary must be offered that matches job responsibilities. 

Operations and Management Consultant II (Additional Recurring Cost: $49,485) 

The position is needed to oversee the operations and maintenance of existing GTM Research Reserve 

facilities and support staff. This position directly supervises six positions including park rangers, visitor 

service specialists and maintenance staff. The incumbent will also oversee implementation of the 

environmental systems plan and all improvements/maintenance of the GTM Research Reserve’s facilities, 

vehicles and vessels. 

Administrative Assistant II (Additional Recurring Cost: $31,589) 

This administrative Assistant II position would provide administrative support to the East Coast Regional 

Manager by specializing in support for grants and contractual services. The CAMA East Coast Region 

consists of four Aquatic Preserve field offices and two GTM Research Reserve offices. Duties of this 

proposed position would also include assisting with training, budget coordination, human resources, 

as well as follow-up on terminations per DEP and CAMA directives. This position would also provide 

back-up to regional administrative staff during vacancies to support continued purchasing, p-card review 

and reconciling and QuickBooks management and would serve as a regional trainer for all aspects of 

administrative tasks. 

Research 

Assistant SWMP Technician (Additional Recurring Cost: $31,589) 

Since the initiation of the NERR System-wide Monitoring Program additional components have been 

added that significantly increases the technical proficiency of the personnel responsible for this essential 

grant funded program. An assistant SWMP technician position is needed to ensure long-term quality and 

reduced down time in the GTM Research Reserve’s contribution to the SWMP program in the event there 

is turnover in the primary coordinator position. 

Research Assistants (Additional Recurring Cost: $31,589) 

These part-time or temporary positions would be filled as needed to respond to changes in needs 

associated with research and monitoring activities such as sea turtle season, to assist visiting 

investigators, initiate pilot projects and other temporary needs. The ability to provide these positions to 

assist partner agencies and organizations will greatly enhance the GTM Research Reserve’s ability to 

leverage grant funds and forge new partnerships. 

Education 

Teaching Assistants (Additional Recurring Cost: $31,589) 

These positions would be filled as needed to respond to changes in needs associated with education 

and outreach activities such as school programs, teacher training, events, and summer camps. 

Given the GTM Research Reserve’s proximity to several quality educational institutions and active 

participation in the Florida Marine Science Educators Association these positions may be filled by off 

duty teachers or interns.

Resource Management 

Watershed Coordinator (Additional Recurring Cost: $39,257) 

This position is needed to coordinate and implement the GTM Reserve’s Resource Management 

strategies associated with “Watershed Landuse” in coordination with the GTM research Reserve’s 

Education and Outreach, Resource and Ecosystem Science Program Team. Duties will include review 

and comments to County and City Comprehensive Plan Process, coordinate with major private and 

public landowners to encourage best management practices that emphasize and promote sustainable 

community concepts and long-term coastal water quality protection. 

Seasonal Rangers (Additional Recurring Cost: $25,279) 

In response to seasonal shifts in workload it would be beneficial for the GTM Research Reserve to hire 

temporary ranger positions to augment core staff during hunting and peak tourist season. These seasonal 

positions would be filled to assist with public use and maintenance activities as needed. This is a similar 

to the process implemented at state and federal parks in response to temporary summer staffing needs.

Weekend and special event programming allow parents and children to learn about the GTM Research Reserve. 

Chapter Eight 

Facilities Plan 

The Facilities Team at the GTM Research Reserve provides facilities and infrastructure for staff, visiting 

scientists and the public to effectively implement its Ecosystem Science, Resource Management, and 

Education and Outreach strategies. The GTM Research Reserve would like to be recognized as a regional 

center of excellence for innovative expertise in coastal natural resource management and conservation, 

research, monitoring and education and advocacy of coastal stewardship through ecologically sensitive 

planning and construction of new or remodeled facilities. GTM Research Reserve, with funding assistance 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), completed a Master Facilities Plan in 

1999. This plan is updated every 10 years. 

Emergency Action Plan 

An Emergency Action Plan including hazards communication protocols will be formulated and shall be 

updated as needed. 

Environmental Management Systems Plan 

At GTM Research Reserve, we are committed to providing a safe and healthy working environment for 

all staff; protecting the general public and the environment from unacceptable environmental, safety and 

health risks; and operating in a manner that protects and restores the environment. An integral part of the 

GTM Research Reserve’s management plan will be the development of an Environmental Management 

System Plan for the facilities directly managed by its staff. This plan will include three sections: 1. Water 

Conservation, 2. Energy Efficiency and 3. Pollution Prevention, Lessons learned and, when practical, 

demonstration displays will be incorporated into its education programs. 

National and regional energy and water treatment costs are rising significantly. GTM Research Reserve 

will make energy efficiency and water conservation key elements of its facility planning effort. As part 

of the Environmental Management System Plan, the GTM Research Reserve staff will identify potential

facility improvements to reduce the reliance on nonrenewable energy sources and promote energy and 

water conservation and ensure a safe and healthy work environment for employees. 

GTM Research Reserve staff is dedicated to helping prevent or minimize all pollutants (non-hazardous, 

hazardous etc.) to all media (air emissions, liquid effluents and solid waste). The Environmental Systems 

Plan will include opportunities for pollution reduction, resource conservation, recycling, energy efficiency, 

water conservation and purchasing environmentally preferable products and services. 

Existing Facilities 

GTM Research Reserve Northern Component Facilities 

The existing facilities include a 21,282 square foot Environmental Education Center (EEC) located off State 

Road A1A in South Ponte Vedra Beach (Figure 22). This structure is designed to facilitate the education, 

research and stewardship components of the GTM Research Reserve. Following an extensive site review 

process involving the cooperation of federal, 

state, local and regulatory officials, the previously 

disturbed Guana Dam site was altered to provide 

Dam 

facilities and access to the 2600 upland acres 

^_ under the direct management of the GTM Research 

!y !i Reserve staff. This location affords balance of 

resource protection and public use. There are 

!È 

two buildings for storage and maintenance, two 

!G 

restrooms, a picnic pavilion, parking area and boat 

!F 

ramps. There are also three beach access parking 

lots to the north of the Guana Dam site providing 

!i 

recreational opportunities along the Northern 

!y 

Component’s 4.7 miles of undeveloped Atlantic 

Ocean beachfront. 

^_ 

!i 

!i 

Guana Lake 

!i 

0 2 4 

Miles 

Guana Peninsula 

Recreational Facilities 

± 

GTM Research Reserve y Boat Launch 

Office & Education Center ! 

i Parking & 

Guana Peninsula Trail System ! Beach Access 

GTMNERR Boundary 

Biking 

!G 

(Northern Component) 

!F Hiking 

!È Horseback Riding 

June 2007 

Figure / Facilities and improvements within the 

CAMA managed area of the GTM Research Reserve. 

The EEC provides a one-of-a-kind opportunity 

to offer hands-on environmental education and 

natural resource interpretation for northeast 

Florida. Open to the public seven days a week, 

the EEC is a superb visitors’ center and starting 

point for experiencing the natural wonders that 

the GTM Research Reserve has to offer. The EEC 

parking lot has seventy-one parking spaces, 

including four Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) compliant spaces, interspersed among 

islands of rare coastal scrub habitat. Upon exiting 

their vehicles, guests are surrounded by the 

native flora and fauna found within the boundaries 

of the GTM Research Reserve and northeast 

Florida. Live fish aquariums, environmental 

sculptures and dioramas, displays and films 

are just a part of what will make any trip to the 

EEC an exciting and informative experience 

for visitors of all ages. There are multiple labs 

and classrooms for educational and research 

purposes. There are offices, meeting rooms, a 

reference library, a two hundred seat auditorium 

with full audio visual equipment, and an aquarium 

livestock room. 

The EEC houses the administrative, education, 

stewardship and research offices. The Education 

and Outreach staff is able to accommodate 

people in the local area with outstanding labs 

and classrooms designed specifically for 

environmental education. The building also 

enables the full implementation of the Coastal 

Training Program (CTP) and other educational

The GTM Research Reserve in partnership with the town of Marineland encourages expansion of its role in 

local environmental research, education, and stewardship. 

programs targeting public officials, school children, local citizens and visitors. The EEC facilitates 

research by providing facilities for staff, Graduate Research Fellows, partner organizations and guest 

scientists, to conduct research throughout the GTM Research Reserve. The EEC also provides for more 

collaborative efforts between the stewardship staff and the researchers. Volunteers are a large, powerful 

addition to the GTM Research Reserve Team that allows us to achieve much more than we would 

otherwise be able to. One such effort is the gift shop operated by volunteers and located in the EEC. 

Adjoining the EEC property are the public recreation facilities at Guana Dam. These facilities include 

an automated entry pay station and guard house, paved road, paved boat ramps to both Ponte Vedra 

Lake and the Guana River, paved and marked trailer parking, paved parking for trail users, a trailhead 

picnic pavilion and restrooms and a restroom facility which includes a covered porch area adjacent to 

the fishing area. The guard house and pay station are linked to the EEC’s network via an underground 

conduit, which continues on to the shop compound for future connection. The improved parking areas 

include eighty-seven automobile spaces (including five ADA compliant spaces) and ten designated 

trailer/boat spaces. All of these facilities have been added, or improved upon over the last five years 

in an effort to provide the needed amenities for visitors to ensure they do not adversely impact the 

environment. These improvements occurred at previously disturbed sites and were necessary to 

accommodate the increased public usage. Storm water runoff is captured and retained in swales 

for water quality improvement. The boat ramps were designed to arrest erosion, as were the new 

fences barring visitors from trampling previously damaged salt marsh areas. The sum of these many 

improvements is a more user-friendly recreational access area that strives by design to protect the GTM 

Research Reserve from ecological degradation. 

The approximately seven thousand foot long feral hog fence between the CAMA managed lands and 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Guana River Wildlife Management 

Area to the immediate north has recently been replaced. An archaeological monitor was present during 

all digging phases in order to sift disturbed soils for archeological artifacts per the requirements of 

the Division of Historical Resources Compliance Review Matrix. The new fence was installed in an 

effort to keep destructive, non-native animals like wild hogs and armadillos in the Guana River Wildlife

6 

Management Area away from GTM Research Reserve’s significant archaeological and ecological 

resources. With annual inspections and repairs made to any damaged areas due to storms, these 

improvements should last for twenty-five years or more. 

Three beach access parking lots are currently managed by GTM Research Reserve. The north lot provides 

sixty-five total parking spaces, three of which are ADA compliant. The middle lot provides eighty parking 

spaces, five of which are ADA compliant. The south lot has one-hundred parking spaces, six of which are 

ADA compliant. All three lots combined provide 240 total spaces, fourteen which are ADA compliant. 

GTM Research Reserve Southern Component Facilities 

The original GTM Research Reserve administrative building is located in the Town of Marineland in 

Flagler County. The proximity to the Marineland Oceanarium, River to Sea Preserve and the University of 

Florida’s (UF) Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience make this location ideal for continued use with 

a new emphasis on ecosystem science in Flagler County. The Southern Component also boasts several 

miles of Atlantic Ocean beachfront providing numerous recreational opportunities for a wide range of 

activities. 

The Marineland facility will continue to serve the dual purposes of environmental education and public 

outreach for Flagler County while enabling a greater capacity for research in the GTM Research Reserve 

Southern Component. 

Identified Future Facility Needs 

Aquarium Support System (Estimated Cost: $250,000) 

The GTM Research Reserve is planning to design and build an aquarium support system. The aquarium 

support system is needed to properly care for and to showcase live specimens of northeast Florida 

native organisms and enhance the educational experience of all visitors. Appropriate choices in the 

completion of the aquaria system will minimize operation and maintenance time and costs, while 

maximizing visitors’ educational experience and enjoyment along with the resident organisms’ health. 

The GTM Research Reserve Environmental Education Center provides quality educational experiences that 

provide science-based information fostering informed decisions by coastal communities.

Public access boardwalks and associated parking lots provide opportunities to inform visitors about 

coastal issues. 

Equipment Storage Compound (Northern Component Facility) (Estimated Cost: $170,000) 

The existing shop immediately north of the EEC will be improved to provide vehicle, boat, and equipment 

storage. The current structure will have to be repaired and enhanced. An enlarged building or a new 

building will need to be added. The fleet to be stored in the shop area includes the off-road vehicles, 

tractors, trailers, trucks and boats to use as transportation and tools within the GTM Research Reserve. 

The storage areas will also house any other equipment necessary to achieve the goals and needs of the 


Vehicle and Boat Storage (Southern Component Facility) (Estimated Cost: $100,000) 

There is a need to build a structure that can serve to both provide for a convenient way to rinse vehicles 

and equipment with freshwater and store them out of the elements. This will significantly reduce the need 

for maintenance and increase the useful years of service of these vehicles. 

Interpretive Kiosks (Estimated Cost: $40,000) 

In the uplands habitat accessible from the Guana Dam and the beach access parking lots new 

interpretive kiosks need to be erected. These efforts will provide for both resource protection and 

recreational use of the uplands and beaches contained within the borders of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s Northern Component. 

Shell Bluff Erosion (Estimated Cost: $100,000-1,400,000) 

Shoreline change threatens to erode a Minorcan Well and other archaeological resources into the Tolomato 

River. The situation is critical as there is currently only approximately five feet of uplands between the 

Minorcan Well and the river at the top of an existing revetment. The Shell Bluff site is on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Options under consideration include, repair or replacement of an existing 

revetment or the relocation and interpretation of significant artifacts to a safer more sustainable location. In 

either case, signs, fencing and a kiosk will be built for cultural site protection and interpretation.

Access points, such as the Six-mile Landing boat launch provide for unique recreational opportunities. 

Wright’s Landing Erosion (Estimated Cost: $200,000) 

Wright’s Landing, another historical landmark, is also experiencing severe erosion. The gradual slopping 

topography of this site is more amenable to shoreline stabilization through marsh habitat restoration than 

the Shell Bluff site. 

Beach Access Parking Improvements (Estimated Cost: $100,000) 

These improvements are necessary for the safety and security of public users and staff alike. Options 

include, but are not limited to, more signage, lights, security personnel, automatic pay stations, and 

a dedicated and secure wireless network providing real time monitoring via webcam and emergency 

telephone. All existing boardwalks will be maintained and improved as needed while always balancing 

the need for such improvements against any potential environmental impacts. 

Sand Fences within Dune Fields (Estimated Cost: $5,000) 

Sand fences may be necessary within GTM Research Reserve’s beach dune habitat to prevent illegal 

access and to repair damage. The sand fences will be utilized at existing illegal access points caused by 

human foot traffic to prevent further degradation of the environment and rebuild the sand dunes. 

Dormitories and Laboratory Facilities (Southern Component Facilities) (Estimated Cost: $500,000) 

Improvements to the Marineland laboratory will be implemented as funding allows. Coordination 

will continue with the UF Whitney Laboratory and the Dolphin Conservation Center in Marineland for 

dormitory and research facilities (e.g., mesocosms) as needed to accommodate increasing needs for 

researcher and educator dormitory and support facilities.

Guided by public recommendations the GTM Research Reserve’s recreational experiences emphasize 

quality over quantity. 

Chapter Nine 

GTM Research Reserve Boundary Expansion 

and Land Acquisition Plan 

. / Scope and Purpose 

“Core” and “Buffer” Areas: NERRS Regulations 

NERRS Regulations, 15 C.F.R. Sec. 921.13, outlines requirements for “identifying the ecologically key 

land and water areas of the Reserve, ranking those areas according to their relative importance, and 

including a strategy for establishing adequate long-term state control over those areas sufficient to 

provide protection for Reserve resources to ensure a stable environment for research…” 

The ecological characteristics of a Reserve, including its “biological productivity, diversity of flora and fauna, 

and capacity to attract a broad range of research and educational interests,” must necessarily be defined to 

establish requirements for managing in the most effective way possible the entire Reserve, but particularly its 

most sensitive, or “core” areas. Assurance that the boundaries of the GTM Research Reserve “encompass 

an adequate portion of the key land and water areas of the natural system [is defined] to ensure effective 

conservation…Reserve boundaries must encompass the area within which adequate control…will be 

established by the managing entity over human activities within the Reserve. Generally, Reserve boundaries 

will encompass two areas: Key land and water areas (or ‘core’ area) and a buffer zone. Key land and water 

areas will likely require significantly different levels of control…” (15 C.F.R. 921.11). 

Key land and water areas are identified as that core area within the Reserve that is so vital to the proper 

functioning of the estuarine ecosystem that it must be under a level of control sufficient to ensure the 

long-term viability of the Reserve for research on natural processes. Key land and water areas are 

those ecological units that preserve for research a range of physical, chemical and biological factors

0 

contributing to the diversity of natural processes occurring within the estuary. The establishment of which 

specific areas are to be identified as “core” within the Reserve is determined by scientific knowledge of 

that area and the degree of scientific research occurring within that area. 

Buffer areas of the Reserve are identified as those areas that are adjacent to, or surround, the key land 

and water (core) areas and are essential to maintaining their integrity. Buffer zones protect the core area 

and provide additional protection for estuarine-dependent species. 

^_ 

± 

^_ GTM Research Reserve Office (Marineland) 

GTM Research Reserve (Southern Components) 

Palm 

Coast 

Favre-Dykes State Park Expansion 

Faver-Dykes State Park (Original Boundary) 


0 1 2 Miles June 2007 

Figure / Proposed public lands identified for 

annexation into the GTM Research Reserve boundary. 

GTM Research Reserve Core and Buffer 

Areas: Designation and Rationale 

Core Area of the GTM Research Reserve 

The core areas of the Reserve are the estuarine 

waters and associated marshes within the 

designated boundary for the Reserve associated 

with the Tolomato, Guana, and Matanzas 

Rivers and their tributaries (Figure 1). These 

core components ensure adequate, and direct, 

applications of state and federal control and 

management (Section 4.4), providing sufficient 

protection to ensure the integrity of a stable 

platform for the continuation of ongoing scientific 

investigation. 

Buffer Area of the GTM Research Reserve 

The immediate watershed of this core area 

defines the buffer area of the GTM Research 

Reserve. The marshes and uplands within the 

Northern Component of the Reserve along the 

Tolomato and Guana River include the CAMA 

Managed Lands of the former Guana River State 

Park, the Guana River Wildlife Management Area, 

Stokes Landing Conservation Area and Deep 

Creek State Forest (Figure 6). The southern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

core estuarine waters along the Matanzas River 

and Pellicer Creek are buffered by Faver-Dykes 

State Park, Washington Oaks Gardens State 

Park, Moses Creek Conservation Area, Pellicer 

Creek Conservation Area, Fort Matanzas National 

Monument, Princess Place Preserve and The 

River to Sea Preserve (Figure 7). These areas 

included within the GTM Research Reserve 

boundary contribute over 23,000 acres of buffer 

and provide outstanding protection to estuarine 

water quality. 

Plan Lead(s): Mike Shirley, Environmental 

Administrator, GTM Research Reserve 

Role of the Reserve: Stewardship, education, 

and research involving coastal ecosystems 

Geographic Scope: The GTM Research 

Reserve boundary currently encompasses 

64,487 acres of submerged lands and leased 

uplands in St. Johns and Flagler counties, 

Florida (Figure 1). After the proposed 

annexations (8,865.12 acres) and acquisitions 

(61.41 acres) the GTM Research Reserve will be 

approximately 73,413.53 acres.

Purpose: The proposed annexation of public lands will serve to streamline coordination of agencies 

within the GTM Research Reserve’s boundaries and strengthen partnerships. Direct management of 

these lands will remain with the existing designated entities. 

Acquisition of Hat Island, the Rogers parcel (Figure 24) and the Marineland Hardwood Hammock and 

Coastal Trail System (Figure 25) will provide 61.41 acres of watershed protection to the submerged lands 

of the GTM Research Reserve and enhance protection of its upland natural and cultural resources. 

. / Key Plan Elements 

. . / Annexation of existing public lands with no change in management designation (immediate 

boundary expansion, Figure ) 

Faver Dykes State Park (4,166.12 acres proposed to be included in the GTM Research reserve’s 

Boundary): On April 4, 2003, the State of Florida acquired 4,166.12-acre additional property to be 

managed as part of Faver-Dykes State Park. 

The GTM Research Reserve is requesting 

that the federally designated boundary be 

expanded to include that addition. This 

Æ· 

annexation is consistent with the Park’s 

management plan and the exiting Park-Reserve 

MOU. Direct management responsibilities will 

not be affected by this boundary expansion. 

The mutual benefits to the GTM Research 

Reserve and Faver-Dykes State Park are the 

extension of the existing partnership to include 

the new park lands and resources. 

A1A 

± 

Matanzas State Forest (4,699 acres proposed 

to be included in the GTM Research reserve’s 

Boundary): Matanzas State Forest was 

established in 2003 with a 4,699 acres state 

acquisition. This property is immediately adjacent 

to the GTM Research Reserve’s southern 

component boundary. Matanzas State Forest 

was created from the Matanzas Marsh Northeast 

Florida Blueway Florida Forever Project. One of 

the primary reasons for this acquisition was to 

protect the last remaining undisturbed salt marsh 

within the GTM Research Reserve and is part of 

a 16,000 acre continuous conservation corridor 

beginning with Moses Creek managed by the 

St. John’s River Water Management District, 

and continuing south through the forest into 

Faver-Dykes State Park managed by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Pellicer 

Creek Conservation Area and Flagler County’s 

Princess Place Preserve. 

Matanzas Marsh was deemed an important 

birding area by the Audubon Society. In addition 

to many song birds and wading marsh birds, bald 

eagles nest and hunt in the forest. Deer, otter, 

turkey, hogs, and gopher tortoises also inhabit 

the forest. 

About 75% of the forest is upland and made up 

of pine plantations. The remaining 25% of the 

forest is wetlands including bay and cypress 

swamps. Slash and longleaf pines dominate the 

upland forest. The majority of the pine stands 

range in age from newly planted (2003) to thirty 

year old plantations. 

St. Johns 

County 

St. Augustine 


Guana Peninsula 

GTMNERR 

Northern 

Component 

0 0.090.180.270.36 GTMNERR 

Miles 

Southern 

Component 

Guana River 


Rogers Outparcel 

Hat Island Parcel 

0 0.25 0.5 

Miles 


June 2007 

Figure / Proposed land acquisition parcels within 

the GTM Research Reserve’s northern component.

There is an archaeological record of possible Native American settlements in the area. Historic features 

include remains from turpentine camps. More recently, timber companies and hunt clubs shared the 

land that is now the forest. 

This proposed annexation is compatible with existing MOU between the GTM Research Reserve 

and The Florida Division of Forestry and the management plan of the Matanzas State Forest. The 

mutual benefits to the GTM Research Reserve Matanzas State Forest are the extension of the existing 

partnership to include the new lands and resources. There will be no change in direct management 

responsibilities from this boundary expansion. 

. . / Fee Simple Acquisitions 

There are three parcels identified as high priority for acquisition with the Northeast Florida Blueways 

Program that remain to be acquired. The Northeast Florida Blueways (NEFB) program, a component of 

the Florida Forever Program, has served as the primary instrument for identifying potential parcels for 

acquisition within the GTM Research Reserve 

watershed. The majority of the parcels that were 

originally identified through NEFB have been 

developed, removed from consideration by the 

landowner, or acquired by the State of Florida. 

Æ· Two of the highest priority parcels remaining within 

the NEFB program are described below. Beyond 

these 2 parcels, the reserve may now need to 

consider the encouragement of conservation 

easements within privately owned parcels as the 

best option for watershed protection. 

A1A 

± 

St. Johns 

County 

St. Augustine 

^_ 

^_ 


Office 

Hammock Overlay 

District 

0 0.05 0.1 

Miles 

June 2007 

Figure / Proposed land acquisition parcels in the 

GTM Research Reserve’s southern component. 

With the acquisition of Hat Island, the Rogers 

Parcels and the Marineland Hardwood Hammock 

Habitat, the GTM Research Reserve would expand 

its existing cultural resource interpretation and 

protection, education and outreach programs, 

research program, prescribed fire, and exotic 

species control activities to include these 

management units. In addition, the waters of 

the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve and 

estuaries nearby to Marineland (PCAP) are 

classified as Outstanding Florida Waters and are 

afforded the highest level of statutory protection. 

These proposed acquisitions will further enhance 

the protection of the region’s rare and endangered 

species and habitats. 

The Patricia A. Rogers Parcel (Figure 24): 

St. Johns County parcel # 142050 0000. This 

is an 18.63 acre in-parcel of uplands located 

on the Guana Peninsula that bisects the GTM 

Research Reserve’s upland recreational trails. 

It consists primarily of maritime oak hammock 

with the Tolomato River on its western shore and 

the Guana River on the eastern shore and is ¼ 

mile north of the confluence of these 2 rivers. 

It contains a portion of Wright’s Landing, an 

archaeological site designated by Site File 8SJ3. 

Wright’s Landing contains artifacts dating to 

the First Spanish Period of colonization. It also 

contains an extensive shell midden with Pre- 

Columbian artifacts. Acquisition would protect 

natural and cultural resources within and adjacent 

to the site and insure that the reserve’s recreation 

trails are not disrupted by activities related to 

private ownership or development.

Hat Island (Figure 24): St. Johns County parcel #142210 0000. This is a 7.78 acre island south of 

the confluence of the Guana and Tolomato Rivers adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve’s northern 

component boundary that contains mature maritime hammock. It has been described in the Northeast 

Florida Blueways Work Plan as a threat to be developed. Acquisition would serve to protect water 

quality in the northern component and help protect conservation lands proximal to the parcel. 

Marineland Hardwood Hammock and Coastal Trail System (Figure 25): This thirty-five acre 

hardwood maritime hammock habitat (FNAI Ranking S2) represents a near pristine coastal 

environment. Acquisition of this parcel will enhance the GTM Research Reserve’s ability to provide 

educational and research experiences compatible to the surrounding community. Acquisition will 

also provide significant upland forested buffers between proposed developments and an OFW 

designated estuary. 

. / Potential Funding Sources and other Conservation and Acquisition Efforts 

The GTM Research Reserve will continue to pursue all possible County, State and Federal fee simple 

land acquisition programs for funding. The GTM Research Reserve also has developed a strong 

partnership with the North Florida Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy and major landowners to 

explore less than fee simple options for strategic conservation. 

The planned development of the 2400 acre Nocatee Preserve on the northwestern boundary of the 

Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve presents an opportunity for a cooperative relationship between the 

GTM Research Reserve and a private land owner towards conservation linked recreation and provides a 

significant watershed buffer. 

There is also some potential for matching funds through the Flagler and St. Johns County conservation 

programs. The St. Johns County Land Acquisition and Management Program (LAMP) is designed 

to identify, acquire, and manage properties that provide recreational or conservation benefits to the 

community. It focuses on land in unincorporated areas of the county and participating communities, not 

within the boundaries of state conservation lands. It tries to assist governing bodies participating in the 

program to acquire and conserve those lands and/or sites that enhance or promote natural communities, 

green corridors, water resources, outdoor recreation, historic, educational and scientific activities; in 

addition to identify, review, evaluate and rank those lands to best achieve the goal, while protecting rare, 

endangered, threatened natural communities of flora and fauna including species of special concern 

and they explore means of furthering the educational opportunities of conservation lands. Mitigation 

from several large developments proposed for the GTM Research Reserve’s watershed may also provide 

opportunities for conservation.

Lists of Appendices 

Appendix A / Additional Acquisition and Restoration Council Requirements 

A.1 / Executive Summary (ARC Table Format) ............................................................................... 126 

A.2 / Management Plan Compliance Checklist GRMAP Uplands .................................................. 127 

A.3 / FNAI Natural Communities (Rank and Status) ....................................................................... 129 

A.4 / FNAI Natural Communities Acreage ....................................................................................... 130 

A.5 / Species List ............................................................................................................................. 130 

A.6 / Designated and Listed Species (Rank and Status) ................................................................ 155 

A.7 / Nuisance and Invasive Species Control Plan ......................................................................... 159 

A.8 / Timber Resources ................................................................................................................... 163 

A.9 / Prescribed Fire Plan ................................................................................................................ 163 

A.10 / Potential Surplus Lands ........................................................................................................ 172 

A.11 / Budget Summary Table......................................................................................................... 172 

A.12 / Analysis of Contracting Potential .......................................................................................... 193 

A.13 / Land Management Review Team Recommendations and Management Response ........... 194 

A.14 / Recorded Archaeological Sites ........................................................................................... 202 

Appendix B / Legal Documents 

B.1 / Code of Federal Regulations .................................................................................................. 205 

B.2 / State Legal Requirements ....................................................................................................... 230 

B.3 / Aquatic Preserve Resolution ................................................................................................... 230 

B.4 / Florida Statutes (F.S.) .............................................................................................................. 231 

B.5 / Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) ....................................................................................... 231 

B.6 / Memorandums of Understanding ........................................................................................... 232 

B.7 / Trustees Lease Agreement ..................................................................................................... 267 

B.8 / Letter of Compliance of the Management Plan with the Local Government 

Comprehensive Plan ....................................................................................................................... 270 

Appendix C / Reference Materials 

C.1 / Acronym List ........................................................................................................................... 271 

C.2 / References ............................................................................................................................. 273 

Appendix D / Public Involvement 

D.1 / Citizen Support Organization (CSO) ...................................................................................... 276 

D.2 / Management Advisory Group ................................................................................................ 276 

D.3 / Public Meetings, Minutes and Comments .............................................................................. 277 

D.3.1 / First Management Advisory Group Meeting .................................................................... 277 

D.3.2 / First Set of General Public Meetings and Management Response ................................. 280 

D.3.3 / Second Management Advisory Group Meeting ............................................................... 313 

D.3.4 / Second Set of General Public Meetings .......................................................................... 315

6 

Appendix A 

Additional Acquisition & Restoration Council Requirements 

A. / Executive Summary (table format) 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal & Aquatic 

Lead Agency 

Managed Areas 

Common Name of Propert: Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Location: St. Johns and Flagler counties, Florida 

Research Reserve Acreage 

Total 64,487 

Acreage Directly Managed 45,177 

Acreage Under BTIITF Lease 2489 

FNAI Community Type Total CAMA Managed Acres % of Area 

Acres Under 

BTIITF Lease 

% of Area 

Beach Dune 124 0.27 124 6 

Coastal Strand 483 1.07 483 22 

Mesic Flatwoods 17 0.04 17 1 

Scrub 15 0.03 15 1 

Shell Mound 76 0.17 76 3 

Xeric Hammock 668 1.47 668 31 

Depression Marsh 56 0.12 56 3 

Coastal Interdunal Swale 27 0.06 27 1 

Maritime Hammock 370 0.82 370 17 

Tidal Marsh 8053 17.83 307 

Tidal Swamp 346 0.77 346 16 

Unconsolidated Substrate 2496 5.52 

Ruderal 45 0.10 

Open Water 31692 70.15 

Not Mapped 709 1.57 

Total Acreage 45177 2489 

Lease/Management Agreement Numbers: #3462 between the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement 

Trust Fund and the Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

Designated Use Single use for Conservation and Preservation 

Management Agency - Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal and 

Responsibilities Aquatic Managed Areas lead manager 

Designation National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Sublease(s) Ponte Vedra Beach Civic Association 

Encumbrances None 

Type Acquisition Florida Forever, Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL), Save Our Coast (SOC) 

Unique Features Provides critical habitat for calving North Atlantic right whales; is a feeding and resting 

location for migrating shorebirds along the North American Atlantic Flyway; has 4.2 

miles of pristine beach dune habitat; is located within a region with the oldest record 

of European occupation in North America; has an outstanding volunteer program 

donating over 10,000 hours per year; is supported by the community and has an active 

Management Advisory Group; contains extensive public use amenities including an 

extensive trail system, beaches with parking access and dune boardwalks, the Guana 

Lake Dam, and an Environmental Education Center that welcomes approximately 20,000 

visitors per year including 2,500 students and teachers. Public use of the beaches and trail 

system is estimated to accommodate an additional 170,000 visitors per year. 

Archaeological/Historical There are currently 61 recorded archaeological sites within the boundaries of the area 

directly managed by the Reserve. Known sites include a burial mound, numerous shell 

middens, a Spanish mission (probably La Natividad de Nuestra Senora de Tolomato), 

and homestead sites from the British, Second Spanish and Territorial Periods. 

Acquisition Needs/Acreage 61.41 Acres of Fee Simple Acquisition and 8,865.12 Acres of Annexation without redesignation 

of management authority. 

Surplus Lands/Acreage None 

Public Involvement Four Public Meetings and two Management Advisory Committee Meetings were 

conducted in preparing this management plan.

A. / ARC Management Plan Compliance Checklist 

Management Plan Compliance Checklist - Natural Resource Lands 

Requirements Page 

18-2.021 Acquisitions and Restoration Council. 

1. Executive Summary Exec Sum & pg 126 (A.1) 

2. The common name of the property. Exec Sum & pg 126 (A.1) 

3. A map showing the location and boundaries of the property plus any structures or Pgs 2 & 114 (Figs 1 & 22) 

improvements to the property. 

4. The legal description and acreage of the property. Pgs 23 & 126 (Sec 4.2.3 

& A.1) 

5. The degree of title interest held by the Board, including reservations and 

Pgs 21 & 126 (Sec 4.1 

encumbrances such as leases. 

& A.1) 

6. The land acquisition program, if any, under which the property was acquired. Pgs 21 & 126 (Sec 4.1 & A.1) 

7. The designated single use or multiple use management for the property, including Pg 126 (Sec A.1) 

other managing agencies. 

8. Proximity of property to other significant State/local/federal land or water resources. Pgs 23, 24 & 49-54 (Fig 6 

& 7 & Sec 4.4) 

9. A statement as to whether the property is within an Aquatic Preserve or a designated Pgs 1-3 (Sec 1.1) 

Area of Critical State Concern or an area under study for such designation. If yes, make 

sure appropriate managing agencies are notified of the plan. 

10. The location and description of known and reasonably identifiable renewable and 

non-renewable resources of the property including, but not limited to, the following: 

A. Brief description of soil types, using U. S. D. A. maps when available; Pgs 27-29 (Sec 4.2.7) 

B. Archaeological and historical resources*; Pgs 42-45 (Sec 4.2.15) 

C. Water resources including the water quality classification for each water body and the Pgs 29-31 (Sec 4.2.8) 

identification of any such water body that is designated as an Outstanding Florida Waters; 

D. Fish and wildlife and their habitat; Pgs 32-41 & 127-158 (Sec 

4.2.10, 4.2.11, A.2-A.6) 

E. State and federally listed endangered or threatened species and their habitat; Pgs 41, 130-158 (Sec 

4.2.11, A.5, A.6) 

F. Beaches and dunes; Pgs 32-41, 126 (Sec 

4.2.10, Tbl 1, A.1) 

G. Swamps, marshes and other wetlands; Pgs 32-41 (Sec 4.2.10, 

Fig 15) 

H. Mineral resources, such as oil, gas and phosphate; Pgs 27-29 (Sec 4.2.7) 

I. Unique natural features, such as coral reefs, natural springs, caverns, large sinkholes, Exec Summary 

virgin timber stands, scenic vistas, and natural rivers and streams; and 

J. Outstanding native landscapes containing relatively unaltered flora, fauna, and Pgs 22-23 (Sec 4.2.2 & 

geological conditions. 

4.2.3) 

11. A description of actions the agency plans, to locate and identify unknown resources Pg 99 (Sec 6.5, Obj 30) 

such as surveys of unknown archaeological and historical resources. 

12. The identification of resources on the property that are listed in the Florida Natural 

Areas Inventory. Include letter from FNAI or consultant, where appropriate. [GTM 

NERR has staff qualified to identify resources on the property consistent with FNAI 

specifications therefore does not require a consultant for this purpose.] 

Pgs 129-158 (Sec A.3, 

A.4, A.5, A.6) 

13. A description of past uses, including any unauthorized uses of the property. Pg 165 (Sec A.9 - GTM 

Site History) 

14. A detailed description of existing and planned use(s) of the property. Pgs 45-48 (Sec 4.3) 

15. A description of alternative or multiple uses of the property considered by the Pgs 45-48 (Sec 4.3) 

managing agency and an explanation of why such uses were not adopted. 

16. A detailed assessment of the impact of planned uses on the renewable and non- Pgs 69-104 (Ch 6) 

renewable resources of the property and a detailed description of the specific actions that 

will be taken to protect, enhance and conserve these resources and to mitigate damage 

caused by such uses. 

17. A description of management needs and problems for the property. Pgs 69-104 (Ch 6) 

18. Identification of adjacent land uses that conflict with the planned use of the Pg 26 (Sec 4.2.5) 

property, if any. 

19. A description of legislative or executive directives that constrain the use of such property. Pgs 16-19 (Sec 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) 

20. A finding regarding whether each planned use complies with the State Lands 

Management Plan adopted by the Trustees on March 17, 1981, and incorporated herein 

by reference, particularly whether such uses represent “balanced public utilization”, 

specific agency statutory authority, and other legislative or executive constraints. 

Pgs 16, 18-19, 228, 257 

(Sec 3.2, 3.4, B.2, B.8)



21. An assessment as to whether the property, or any portion, should be declared surplus. Pg 172 (Sec A.10) 

22. Identification of other parcels of land within or immediately adjacent to the property Pgs 119-123 (Ch 9) 

that should be purchased because they are essential to management of the property. 

23. A description of the management responsibilities of each agency and how such 

responsibilities will be coordinated, including a provision that requires that the managing 

agency consult with the Division of Archives, History and Records Management before 

taking actions that may adversely affect archaeological or historic resources. 

Pgs 42, 99-102, 163-172, 

230-253 (Sec 4.2.13, 6.5, 

A.9, B.6) 

24. A statement concerning the extent of public involvement and local government Pgs 263-303 (App D) 

participation in the development of the plan, if any, including a summary of comments 

and concerns expressed. 

25. Letter of Compliance of the management plan with the Local Government 

Pg 257 (Sec B.8) 

Comprehensive Plan. Letter from local government saying that the plan is in compliance 

with local government’s comprehensive plan. 

Additional Requirements - Per Trustees 

253.034 State-Owned Lands; Uses. - Each entity managing conservation lands shall submit to the Division of State 

Lands a land management plan at least every 10 years in a form and manner prescribed by rule by the Board. 

26. All management plans, whether for single-use or multiple-use properties, shall 

specifically describe how the managing entity plans to identify, locate, protect and 

preserve, or otherwise use fragile nonrenewable resources, such as archaeological and 

historic sites, as well as other fragile resources, including endangered plant and animal 

species. 

27. The management plan shall provide for the conservation of soil and water resources 

and for the control and prevention of soil erosion. 

28. Land management plans submitted by an entity shall include reference to 

appropriate statutory authority for such use or uses and shall conform to the appropriate 

polices and guidelines of the state land management plan. 

29. All land management plans for parcels larger than 1,000 acres shall contain an 

analysis of the multiple-use potential of the parcel, which analysis shall include the 

potential of the parcel to generate revenues to enhance the management of the parcel. 

30. Additionally, the land management plan shall contain an analysis of the potential use 

of private managers to facilitate the restoration or management of these lands. 

253.036 Forest Management. 

31. For all land management plans for parcels larger than 1,000 acres, the lead agency 

shall prepare the analysis, which shall contain a component or section prepared by 

a qualified professional forester which assesses the feasibility of managing timber 

resources on the parcel for resource conservation and revenue generation purposes 

through a stewardship ethic that embraces sustainable forest management practices if 

the lead management agency determines that the timber resource management is not 

in conflict with the primary management objectives of the parcel. 

Pgs 41, 99-102, 163-172, 

168 (Sec 4.2.11, 6.5-obj. 

30, A.9-beach mouse 

trapping) 

Pgs 27-31 (Sec 4.2.7, 

4.2.8) 

Pgs 17-19 (Sec 3.3, 3.4) 

Pgs 42, 45-48, 163 (Sec 

4.2.14, 4.3, A.8) 

Pg 194 (Sec A.12) 

Pgs 42, 163 (Sec 4.2.14, 

A.8) 

259.032 Conservation And Recreation Lands Trust Fund; Purpose. 

(10)(a) State, regional or local governmental agencies or private entities designated to manage lands under this 

section shall develop and adopt, with the approval of the Board of Trustees, an individual management plan for 

each project designed to conserve and protect such lands and their associated natural resources. Private sector 

involvement in management plan development may be used to expedite the planning process. 

32. Individual management plans required by s. 253.034(5), for parcels over 160 acres, 

shall be developed with input from an advisory group - Management plan should list 

advisory group members and affiliations. 

33. The advisory group shall conduct at least one public hearing within the county in 

which the parcel or project is located. Managing agency should provide DSL/OES 

with documentation showing date and location of public hearing. 

34. Notice of such public hearing shall be posted on the parcel or project designated 

for management, advertised in a paper of general circulation, and announced at a 

scheduled meeting of the local governing body before the actual public hearing. 

Managing agency should provide DSL/OES with copy of notice. 

35. The management prospectus required pursuant to 259.032 (9)(d) shall be available 

to the public for a period of 30 days prior to the public hearing. [Note: Property was 

purchased prior to mgmt prospectus requirement.] 

Pgs 5, 263-267, 300- 

302 (Sec 1.3, D.2, D.3.1, 

D.3.3) 

Pgs 267-299 (Sec D.3.2) 

Pg 5 (Sec 1.3) 

[See note to the left.] 

36. Summary of Advisory Group Meeting should be provided to DSL/OES. Pgs 263-303 (Sec D) 

37. Individual management plans shall conform to the appropriate policies and 

guidelines of the state land management plan and shall include, but not be limited to: 

A. A statement of the purpose for which the lands were acquired, the projected use or Pgs 1-3 (Sec 1.1) 

uses as defined in s. 253.034, and the statutory authority for such use or uses.



B. Key management activities necessary to preserve and protect natural resources and Pgs 158-193 (Sec A.7, 

restore habitat, and for controlling the spread of nonnative plants and animals, and for 

prescribed fire and other appropriate resource management activities. 

A.8, A.9 & Tbl 10) 

C. A specific description of how the managing agency plans to identify, locate, protect, Pgs 41, 99-102, 163-172, 

and preserve, or otherwise use fragile, nonrenewable natural and cultural resources. 168 (Sec 4.2.11, 6.5-obj. 

30, A.9-beach mouse 

trapping) 

D. A priority schedule for conducting management activities, based on the purposes for 

which the lands were acquired. 

Pgs 173-193 (Tbl 10) 

E. A cost estimate for conducting priority management activities, to include 

Pgs 105-118, 172-193 

recommendations for cost-effective methods of accomplishing those activities. Using (Chs 7 & 8, A.11, Tbl 10) 

categories as adopted pursuant to .0 , F.S. is suggested. These are: ( ) Resource 

Management; ( ) Administration; ( ) Support; ( ) Capital Improvements; ( ) Visitor 

Services/Recreation; and (6) Law Enforcement. 

F. A cost estimate for conducting other management activities which would enhance Pgs 172-193 (Sec A.11, 

the natural resource value or public recreation value for which the lands were acquired. 

The cost estimate shall include recommendations for cost-effective methods of 

Tbl 10) 

accomplishing those activities. Using categories as adopted pursuant to .0 , F.S. 

is suggested. These are: ( ) Resource Management; ( ) Administration; ( ) Support; ( ) 

Capital Improvements; ( ) Visitor Services/Recreation; and (6) Law Enforcement. 

38. A determination of the public uses and public access that would be consistent with Pgs 45-54 (Sec 4.3, 4.4, 

the purposes for which the lands were acquired. 

259.036 Management Review Teams. 

Tbl 2) 

39. The managing agency shall consider the findings and recommendations of the land 

management review team in finalizing the required 10-year update of its management 

plan. 

Other Requirements 

Pgs 194-202 (Sec A.13) 

40. This checklist table (pursuant to request of ARC and consensus agreement of 

managing agencies.) 

Pgs 127-129 (Sec A.2) 

41. Accomplishments (implementation) from last plan (format variable by agency). Pgs 55-67 (Ch 5) 

42. FNAI-based natural community maps (may differ from FNAI in some cases). Pg 33 (Fig 15) 

43. Fire management plans (either by inclusion or reference) (259.032) Pgs 163-172 

(Sec A.9) 

44. A statement regarding incompatible uses [ref. Ch. 253.034 (9)] Pgs 45-48 (Sec 4.3 & Tbl 2) 

45. Cultural resources, including maps of all sites except Native American sites. Pgs 42-45 (Sec 4.2.15, 

Figs 16 & 17) 

A. / FNAI Natural Communities (Rank and Status) 

FNAI Community Type Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Status Location* 

Basin swamp G4 S3 N N GTM 

Baygall G4 S4 N N GTM 

Beach dune G3 S2 N N CAMA 

Coastal grassland G3 S2 N N CAMA 

Coastal interdunal swale G3 S2 N N CAMA 

Coastal strand G3 S2 N N CAMA 

Depression marsh G4 S4 N N CAMA 

Dome swamp G4 S4 N N GTM 

Estuarine tidal marsh G5 S4 N N CAMA 

Floodplain swamp G4 S4 N N CAMA 

Hydric hammock G4 S4 N N GTM 

Maritime hammock G3 S2 N N CAMA 

Mesic flatwoods G4 S4 N N CAMA 

Sandhill G3 S2 N N GTM 

Scrub G2 S2 N N CAMA 

Scrubby flatwoods G3 S3 N N GTM 

Xeric hammock G3 S3 N N CAMA 

*CAMA: Found within the CAMA managed area; GTM: Found outside the CAMA managed area but within the GTM 

Research Reserve Boundary.

0 

A. / FNAI Natural Communities Acreage 

FNAI Community Type CAMA Managed Acres % of Area Acres Under BTIITF Lease % of Area 

Beach Dune 124 0.27 124 4.98 

Coastal Strand 483 1.07 483 19.41 

Mesic Flatwoods 17 0.04 17 0.68 

Scrub 15 0.03 15 0.60 

Shell Mound 76 0.17 76 3.05 

Xeric Hammock 668 1.47 668 26.84 

Depression Marsh 56 0.12 56 2.25 

Coastal Interdunal Swale 27 0.06 27 1.08 

Maritime Hammock 370 0.82 370 14.87 

Tidal Marsh 8053 17.83 306.98 12.33 

Tidal Swamp 346 0.77 346 13.90 

Unconsolidated Substrate 2496 5.52 0.00 

Ruderal 45 0.1 0.00 

Open Water 31692 70.15 0.00 

Not Mapped 709 1.57 0.00 

Total Acreage 44468 2488.98 

A. / Species List 

Common Name Genus/Species 

Kingdom Plantae 

Phylum Pterophyta (ferns) 

Carolina mosquito fern Azolla caroliniana 

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea 

Royal fern Osmunda regalis 

Golden polypody Phlebodium aureum 

Resurrection fern Pleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana 

Lacy bracken Pteridium aquilinum var. caudatum 

Water fern Salvinia auriculata 

Southern shield fern Thelypteris kunthii 

Shoestring fern Vittaria lineata 

Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata 

Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica 

Phylum Pinophyta (cone-bearing plants) 

Red cedar Juniperus virginiana 

Sand pine Pinus clausa 

Slash pine Pinus elliottii 

Longleaf pine Pinus palustris 

Pond pine Pinus serotina 

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens 

Phylum Magnoliophyta (flowering plants) 

Class Liliopsida (grass-like flowering plants) 

Blue maidencane Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum 

Florida bluestem Andropogon floridanus 

Purple bluestem Andropogon glomeratus var. glaucopsis 

Bushy bluestem Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus 

Broomsedge Andropogon longiberbis 

Splitbeard bluestem Andropogon ternarius 

Broomsedge bluestem Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus 

Green dragon Arisaema dracontium 

Wiregrass Aristida beyrichiana 

Woollysheath three-awn Aristida lanosa 

Bottlebrush three-awn Aristida spiciformis 

Switchcane Arundinaria gigantea


Switch cane Arundinaria tecta 

Common oat Avena fatua 

Bamboo Bambusa spp. 

Capillary hairsedge Bulbostylis ciliatifolia 

Sandyfield hairsedge Bulbostylis stenophylla 

Greenwhite sedge Carex albolutescens 

Sandywoods sedge Carex dasycarpa 

Hammock sedge Carex fissa var. aristata 

Long’s sedge Carex longii 

Blackedge sedge Carex nigromarginata 

Southern sandspur Cenchrus echinatus 

Coastal sandspur Cenchrus incertus 

Sanddune sandspur Cenchrus tribuloides 

Slender woodoats Chasmanthium laxum var. laxum 

Spanglegrass Chasmanthium laxum var. sessiliflorum 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Whitemouth dayflower Commelina erecta 

Spring coralroot Corallorhiza wisteriana 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon 

Cyperus brevifolius 

Baldwin’s flatsedge Cyperus croceus 

Swamp flatsedge Cyperus distinctus 

Yellow nutgrass Cyperus esculentus 

Umbrella sedge Cyperus filicinus 

Globe sedge Cyperus globulosus 

Haspan flatsedge Cyperus haspan 

Fragrant flatsedge Cyperus odoratus 

Manyspike flatsedge Cyperus polystachyos 

Pinebarren flatsedge Cyperus retrorsus 

Nutgrass Cyperus rotundus 

Strawcolored flatsedge Cyperus strigosus 

Tropical flatsedge Cyperus surinamensis 

Fourangle flatsedge Cyperus tetragonus 

Crowfootgrass Dactyloctenium aegyptium 

Panicum Dicanthelium erectifolium 

Variable witchgrass Dichanthelium commutatum 

Forked witchgrass Dichanthelium dichotomum 

Hemlock witchgrass Dichanthelium portoricense 

Dichanthelium sabulorum 

Southern crabgrass Digitaria ciliaris 

Slender crabgrass Digitaria filiformis var. filiformis 

Shaggy crabgrass Digitaria villosa 

Saltgrass Distichlis spicata 

Coast cockspur Echinochloa walteri 

Baldwin’s spikerush Eleocharis baldwinii 

Yellow spikerush Eleocharis flavescens 

Sand spikerush Eleocharis montevidensis 

Viviparous spikerush Eleocharis vivipara 

Indian goosegrass Eleusine indica 

Green-fly orchid Epidendrum magnoliae var. magnoliae 

Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis 

Coastal lovegrass Eragrostis virginica 

Centipedegrass Eremochloa ophiuroides 

Pinewoods fingergrass Eustachys petraea 

Slender fimbry Fimbristylis autumnalis 

Carolina fimbry Fimbristylis caroliniana 

Chesnut sedge Fimbristylis castanea 

Marsh fimbry Fimbristylis spadicea 

Fringe rush Fimbristylis vahlii


Dwarf umbrellasedge Fuirena pumila 

Southern umbrellasedge Fuirena scirpoidea 

Waterspider orchid Habenaria repens 

Watergrass Hydrochloa carliniensis 

Fringed yellow stargrass Hypoxis juncea 

Blue flag Iris virginica 

Tapertip rush Juncus acuminatus 

Leathery rush Juncus coriaceus 

Forked rush Juncus dichotomus 

Soft rush Juncus effusus 

Bog rush Juncus elliottii 

Shore rush Juncus marginatus 

Bighead rush Juncus megacephalus 

Manyhead rush Juncus polycephalus 

Creeping rush Juncus repens 

Black needle rush Juncus roemerianus 

Shortleaf spikesedge Kyllinga brevifolia 

Carolina redroot Lachnanthes caroliniana 

Bogbuttons Lachnocaulon spp. 

Southern cutgrass Leersia hexandra 

Duckweed Lemna valdiviana 

Bearded spangletop Leptochloa fascicularis 

Frog’s-bit; American spongeplant Limnobium spongia 

Italian ryegrass Lolium perenne 

Southern watergrass Luziola fluitans 

Big moss Mayaca fluviatilis 

Gulf hairawn muhly Muhlenbergia capillaris var. filipes 

Marine naiad Najas marina 

Southern naiad Najas quadalupenis 

Woodsgrass Oplismenus hirtellus 

Bitter panicgrass Panicum amarum 

Beaked panicum Panicum anceps 

Fall panicgrass Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Maidencane Panicum hemitomon 

Guineagrass Panicum maximum 

Torpedograss Panicum repens 

Redtop panicum Panicum rigidulum 

Bluejoint panicum Panicum tenerum 

Warty panicgrass Panicum verrucosum 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Bull paspalum Paspalum boscianum 

Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum var. saurae 

Thin paspalum Paspalum setaceum 

Vaseygrass Paspalum urvillei 

Pearl millet Pennisetum americanum 

Blackseed needlegrass Piptochaetium avenaceum 

Annual bluegrass Poa annua 

Rabbitsfootgrass Polypogon monspeliensis 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus 

Giant orchid Pteroglossapsis ecristata 

Rose natalgrass Rhynchelytrum repens 

Anglestem beaksedge Rhynchospora caduca 

Starrush whitetop Rhynchospora colorata 

Shortbristle horned beaksedge Rhynchospora corniculata 

Fascicled beaksedge Rhynchospora fascicularis 

Threadleaf beaksedge Rhynchospora filifolia 

Sandyfield beaksedge Rhynchospora megalocarpa 

Southern beaksedge Rhynchospora microcarpa


Bunched beaksedge Rhynchospora microcephala 

Bald rush Rhynchospora nitens 

Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima 

Cabbage palm; Sabal palm Sabal palmetto 

Sugarcane plumegrass Saccharum giganteum 

American cupscale Sacciolepis striata 

Floating leaf sagittaria Sagittaria filiformis 

Grassy arrowhead Sagittaria graminea var. graminea 

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium var. scoparium 

Saltmarsh bulrush Schoenoplectus robustus 

Soft stem bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 

Netted nutrush Scleria reticularis 

Tall nutgrass Scleria triglomerata 

Saw palmetto Serenoa repens 

Giant foxtail; Giant bristlegrass Setaria magna 

Knotroot foxtail Setaria parviflora 

Pointed blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium 

Annual blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium rosulatum 

Earleaf greenbrier Smilax auriculata 

Saw greenbrier Smilax bona-nox 

Cat greenbrier; Wild sarsaparilla Smilax glauca 

Sarsaparilla vine Smilax pumila 

Hog brier; Bristly greenbrier Smilax tamnoides 

Lopsided Indiangrass Sorghastrum secundum 

Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora 

Smooth cordgrass; Saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora var. glabra 

Sand cordgrass Spartina bakeri 

Marshhay cordgrass; Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens 

Prairie wedgescale Sphenopholis obtusata 

Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes praecox 

Woodland ladies’-tresses Spiranthes sylvatica 

Spring ladies’-tresses Spiranthes vernalis 

Duckmeat; Dotted duckweed Spirodela punctata 

Smutgrass Sporobolus indicus var. indicus 

Seashore dropseed Sporobolus virginicus 

St. Augustine grass Stenotaphrum secundatum 

Yellow hatpins Syngonanthus flavidulus 

Bartram’s airplant Tillandsia bartramii 

Ballmoss Tillandsia recurvata 

Southern needleleaf Tillandsia setacea 

Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 

Bluejacket; Ohio spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis 

Purpletop; Tall redtop Tridens flavus var. flavus 

Arrowgrass Triglochin striata 

Purple sandgrass Triplasis purpurea 

Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia 

Tropical cattail Typha domingensis 

Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia 

Sea oat Uniola paniculata 

Sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora 

Bog mat Wolffiella gladiata 

Shortleaf yelloweyed grass Xyris brevifolia 

Richard’s yelloweyed grass Xyris jupicai 

Spanish bayonet Yucca aloifolia 

Lawn orchid Zeuxine strateumatica 

Class Magnoliopsida (woody flowering plants) 

Slender threeseed mercury Acalypha gracilens 

Red maple Acer rubrum


Shyleaf; Joint-vetch Aeschynomene americana 

Agalinis fasciculata 

Hammock snakeroot Ageratina jucunda 

Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Southern amaranth Amaranthus australis 

Pigweed Amaranthus spp. 

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Fly poison Amianthium muscaetoxicum 

Toothcup Ammannia latifolia 

False indigo Amorpha fruticosa 

Peppervine Ampelopsis arborea 

Devil’s walkingstick Aralia spinosa 

Mexican pricklypoppy Argemone mexicana 

Savannah milkweed Asclepias pedicellata 

Velvetleaf milkweed Asclepias tomentosa 

Smallflower pawpaw Asimina parviflora 

Climbing aster Aster carolinianus 

Rice button aster Aster dumosus 

Swamp aster; Elliott’s aster Aster elliottii 

Annual saltmarsh aster Aster subulatus 

Perennial saltmarsh aster Aster tenuifolius 

Whitetop aster; Dixie aster Aster tortifolius 

Walter’s aster Aster walteri 

Sea beach atriplex Atriplex arenaria 

Crested saltbush; Seabeach orach Atriplex pentandra 

Black mangrove Avicennia germinans 

Saltwater falsewillow Baccharis angustifolia 

Silverling Baccharis glomeruliflora 

Salt bush; Groundsel tree; Sea myrtle Baccharis halimifolia 

Blue waterhyssop Bacopa caroliniana 

Smooth waterhyssop; Herb of grace Bacopa monnieri 

Saltwort; Turtleweed Batis maritima 

Tarflower Bejaria racemosa 

Rattan vine Berchemia scandens 

Beggarticks Bidens alba 

Spanish needle Bidens bipinnata 

Burrmarigold Bidens laevis 

Crossvine Bignonia capreolata 

False nettle; Bog hemp Boehmeria cylindrica 

Red spiderling; Wineflower Boerhavia diffusa 

Bushy seaside oxeye Borrichia frutescens 

American bluehearts Buchnera americana 

Tough bumelia Bumelia tenax 

American searocket Cakile edentula subsp. harperi 

American beautyberry; French mulberry Callicarpa americana 

Matted waterstarwort Callitriche peploides 

Trumpet creeper Campsis radicans 

Bittercress Cardamine hirsuta 

Pennsylvania bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica 

Thistle Carduus spp. 

Vanillaleaf Carphephorus odoratissimus 

Pignut hickory Carya glabra 

Wild sensitive plant Cassia nictitans 

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 

Sugarberry; Hackberry Celtis laevigata 

Spadeleaf; Coinwort Centella asiatica 

Spurred Butterfly pea Centrosema virginianum 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Florida rosemary; Sand heath Ceratiola ericoides


Coontail Ceratophyllum spp. 

Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 

Sensitive pea Chamaecrista nictitans var. aspera 

Dixie sandmat Chamaesyce bombensis 

Eyebane; Hyssopleaf sandmat Chamaesyce hyssopifolia 

Spotted sandmat Chamaesyce maculata 

Lamb’s-quarters Chenopodium album 

Mexican tea; Pigweed Chenopodium ambrosioides 

Bull thistle; Yellow thistle Cirsium horridulum 

Nuttall’s thistle Cirsium nuttallii 

Sour orange Citrus aurantium 

Butterfly pea; Atlantic pigeonwings Clitoria mariana 

Stinging nettle; Tread-softly; Finger-rot Cnidoscolus stimulosus 

Dwarf Canadian horseweed Conyza canadensis var. pusilla 

Golden tickseed Coreopsis tinctoria 

Swamp dogwood Cornus stricta 

Pursh’s rattlebox Crotalaria purshii 

Rabbitbells Crotalaria rotundifolia 

Showy rattlebox Crotalaria spectabilis 

Hogwort; Woolly croton Croton capitatus 

Vente conmigo Croton glandulosus 

Beach tea; Gulf croton Croton punctatus 

Colombian waxweed Cuphea carthagenensis 

Compact dodder Cuscuta compacta 

Bigseed alfalfa dodder Cuscuta indecora 

Gulfcoast swallowwort Cynanchum angustifolium 

Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata 

Hoary ticktrefoil; Beggarweed Desmodium incanum 

Panicledleaf ticktrefoil Desmodium paniculatum 

Dixie ticktrefoil Desmodium tortuosum 

Threeflower ticktrefoil Desmodium triflorum 

Carolina ponysfoot Dichondra caroliniensis 

Poor Joe Diodia teres 

Virginia buttonweed Diodia virginiana 

Common persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

Wedgeleaf whitlowgrass Draba cuneifolia 

Dwarf sundew Drosera brevifolia 

Pink sundew Drosera capillaris 

Oblong twinflower Dyschriste oblongifolia 

False daisy Eclipta prostrata 

Tall elephantsfoot Elephantopus elatus 

Fireweed Erechtites hieracifolia 

Oakleaf fleabane Erigeron quercifolius 

Baldwin’s eryngo Eryngium baldwinii 

Coralbean; Cherokee bean Erythrina herbacea 

Coastal white snakeroot Eupatorium aromaticum 

Dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium 

Yankeeweed Eupatorium compositifolium 

Falsefennel Eupatorium leptophyllum 

Mohr’s thoroughwort Eupatorium mohrii 

Roundleaf thoroughwort Eupatorium rotundifolium 

Lateflorwering thoroughwort Eupatorium serotinum 

Slender goldenrod Euthamia caroliniana 

Flat-topped goldenrod Euthamia minor 

Florida swampprivet Forestiera segregata 

Firewheel; Blanketflower Gaillardia pulchella 

Elliott’s milkpea Galactia elliottii 

Eastern milkpea Galactia regularis 

Downy milkpea Galactia volubilis

6 


Coastal bedstraw Galium hispidulum 

Stiff marsh bedstraw Galium tinctorium 

Southern beeblossom Gaura angustifolia 

Dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa 

Blue huckleberry Gaylussacia frondosa var. tomentosa 

Dangleberry Gaylussacia nana 

Yellow jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens 

Carolina cranesbill Geranium carolinianum 

Narrowleaf purple everlasting Gnaphalium falcatum 

Rabbit tobacco; Sweeteverlasting Gnaphalium obtusifolium 

Pennsylvania everlasting Gnaphalium pensylvanicum 

Loblolly bay Gordonia lasianthus 

Rough hedgehyssop Gratiola hispida 

Hedge hyssop Gratiola ramoa 

Innocence; Fairy footprints Hedyotis procumbens 

Clustered mille graines Hedyotis uniflora 

Pinebarren frostweed; Rock-rose Helianthemum corymbosum 

East coast dune sunflower Helianthus debilis subsp. Debilis 

Camphorweed Heterotheca subaxillaris 

Swamp rosemallow Hibiscus grandiflorus 

Queendevil Hieracium gronovii 

Largeleaf marshpennywort Hydrocotyle bonariensis 

Manyflower marshpennywort Hydrocotyle umbellata 

Whorled marshpennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata var. verticillata 

Bedstraw St. John’s-wort Hypericum galioides 

Roundpod St. John’s-wort Hypericum cistifolium 

Pineweeds; Orangegrass Hypericum gentianoides 

St. Andrew’s-cross Hypericum hypericoides 

Dwarf St. John’s-wort Hypericum mutilum 

Myrtleleaf St. John’s-wort Hypericum myrtifolium 

Naked St. John’s-wort Hypericum nudiflorum 

Atlantic St. John’s-wort Hypericum reductum 

St. Peter’s-wort Hypericum stans 

Fourpetal St. John’s-wort Hypericum tetrapetalum 

Carolina holly; Sand holly Ilex ambigua var. ambigua 

Dahoon Ilex cassine var. cassine 

Large gallberry Ilex coriacea 

Inkberry; Gallberry Ilex glabra 

American holly Ilex opaca var. opaca 

Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Hairy indigo Indigofera hirsuta 

Trailing indigo Indigofera spicata 

Woody indigo Indigofera suffruticosa 

Tievine Ipomoea cordatotriloba 

Beach morning glory Ipomoea imperati 

Man-of-the-Earth; Wild potato vine Ipomoea pandurata 

Railroad vine; Bayhops Ipomoea pes-caprae var. brasiliensis 

Saltmarsh morning glory Ipomoea sagittata 

Beach morning glory Ipomoea stolonifera 

Littlebell Ipomoea triloba 

Standing cypress; Spanish larkspur Ipomopsis rubra 

Juba’s bush; Bloodleaf Iresine diffusa 

Marsh elder Iva frutescens 

Seacoast marsh elder Iva imbricata 

Piedmont marsh elder Iva microcephala 

Virginia saltmarsh mallow Kosteletzkya virginica 

Virginia dwarf dandelion Krigia virginica 

Woodland lettuce Lactuca floridana 

Grassleaf lettuce Lactuca graminifolia


Lantana; Shrub verbena Lantana camara 

Hairy pinweed Lechea mucronata 

Pin weed Lechea racemulosa 

Virginia pepperweed Lepidium virginicum 

Hairy bush clover Lespedeza hirta 

Slender gayfeather Liatris gracilis 

Gopher apple Licania michauxii 

Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum 

Carolina sea lavender Limonium carolinianum 

Canada toadflax Linaria canadensis 

Florida toadflax Linaria floridana 

Yellowseed false pimpernel Lindernia dubia var. anagallidea 

Moistbank false pimpernel Lindernia dubia var. dubia 

Carpetweed Lippia nodiflora 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Lobelia Lobelia nuttalii 

Curtiss’ primrosewillow Ludwigia curtissii 

Seaside primrosewillow Ludwigia maritima 

Mexican primrosewillow Ludwigia octovalvis 

Creeping primrosewillow Ludwigia repens 

Shrubby primrosewillow Ludwigia suffruticosa 

Christmasberry Lycium carolinianum 

Rusty lyonia; Crooked wood; Rusty staggerbush Lyonia ferruginea 

Coastalplain staggerbush Lyonia fruticosa 

Fetterbush; Shiny lyonia Lyonia lucida 

Wild bushbean Macroptilium lathyroides 

Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 

Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 

Angularfruit milkvine Matelea gonocarpa 

Black medick Medicago lupulina 

Burclover Medicago polymorpha 

Chinaberry Melia azedarach 

White sweetclover Melilotus albus 

Indian sweetclover Melilotus indicus 

Creeping cucumber Melothria pendula 

Alamo vine; Noyau vine Merremia dissecta 

Shade mudflower; Globifera Micranthemum umbrosum 

Florida Keys hempvine Mikania cordifolia 

Climbing hempvine Mikania scandens 

Sensitive brier Mimosa quadrivalvis 

Spotted beebalm; Spotted horsemint Monarda punctata 

Indianpipe Monotropa uniflora 

Pigmypipes Monotropsis reynoldsiae 

Red mulberry Morus rubra 

Wax myrtle; Southern bayberry Myrica cerifera 

Cutleaf watermilfoil; Green parrot’s-feather Myriophyllum pinnatum 

American white waterlily Nymphaea odorata 

Swamp tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora 

Seabeach evening primrose Oenothera humifusa 

Cutleaf evening primrose Oenothera laciniata 

Devil joint; Cockspur pricklypear Opuntia pusilla 

Erect pricklypear Opuntia stricta 

Wild olive; Devilwood Osmanthus americanus 

Yellow woodsorrel Oxalis corniculata 

Violet wood sorrel Oxalis corymbosa 

Wood sorrell Oxalis florida 

Yellow wood sorrel Oxalis stricta 

Florida pellitory Parietaria floridana 

Baldwin’s nailwort Paronychia baldwinii


Virginia creeper; Woodbine Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Purple passionflower Passiflora incarnata 

Corkystem passionflower Passiflora suberosa 

Red bay Persea borbonia var. borbonia 

Swamp bay Persea palustris 

Oak mistletoe Phoradendron leucarpum 

Mistletoe Phoradendron serotinum 

Capeweed; Turkeytangle fogfruit Phyla nodiflora 

Drummond’s leafflower Phyllanthus abnormis 

Chamber bitter Phyllanthus urinaria 

Walter’s groundcherry Physalis walteri 

American pokeweed Phytolacca americana 

Pokeweed Phytolacca rigida 

Violet butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris 

Grassleaf goldenaster Pityopsis graminifolia 

English plantain Plantago lanceolata 

Virginia plantain Plantago virginica 

Camphorweed Pluchea camphorata 

Stinking camphorweed Pluchea foetida 

Saltmarsh fleabane Pluchea purpuracens 

Rosy camphorweed Pluchea rosea 

Painted-leaf; Fire-on-the-mountain Poinsettia cyathophora 

Polygala Polygala cymosa 

Procession flower Polygala incarnata 

Yellow milkwort Polygala lutea 

Orange milkwort Polygala nana 

Racemed milkwort Polygala polygama 

Hairy smartweed Polygonum hirsutum 

Mild waterpepper Polygonum hydropiperoides 

Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum 

Hairy leafcup Polymnia uvedalia 

Rustweed; Juniperleaf Polypremum procumbens 

Little hogweed Portulaca oleracea 

Pink purslane Portulaca pilosa 

Pink purslane; Kiss-me-quick Portulaca pilosa 

Combleaf mermaidweed Proserpinaca pectinata 

Carolina laurelcherry Prunus caroliniana 

Black cherry Prunus serotina var. serotina 

Flatwoods plum Prunus umbellata 

Common hoptree; Wafer ash Ptelea trifoliata 

Blackroot Pterocaulon pycnostachyum 

Mock bishopsweed Ptilimnium capillaceum 

Carolina desertchicory; False dandelion Pyrrhopappus carolinianus 

Chapman’s oak Quercus chapmanii 

Sand live oak Quercus geminata 

Laurel oak; Diamond oak Quercus laurifolia 

Myrtle oak Quercus myrtifolia 

Water oak Quercus nigra 

Live oak Quercus virginiana 

Low spearwort Ranunculus pusillus 

Wild radish Raphanus raphanistrum 

Maryland meadowbeauty Rhexia mariana 

Winged sumac Rhus copallinum 

Climbing dollar-weed; Least snoutbean Rhynchosia minima 

Tropical Mexican clover Richardia brasiliensis 

Rough Mexican clover Richardia scabra 

Sawtooth blackberry Rubus argutus 

Sand blackberry Rubus cuneifolius 

Southern dewberry Rubus trivialis


Carolina wild petunia Ruellia caroliniensis 

Hastateleaf dock Rumex hastatulus 

Swamp dock Rumex verticillatus 

Marsh pink Sabatia bartramii 

Shortleaf rosegentian Sabatia brevifolia 

Smallflower mock buckthorn Sageretia minutiflora 

Annual glasswort Salicornia bigelovii 

Perennial glasswort; Virginia glasswort Salicornia perennis 

Perennial glasswort Salicornia virginica 

Carolina willow Salix caroliniana 

Prickly Russian thistle Salsola kali subsp. pontica 

Tropical sage Salvia coccinea 

Lyreleaf sage Salvia lyrata 

American elder; Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 

Pineland pimpernel Samolus valerandi subsp. parviflorus 

Blacksnakeroot Sanicula canadensis 

Southern soapberry Sapindus saponaria 

Soapberry Sapindus saponaria 

Lizard’s tail Saururus cernuus 

Sweetbroom Scoparia dulcis 

Sicklepod; coffeeweed Senna obtusifolia 

Bequilla Sesbania emerus 

Danglepod Sesbania herbacea 

Bladderpod; Bagpod Sesbania vesicaria 

Seapurslane Sesuvium portulacastrum 

Common wireweed; Common fanpetals Sida acuta 

Cuban jute; Indian hemp; Teaweed Sida rhombifolia 

Tough buckthorn Sideroxylon tenax 

Sleepy catchfly Silene antirrhina 

Horsenettle Solanum carolinense var. carolinense 

Black nightshade Solanum chenopodioides 

Tropical soda apple Solanum viarum 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis var. scabra 

Pinebarren goldenrod Solidago fistulosa 

Chapman’s goldenrod Solidago odora var. chapmanii 

Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens 

Spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper 

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus 

Shrubby false buttonweed Spermacoce verticillata 

Roughfruit scaleseed Spermolepis divaricata 

Florida betony; Florida hedgenettle Stachys floridana 

Trailing fuzzybean Strophostyles helvula 

Sea blite; Annual seepweed Suaeda linearis 

Wood sage; Canadian germander Teucrium canadense 

Eastern poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris 

Forked bluecurls Trichostema dichotomum 

Hop clover Trifolium dubium 

White clover Trifolium repens 

Clasping Venus’ looking-glass Triodanis perfoliata 

Humped bladderwort Utricularia gibba 

Floating bladderwort Utricularia inflata 

Eastern purple bladderwort Utricularia purpurea 

Little floating bladderwort Utricularia radiata 

Zigzag bladderwort Utricularia subulata 

Sparkleberry; Farkleberry Vaccinium arboreum 

Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 

Shiny blueberry Vaccinium myrsinites 

Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum

0 


Woolly mullein Verbascum thapsus 

Wand mullein Verbascum virgatum 

Purpletop vervain Verbena bonariensis 

Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis 

Texas vervain Verbena officinalis var. halei 

Harsh vervain Verbena scabra 

Frostweed; White crownbeard Verbesina virginica 

Giant ironweed Vernonia gigantea 

Fourleaf vetch Vicia acutifolia 

Hairypod cowpea Vigna luteola 

White violet Viola affinis 

Bog white violet Viola lanceolata 

Early blue violet Viola palmata 

Common blue violet Viola sororia 

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Southern rockbell Wahlenbergia marginata 

Hercules’-club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 

Kingdom Animalia 

Phylum Porifera (sea sponges) 

Boring sponge Cliona sp. 

Purple sponge Haliclona permollis 

Sun sponge Hymeniacidon heliophila 

Red beard sponge Microciona prolifera 

Phylum Cnidaria (jellyfishes and anemones) 

Class Anthozoa (anemones and corals) 

Brown anemone Aiptasia pallida 

Anthopleura varioarmata 

Northern stony coral Astrangia danae 

Tricolor anemone Calliactis tricolor 

Sea tube anemone Ceriantheopsis americanus 

Sea whip Leptogorgia virgulata 

Sea pansy Renilla reniformis 

Class Hydrozoa (hydras) 

Ectopleura crocea 

Portugese man-of-war Physalia physalia 

Tubularia crocea 

Class Scyphozoa (jellyfishes) 

Moon jelly Aurelia aurita 

Sea nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha 

Lions’ mane medusa Cyanea capillata 

Cannonball jellyfish Stomolophus meleagris 

Phylum Ctenophora (comb jellies) 

Beroe sp. 

Sea walnut Mnemiopsis leidyi 

Sea gooseberry Pleurobrachia pileus 

Phylum Platyhelminthes (flatworms) 

Horseshoe crab worm Bdelloura candida 

Phylum Annelida (segmented worms) 

Parchment worm Chaetopterus variopedatus 

Tube worm Diopatra cuprea 

Blood worm Glycera americana 

Phylum Arthropoda (spiders, insects, crustaceans) 

Class Arachnida (spiders, scorpions, mites) 

Grass spider Agelenopsis 

Lone star tick Amblyomma americanum 

Black & yellow argiope Argiope aurantia 

Centruroides scorpion Centruroides spp. 

Florida striped bark scorpion Centruroides Hentzi


Wood tick Dermacentor spp. 

Chigger; Redbug Eutrombicula spp. 

Crablike spiny orb weaver Gasteracantha spp. 

Brown widow spider Latrodectus geometricus 

Southern black widow spider Latrodectus mactans 

Giant vinegarone Mastigoproctus giganteus 

Golden silk spider Nephila clavipes 

Green lynx spider Peucetia viridans 

Brown daddy long legs Phalangium opilio 

Daring jumping spider Phidippus audax 

Sub-phylum Crustacea (shrimp, crabs, lobsters) 

Aviu shrimp Acetes americanus carolinae 

Snapping shrimp Alpheus heterochaelis 

Speckled swimming crab Arenaeus cribrarius 

Pillbug Armadillium spp. 

Square backed marsh crab Armases cinereum 

Acorn barnacle Semibalanus balanoides 

Common barnacle Balanus balanoides 

Ivory barnacle Balanus eburneus 

Barnacles Balanus spp. 

Flame box crab Calappa flammea 

Carolina ghost shrimp Callichirus major 

Red blue crab Callinectes bocourti 

Ornate blue crab Callinectes ornatus 

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 

Lesser blue crab Callinectes similis 

Indo-Pacific swimming crab Charybdis hellerii 

Gray barnacle Chthamalus fragilis 

Striped hermit crab Clibanarius vittatus 

Say mud crab Dyspanopeus sayi 

Atlantic sand crab Emerita talpoida 

Flat mud crab Eurypanopeus depressus 

Broadback mud crab Eurytium limosum 

Brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum 

Scuds Gammarus spp. 

Calico crab Hepatus epheliticus 

Smooth mud crab Hexapanopeus augustifrons 

Veined shrimp Hippolysmata wurdemanni 

Duck barnacle Lepas anatifera 

Portly spider crab Libinia emarginata 

Wharf roach Ligia exotica 

White shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus 

Lucifer faxoni 

Cinnamon river shrimp Macrobrachium acanthurus 

Stone crab Menippe spp. 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria 

Gulf stone crab Menippe adina 

Gulf grassflat crab Neopanope texana sayi 

Atlantic ghost crab Ocypode quadrata 

Mottled shore crab Pachygrapsus transversus 

Banded hermit crab Pagurus annulipes 

Long clawed hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus 

Flat-clawed hermit crab Pagurus pollicaris 

Hermit crab Pagurus spp. 

Daggerblade grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio 

Panaeid shrimp Panaeus spp. 

Common mud crab Panopeus herbstii 

Furrowed mud crab Panopeus occidentalis


Green porcelain crab Petrolisthes armatus 

Sea spider Phoxichilidium femoratum 

Tube pea crab Pinnixa chaetopterana 

Pinnixa retinens 

Mussel crab Pinnotheres maculatus 

Oyster crab Pinnotheres ostreum 

Tidal spray crab Plagusia depressa 

Eastern tube crab Polyonyx gibbesi 

Iridescent swimming crab Portunus gibbesii 

Sargassum crab Portunus sayi 

Blotched swimming crab Portunus spinimanus 

Crayish Procambarus spp. 

Estuarine mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii 

Wharf crab Sesarma cinereum 

Purple marsh crab Sesarma reticulatum 

Beach fleas Talorchestia spp. 

Arrow shrimp Tozeuma carolinense 

Mussel pea crab Tumidotheres maculatus 

Red-jointed fiddler Uca minax 

Sand fiddler crab Uca pugilator 

Atlantic marsh fiddler Uca pugnax 

Coastal mud shrimp Upogebia affinis 

Oyster pea crab Zaops ostreum 

Class Insecta (insects) 

Green stink bug Acrosternum hilare 

Luna moth Actias luna 

Aedes sollicitans 

Salt marsh mosquitos Aedes taeniorhynchus 

Virescent green metallic bee Agapostemon virescens 

Gulf fritillary Agraulis vanillae 

Pink spotted hawk moth Agrius cingulata 

Eastern eyed click beetle Alaus oculatus 

White peacock Anartia jatrophae 

Common green darner Anax junius 

Comet darner Anax longipes 

Anopheles 

Polyphemus moth Antheraea polyphemus 

Honeybee Apis mellifera 

Gray green clubtail Arigomphus pallidus 

Great southern white Ascia monuste 

Io moth Automeris io 

Pipevine swallowtail Battus philenor 

Love bug Bibio 

Bumblebee Bombus pensylvanicus 

Four spotted pennant Brachymesia gravida 

Fiery searcher Calosoma scrutator 

Black carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus 

Halloween pennant Celithemis eponina 

Double ringed pennant Celithemis verna 

Deerflies Chrysops 

Coquillettidia 

Goldsmith beetle Cotalpa lanigera 

Sand flies Culicoides 

Monarch Danaus plexippus 

Virginia creeper sphinx Darapsa myron 

Cow killer Dasymutilla occidentalis 

Northern walking stick Diapheromera femorata 

Rosy maple moth Dryocampa rubicunda 

Eastern pond hawk Erythemis simplicicollis


Blue dragonlet Erythrodiplax connata 

Little sulphur Eurema lisa 

Chigger Futrombicula spp. 

Field cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus 

Small whirligig beetle Gyrinus spp. 

Ceraunus blue Hemiargus ceraunus 

Riparian earwig Labidura riparia 

Silverfish Lepisma saccharina 

Giant waterbug Lethocerus americanus 

Marl pennant Macrodiplax balteata 

Tent caterpillar moth Malacosoma americanum 

Freshwater mosquitos Mansonia spp. 

American carrion beetle Necrophila americana 

Northern mole cricket Neocurtilla hexadactyla 

Roseate skimmer Orthemis ferruginea 

Blue dasher Pachydiplax longipennis 

Wandering glider Pantala flavescens 

Giant swallowtail Papilio cresphontes 

Eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio glaucus 

Palamedes swallowtail Papilio palamedes 

American cockroach Periplaneta americana 

Scarab beetle Phanaeus vindex 

Cloudless sulphur Phoebis sennae 

Phaon crescent Phyciodes phaon 

Paper wasp Polistes spp. 

Giant root borer Prionus spp. 

Psorophora spp. 

Black ground beetle Pterostichus spp. 

Brown water scorpion Ranatra fusca 

Termite Reticulitermes flavipes 

Termites Reticultermes flavipes 

Southeastern lubber grasshopper Romalea microptera 

Black/yellow mud dauber Sceliphron caementarium 

Fire ant Solenopsis wagneri 

Oleander moth Syntomeida epilais 

Horseflies Tabanus spp. 

Violet masked glider Tramea carolina 

Common buckey Unonia coenia 

Long tailed skipper Urbanus proteus 

Bella moth Utetheisa ornatrix bella 

American lady Vanessa virginiensis 

Yellowjacket Vespula spp. 

Carpenter bee Xylocopa virginica 

Tersa moth Xylophanes tersa 

Class Merostomata 

Horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus 

Mantis shrimp Squilla empusa 

Class Gastropoda (snails) 

Sea hare Aplysia braziliana 

Striped sea slug Armina tigrina 

False cerith Batillaria minima 

Variable bittium Bittium varium 

West Indian bubble Bulla occidentalis 

Ragged sea hare Bursatella leachi 

Knobbed whelk Busycon carica 

Lightning whelk Busycon sinistrum 

Sculptured top-shell Calliostoma euglyptum 

Tinted cantharus Cantharus tinctus 

Ladder horn shell Cerithdea scalariformis


Miniature cerith Cerithiopsis greeni 

Florida cerith Cerithium floridanum 

Spiny slipper shell Crepidula aculeata 

Atlantic slipper shell Crepidula fornicata 

Eastern white slipper shell Crepidula plana 

Giant atlantic cockle Dinocardium robustum 

Keyhold limpet Diodora cayenensis 

Angulate wentletrap Epitonium angulatum 

Banded tulip Fasciolaria hunteria 

True tulip Fasciolaria tulipa 

Mortons egg cockle Laevicardium mortoni 

Marsh periwinkle Littorina irrorata 

Zebra periwinkle Littorina ziczac 

Common marsh snail Melampus bidentatus 

Saltmarsh snail Melampus coffeus 

Crown conch Melongena corona 

Atlantic modulus Modulus modulus 

Mud snail Nassarius obsoletus 

Eastern nassa Nassarius vibex 

Olive nerite Neritina reclivata 

Virgin nerite Neritina virginea 

Impressed odostome Odostomia impressa 

Olive shell Oliva sayana 

Variable dwarf olive Olivella mutica 

Horse conch Pleuroploca gigantea 

Shark eye Polinices duplicatus 

Miniature cerith Seila adamsi 

False limpet Siphonaria pectinata 

Terrestrial gastrpod Succinea campestris 

Florida rock shell Thais haemastoma floridana 

Black-lined trifora Triphora nigrocincta 

Chestnut turban Turbo castaneus 

Atlantic oyster drill Urosalpinx cinerea 

Class Polyplacophora (chitons) 

Eastern chiton Chaetopleura apiculata 

Class Bivalvia (clams, mussels, oysters) 

Common atlantic abra Abra aequelis 

Paper mussel Amygdalum papyria 

Greedy dove-shell Anachis avara 

Fat dove-shell Anachis obesa 

Transverse ark Anadara transversa 

Jingle shell Anomia simplex 

Zebra turkey wing Arca zebra 

Sawtooth pen clam Atrina serrata 

Angel wing Barnea costata 

Scorched mussel Brachidontes exustus 

Hooked mussel Brachidontes recurvus 

Cross-barred Venus Chione cancellata 

Conrad’s false mussel Congeria leucophaeata 

Contracted vorbula Corbula contracta 

Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica 

Angelwing clam Cyrtopleura costata 

Coquina clam Donax variabilis 

Disk dosinia Dosinia discus 

Jackknife clam Ensis minor 

Razor clams Ensis spp. 

Comb bittersweet Glycymeris pectinata 

Marsh mussel Guekensia demissa 

Ribbed mussel Ischadium demissum


Mahogany date mussel Lithophaga bisulcata 

Calico clam Macrocallista maculata 

Wedge-shaped martesia Martesia cuneiformis 

Southern quahog Mercenaria campechiensis 

Quahog Mercenaria mercenaria 

Lunar dove-shell Mitrella lunata 

Dwarf surf clam Mulinia lateralis 

Pondersous ark Noetia ponderosa 

Crested oyster Ostrea equestris 

Atlantic geoduck Panopea bitruncata 

Carolina marsh clam Polymesoda caroliniana 

Florida marsh clam Pseudocyrena floridana 

Common rangia Rangia cuneata 

Purplish tagelus Tagelus divisus 

Stout tagelus Tagelus plebius 

Rose petal tellin Tellina lineata 

Class Cephalopoda (squids and octopus) 

Squid Loligunculus brevis 

Atlantic octopus Octopus vulgaris 

Phylum Bryozoa (Ectoprocta, moss animals) 

Zoobotryon verticullatum 

Alcyonidium hauffi 

Anguinella palmata 

Bugula neretina 

Encrusting bryozoan Membranipora tenuis 

Branching bryozoan Schizoporella errata 

Phylum Echinodermata (starfishes, sea urchins) 

Class Asteroidea (starfishes) 

Common starfish Asterias forbesi 

Margined sea star Astropecten articulatus 

Lines sea star Luidea clathrata 

Class Echnioidea (sea urchins) 

Purple spined sea urchin Arbacea punctulata 

Variable urchin Lytechinus variegatus 

Sand dollar Mellita quinquesperforata 

Class Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers) 

Common thyone Thyone briatus 

Class Ophiuroidea (brittle stars) 

Ophiothrix anguluta 

Phylum Hemichordata (acorn worms) 

Southern acorn worm Ptychodera bahamensis 

Phylum Chordata (vertibrates and relatives) 

Class Ascidiacea (sea squirts) 

White didemnid Didemnum candidum 

Mangrove tunicate Ecteinascidia turbinata 

Sea grapes Molgula manhattensis 

Pleated sea squirt Styela plicata 

Sea pork Amaroucium stellatum 

Class Cephalochordata (lancelets) 

Caribean lacelet Branchiostoma caribaeum 

Sub-phylum Vertebrata (vertebrates) 

Class Agnatha (jawless fishes) 

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus 

Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi 

Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna 

Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas 

Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus

6 


Sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 

Southern sting ray Dasyatis americana 

Atlantic stingray Dasyatis sabina 

Smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura 

Lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris 

Sand shark Odontaspis taurus 

Clearnose skate Raja eglanteria 

Atlantic guitarfish Rhinobatos lentiginosus 

Cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus 

Hammerhead sharks Shyrna spp. 

Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini 

Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran 

Bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo 

Super-class Osteichthyes (bony fishes) 

Seargeant major Abudefduf saxatilis 

Cowfish Acanthostracion quadricornis 

Lined sole Achirus lineatus 

Bonefish Albula vulpes 

Hickory shad Alosa mediocris 

Aluterus spp. 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 

Anchovy Anchoa spp. 

Oscillated flounder Ancylopsetta quadrocellata 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 

Sea catfish Ariopsis felis 

Southern stargazer Astroscopus y-graecum 

Gafftopsail catfish Bagre marinus 

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 

Triggerfish Balistes spp. 

Frillfin goby Bathygobius soporator 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 

Yellow jack Carangoides bartholomaei 

Crevalle jack Caranx hippos 

Horse-eye jack Caranx latus 

Snook Centropomus undecimalis 

Rock sea bass Centropristis philadelphica 

Black sea bass Centropristis striata 

Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 

Striped blenny Chasmodes bosquianus 

Florida blenny Chasmodes saburrae 

Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus 

Striped burrfish Cilomycterus schoepfi 

Spotted whiff Citharichthys macrops 

Bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus 

Common dolphin Coryphaena hippurus 

Spotted sea trout Cynoscion nebulosus 

Atlantic weakfish Cynoscion regalis 

Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 

Irish pompano Diapterus auratus 

Striped mojarra Diapterus plumieri 

Balloon fish Diodon holocanthus 

Dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum 

Sand perch Diplectrum formosum 

Silver porgy Diplodus argenteus 

Spottail pinfish Diplodus holbrooki


Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 

Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates 

Ladyfish Elops saurus 

Nassau grouper Ephinephelus striatus 

Goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara 

Groupers Epinephelus spp. 

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 

Fringed flounder Etropus crossotus 

Silver jenny Eucinostomus gula 

Tidewater mojarra Eucinostomus harengulus 

Slender mojarra Eucinostomus jonesi 

Spotfin mojarra Eugerres plumieri 

Flying halfbeak Euleptorhamphus velox 

Little tunny Euthynnus alleteratus 

Golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 

Marsh killifish Fundulus confluentus 

Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 

Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 

Longnose killifish Fundulus similis 

Tiger shark Galeocerdo cuviera 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 

Yellowfin mojarra Gerre cinereus 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Violet goby Gobioides broussonetii 

Darter goby Gobionellus boleosoma 

Highfin goby Gobionellus oceanicus 

Freshwater goby Gobionellus shufeldti 

Emerald goby Gobionellus smaragdus 

Marked goby Gobionellus stigmaticus 

Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 

Twoscale goby Gobiosoma longipala 

Code goby Gobiosoma robustum 

Grunts Haemulon spp. 

Scaled sardine Harengula jaguana 

Least killifish Heterandria formosa 

Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus 

Barred blenny Hypleurochilus bermudensis 

American halfbeak Hyporhamphus meeki 

Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 

Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus 

Florida flagfish Jordanella floridae 

Hairy blenny Labrisomus nuchipinnis 

Trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 

Warmouth Lapomis gulosus 

Banded drum Larimus fasciatus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Redbreasted sunfish Lepomis auritus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Stumpknocker Lepomis punctatus 

Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis 

Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus 

Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus 

Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris


Atlantic manta Manta birostris 

Tarpon Megalops atlanticus 

Rough silvereside Membras martinica 

Tidewater silverside Menidia beryllina 

Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 

Silverside Menidia spp. 

Whiting Menticirrhus americanus 

Gulf kingfish Menticirrhus littoralis 

Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis 

Clown goby Microgobius gulosus 

Green goby Microgobius thalassinus 

Opposum pipefish Microphis brachyurus 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 

Largemouth bass Micropterus floridanus 

Filefish Monacanthus spp. 

Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 

White mullet Mugil curema 

Gag Myctoperca microlepis 

Speckled worm eel Myrophis punctatus 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucus 

Polka-dot batfish Ogcocephalus cubifrons 

Leatherjack Oligoplites saurus 

Shrimp eel Ophichthus gomesi 

Ophidion spp. 

Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum 

Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 

Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta 

Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus 

Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 

Broad flounder Paralichthys squamilentus 

Harvest fish Peprilus paru 

Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna 

Mollies Poecilia spp. 

Blackdrum Pogonias cromis 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 

Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus 

Striped searobin Prionotus evolans 

Blackfin searobin Prionotus rubio 

Leopard searobin Prionotus scitulus 

Bighead searobin Prionotus tribulus 

Short bigeye Pristigenys alta 

Cobia Rachycentron canadum 

Remora Remora remora 

Bonito Sarda sarda 

Spanish sardine Sardinella aurita 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 

King mackeral Scomberomorus cavalla 

Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 

Barbfish Scorpaena brasiliensis 

Spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri 

Bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus 

Atlantic moonfish Selene setapinnis 

Lookdown Selene vomer 

Amberjack Seriola dumerili 

Florida puffer Sphoerodies nephelus 

Norhthern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 

Southern puffer Sphoeroides nephelus 

Checkered puffer Sphoeroides testudineus


Great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 

Guaguanche Sphyraena guachancho 

Star drum Stellifer lanceolatus 

Planehead filefish Stephanolepis hispida 

Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 

Redfin needlefish Strongylura notata 

Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 

Dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae 

Norhthern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 

Chain pipefish Syngnathus louisianae 

Gulf pipefish Syngnathus scovelli 

Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 

Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus 

Permit Trachinotus falcatus 

Rough scad Trachurus lathami 

Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus 

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 

Southern hake Urophycis floridana 

Class Amphibia (frogs and salamanders) 

Florida cricket frog Acris gryllus dorsalis 

Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum 

Oak toad Bufo quercicus 

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris 

Greenhouse frog Eleutherodactylus planirostris 

Dwarf salamander Eurycea quadradigitata 

Narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Green tree frog Hyla cinerea 

Pine woods tree frog Hyla femoralis 

Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa 

Squirrel tree frog Hyla squirella 

Striped newt Notophthalmus perstriatus 

Cuban tree frog Osteopilus septentrionalis 

Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer 

Florida chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa 

Little grass frog Pseudacris ocularis 

Gopher Frog Rana capito 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Pig frog Rana grylio 

Florida leopard frog Rana sphenocephala 

Eastern spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii 

Class Reptilia (reptiles) 

Florida cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

Green anole Anolis carolinensis 

Brown anole Anolis sagrei 

Florida softshell turtle Apalone ferox 

Six-lined racerunner Aspidoscelis sexlineatus 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 

Florida scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 

Florida snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina osceola 

Florida cooter Chrysemys floridana 

Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata 

Black racer Coluber constrictor priapus 

Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus 

Chicken turtle Deirochelys reticularia 

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea 

Southern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus punctatus

0 


Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi 

Red rat snake Elaphe guttata 

Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps 

Eastern mud snake Farancia abacura abacura 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus 

Florida red bellied turtle Grysemys nelsoni 

Mediteranian gecko Hemidactylus garnotii 

Striped mud turtle Kinosternon bauri 

Florida mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri 

Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum 

Eastern king snake Lampropeltis getula getula 

Scarlet king snake Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii 

Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin centrata 

Eastern coachwhip Masticophis flagellum flagellum 

Coral snake Micrurus fulvius 

Florida water snake Nerodia fasciata pictiventris 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus ventralis 

Corn snake Pantherophis guttata guttata 

Yellow rat snake Pantherophis obsoleta quadrivittata 

Florida redbelly turtle Pseudemys nelsoni 

Peninsula cooter Pseudemys peninsularis 

Pine woods snake Rhadinaea flavilata 

Ground skink Scincella lateralis 

Greater siren Siren lacertina 

Dusky pigmy rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius barbouri 

Florida box turtle Terrapene carolina bauri 

Peninsula ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus nitae 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Yellow-bellied slider Trachemys scripta 

Class Aves (birds) 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja 

Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus 

Seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus 

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

American widgeon Anas americana 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Mottled duck Anas fulvigula 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

American black duck Anas ruprides 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Water pipit Anthus spinoletta 

Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens 

Fox sparrow Apsserella iliaca 

Limpkin Aramus guarauna 

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris


Great egret Ardea alba 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Green heron Butorides virescens 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Red knot Calidris canutus 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Wilson’s plover Charadrius wilsonia 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Black tern Chlidonias niger 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Rock pigeon Columbia livia 

Common ground-dove Columbina passerina 

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 

Black vulture Coragyps altratus 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Fish crow Corvus ossifragus 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata


Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Black-bellied whistling duck Dendrocygna autumnalis 

Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor 

Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea 

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor 

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica 

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca 

Kirtland’s warbler Dendroica kirtlandii 

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina 

Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens 

Snowy egret Egretta thula 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 

Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus 

White ibis Eudocimus albus 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Magnificent frigate bird Fregata magnificens 

American coot Fulica americana 

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago 

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

Common loon Gavia immer 

Red-throated loon Gavia stellata 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis 

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivora 

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius 

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

Laughing gull Larus atricilla 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Lesser black backed gull Larus fuscus 

Great black-backed gull Larus marinus 

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus


Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Wild turkey Melagris gallopavo 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 

Black scoter Melanitta nigra 

Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Northern gannet Morus bassanus 

Wood stork Mycteria americana 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 

Yellow-crowned night-heron Nyctanassa violacea 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Yellow crowned night heron Nycticorax violaceous 

Wilson’s storm-petrel Oceanites oceanicus 

Eastern screech-owl Otus asio 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Northern parula Parula americana 

House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Painted bunting Passerina ciris 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea 

Summer tanager Piranga rubra 

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

King rail Rallus elegans 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Clapper rail Rallus longirostris 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana


Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Black skimmer Rynchops niger 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

American woodcock Scolopax minor 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis 

Red breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Least tern Sterna antillarum 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia 

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri 

Common tern Sterna hirundo 

Royal tern Sterna maxima 

Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica 

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis 

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto 

Barred owl Strix varia 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Northern rough winged swallow Telgidopteryx serripennis 

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Tree swallow Trachycineta bicolor 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

House wren Troglodytes aedon 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Gray kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Barn owl Tyto alba 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons 

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius 

Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina 

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Class Mammalia (mammals) 

Right whale Balaena glacialis 

Short tail shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii


Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis 

Southeastern pocket gopher Geomys pinetis 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans 

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps 

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 

River otter Lontra canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Florida mink Mustela vison lutensis 

Florida Mink Mustela vison mink 

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius 

Round tailed muskrat Neofiber alleni 

Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana 

Seminole bat Nycteris seminolis 

Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus gossypinus 

Anastasia Island beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus phasma 

Old field mouse Peromyscus polionotus polionotus 

Florida mouse Podomys floridanus 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 

Black rat Rattus rattus 

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris 

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius 

Feral pig Sus scrofa 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris 

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus 

Bottle-nosed dolphin Tursiops truncatus 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

A.6 / Designated and Listed Species (rank and status) 

The Status of these species are in accordance with the information provide by FNAI (http://www.fnai.org/ranks.cfm) 

Scientific Name Common Name Global State Federal State Location 

Rank Rank Status Status 

CAMA / Likely found in the CAMA Managed area (uplands or submerged lands); GTM / Likely t found within the GTM Research Reserve outside the 

CAMA managed area. 

Fish 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum G3 S1 LE LE CAMA 

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus 

G3T3 S1 C LS CAMA 

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus G4G5 S2 SC N CAMA 

Sea pamprey Petromyzon marinus G5 SNA N N CAMA

6 





Amphibians 

Striped newt Notophthalmus perstriatus G2G3 S2S3 N N GTM 

Gopher frog Rana capito G3 S3 N LS GTM 

Reptiles 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis G5 S4 SAT LS CAMA 

Loggerhead Caretta caretta G3 S3 LT LT CAMA 

Green turtle Chelonia mydas G3 S2 LE LE CAMA 

Eastern diamondback 

rattlesnake 

Crotalus adamanteus G4 S3 N N CAMA 

Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea G2 S2 LE LE CAMA 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi G3 S3 LT LT CAMA 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus G3 S3 N LT CAMA 

Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula G5 S2S3 N N CAMA 

Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii G1 S1 LE LE CAMA 

Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus 

mugitus 

G4T3 S3 N LS CAMA 

Birds 

Bachman’s sparrow Aimophila aestivalis G3 S3 N N GTM 

Great egret Ardea alba G5 S4 N N CAMA 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus G3 S2 LT LT CAMA 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea G5 S4 N LS CAMA 

Snowy egret Egretta thula G5 S3 N LS CAMA 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor G5 S4 N LS CAMA 

Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus G5 S2 N N CAMA 

White ibis Eudocimus albus G5 S4 N LS CAMA 

Merlin Falco columbarius G5 S2 N N CAMA 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus G4 S2 N LE CAMA 

Southeastern American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus G5T4 S3 N LT CAMA 

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus G5 S2 N LS CAMA 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus G5 S3 N LT CAMA 

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis G5 S4 N N CAMA 

Wood stork Mycteria americana G4 S2 LE LE CAMA 

Yellow-crowned night-heron Nyctanassa violacea G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus G5 S3S4 N LS* CAMA 

Painted bunting Passerina ciris G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis G4 S3 N LS CAMA 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja G5 S2 N LS CAMA 

Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Black skimmer Rynchops niger G5 S3 N LS CAMA 

Least tern Sterna antillarum G4 S3 N LT CAMA 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia G5 S2 N N CAMA 

Royal tern Sterna maxima G5 S3 N N CAMA 

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis G5 S2 N N CAMA 

Mammals 

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis G1 S1 LE LE CAMA 

Southeastern weasel Mustela frenata olivacea G5T4 S3? N N CAMA 

Atlantic salt marsh mink Neovison vison lutensis G5T3 S3 N N CAMA 

Anastasia beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus 

phasma 

G5T1 S1 LE LE CAMA 

Florida mouse Podomys floridanus G3 S3 N LS CAMA 

Sherman’s fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani G5T3 S3 N LS CAMA 

Manatee Trichechus manatus G2 S2 LE LE CAMA





Florida black bear Ursus americanus 

floridanus 

G5T2 S2 N LT* CAMA 

Bivalves (Clams and Mussels) 

Atlantic geoduck Panopea bitruncata G3? S3? N N GTM 

Gastropods (Snails and Allies) 

Squaremouth amnicola snail Amnicola rhombostoma GH SH N N CAMA 

Creek siltsnail Floridobia fraterna G2 S2 N N CAMA 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 

Taper-tailed darner Gomphaeschna antilope G4 S4 N N CAMA 

Beetles 

Small pocket gopher aphodius 

beetle 

Surprising pocket gopher 

aphodius beetle 

Large pocket gopher aphodius 

beetle 

Bicolored burrowing scarab 

beetle 

Schwarz’ pocket gopher 

ptomaphagus beetle 

Aphodius aegrotus GNR S3? N N GTM 

Aphodius dyspistus GNR S3? N N GTM 

Aphodius laevigatus G3? S3? N N GTM 

Bolbocerosoma hamatum GNR S3S4 N N GTM 

Ptomaphagus schwarzi GNR S3 N N GTM 

Butterflies and Moths 

Lace-winged roadside skipper Amblyscirtes aesculapius G4 S3 N N GTM 

Plants and Lichens 

Southern milkweed Asclepias viridula G2 S2 N LT GTM 

Canby’s wild indigo Baptisia calycosa var. 

calycosa 

G3T1 S1 N N GTM 

Bartram’s ixia Calydorea coelestina G2 S2 N LE GTM 

Chapman’s sedge Carex chapmanii G3 S3 N LE GTM 

Sand-dune spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola G2 S2 N LE GTM 

Ciliate-leaf tickseed Coreopsis integrifolia G1G2 S1 N LE GTM 

Florida toothache-grass Ctenium floridanum G2 S2 N LE GTM 

Coastal vervain Glandularia maritima G3 S3 N LE GTM 

Lake-side sunflower Helianthus carnosus G1G2 S1S2 N LE GTM 

Pondspice Litsea aestivalis G3 S2 N LE GTM 

Curtis’s loosestrife Lythrum curtissii G1 S1 N LE GTM 

Pygmy pipes Monotropsis reynoldsiae G1Q S1 N LE CAMA 

Celestial lily Nemastylis floridana G2 S2 N LE GTM 

Florida beargrass Nolina atopocarpa G3 S3 N LT GTM 

Florida mountain-mint Pycnanthemum floridanum G3 S3 N LT GTM 

Pineland beaksedge Rhynchospora punctata G1? SH N N GTM 

Thorne’s beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei G3 S1S2 N N GTM 

St. John’s back-eyed-susan Rudbeckia nitida G3 S2 N LE GTM 

FNAI Global Rank Definitions 

G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) 

or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of 

vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found 

locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. 

G4 = Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range).

G5 = Demonstrably secure globally. 

GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, may be rediscovered (e.g., ivory-billed woodpecker). 

GX = Believed to be extinct throughout range. 

GXC = Extirpated from the wild but still known from captivity or cultivation. 

G#? = Tentative rank (e.g., G2?). 

G#G# = Range of rank; insufficient data to assign specific global rank (e.g., G2G3). 

G#T# = Rank of a taxonomic subgroup such as a subspecies or variety; the G portion of the rank refers to the entire 

species and the T portion refers to the specific subgroup; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G3T1). 

G#Q = Rank of questionable species - ranked as species but questionable whether it is species or subspecies; 

numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G2Q). 

G#T#Q = Same as above, but validity as subspecies or variety is questioned. 

GU = Unrankable; due to a lack of information no rank or range can be assigned (e.g., GUT2). 

GNA = Ranking is not applicable because the element is not a suitable target for conservation (e.g. a hybrid species). 

GNR = Element not yet ranked (temporary). 

GNRTNR = Neither the element nor the taxonomic subgroup has yet been ranked. 

FNAI State Rank Definitions 

S1 = Critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) 

or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S2 = Imperiled in Florida because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of 

vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S3 = Either very rare and local in Florida (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a 

restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. 

S4 = Apparently secure in Florida (may be rare in parts of range). 

S5 = Demonstrably secure in Florida. 

SH = Of historical occurrence in Florida, possibly extirpated, but may be rediscovered (e.g., ivory-billed woodpecker). 

SX = Believed to be extirpated throughout Florida. 

SU = Unrankable; due to a lack of information no rank or range can be assigned. 

SNA = State ranking is not applicable because the element is not a suitable target for conservation (e.g. a hybrid species). 

SNR = Element not yet ranked (temporary). 

Federal Legal Status 

Definitions derived from U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Sec. 3. Note that the federal status given by FNAI 

refers only to Florida populations and that federal status may differ elsewhere. 

LE = Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

LT = Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

LT,PDL = Species currently listed threatened but has been proposed for delisting. 

SAT = Treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally listed such that 

enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species. 

PE = Proposed for listing as Endangered species. 

PT = Proposed for listing as Threatened species. 

C = Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and 

threats to support proposing to list the species as Endangered or Threatened. 

XN = Non-essential experimental population. 

SC = Not currently listed, but considered a species of concern to USFWS. 

N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened. 

State Status 

Animals: Definitions derived from “Florida’s Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists” 

published by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1 August 1997, and subsequent updates. 

LE = Endangered: species, subspecies, or isolated population so few or depleted in number or so restricted in 

range that it is in imminent danger of extinction. 

LT = Threatened: species, subspecies, or isolated population facing a very high risk of extinction in the future. 

LS = Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or isolated population which is facing a moderate risk 

of extinction in the future. 

PE = Proposed for listing as Endangered. 

PT = Proposed for listing as Threatened. 

PS = Proposed for listing as Species of Special Concern. 

N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. 

Plants: Definitions derived from Sections 581.011 and 581.185(2), Florida Statutes, and the Preservation of Native 

Flora of Florida Act, 5B-40.001. FNAI does not track all state-regulated plant species; for a complete list of stateregulated 

plant species, call Florida Division of Plant Industry, 352-372-3505 or see: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/.

LE = Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, 

the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species 

determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

LT = Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants within the state, but 

which have not so decreased in number as to cause them to be Endangered. 

PE = Proposed for listing as Endangered. 

PT = Proposed for listing as Threatened. 

N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. 

A. / Nuisance and Invasive Species Control Plan 

Introduction: Invasive species are those plants or animals that are not native to Florida, but were introduced because 

of human-related activities. These exotics have fewer natural enemies and may have a higher survival rate than 

do native species, as well. They may also harbor diseases or parasites that significantly affect non-resistant native 

species and people. Consequently, it is the strategy of CAMA to control exotic and nuisance species within native 

natural communities (Tables 3, 4, & 5). 

Definitions 

Native: A species already occurring in Florida at the time of initial European contact (1500). 

Non-native: A species not found in Florida at the time of initial European contact. 

Domestic: Tame species maintained as pets or livestock. 

Invasive: A species non-native to Florida that has established a reproducing population here either through a natural or a 

human introduction. Such species aggressively compete with native species and have an adverse effect on biodiversity. 

Feral: An individual or a population of a species formally kept as domestic that has escaped or been released into the 

wild and now sustains a reproducing population. 

Problem/nuisance species: Native species that cause specific management problems or concerns due to their 

impact on listed species or human health. 

Table 6 / Invasive Non-native species list. 

Common Name Scientific name 

Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 

Chinese tallow-tree Sapium sebiferum 

Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera 

Giant reed Arundo donax 

Elephant ear Xanthosoma sagittofolium 

Camphortree Cinnamomum camphora 

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin 

Bladderpod Sesbania vesicaria 

Mosquitoes (see Table ) 

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 

Shrub verbena Lantana camara 

Cogongrass Imperata cylindrica 

Japanese privet Ligustrum japonicum 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

House sparrows Passer domesticus 

Eurasian collared-doves Streptopelia decaocto 

House mice Mus musculus 

Black rats Rattus rattus 

Feral hogs Sus scrofa 

Feral cats Felis catus 

Nine-banded armadillos Dasypus novemcinctus 

Fire ants Solenopsis invicta 

Acorn barnacles Megabalanus coccoporna 

Asian green mussel Perna viridis

60 

Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) occur at the GRMAP, with feral hogs being the most damaging exotic species. The rooting of 

ground flora in wetlands and low hammock areas and disturbance of midden sites is notable at times. The protective 

fence around the aboriginal burial mound (Sanchez Mound) should be maintained to conserve this important 

archaeological site. A long “hog resistant” fence has been erected along the northern boundary of the peninsular 

portion of the site to restrict immigration of feral hogs from the GRWMA. Two one-way hog gates in this fence allow 

hogs to move from the site to the GRWMA. These hog gates will be baited on a regular basis to encourage hogs to 

move out of the preserve. Hogs are removed from the coastal strand along SR A1A whenever necessary. In addition, 

hogs will be aggressively trapped on the peninsula and removed on a consistent basis throughout the year. 

Other exotic animals known to be on or adjacent to the preserve include fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), house 

sparrows (Passer domesticus), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Eurasian collared-doves (Streptopelia 

decaocto), house mice (Mus musculus), and black rats (Rattus rattus). None of these species appear to be 

abundant. Reserve staff round up any stray dogs encountered on routine patrols. Stray cats are live trapped. All 

domestic pets are taken to the St. Johns County humane shelter. 

In recent years coyotes have gradually been expanding their range into Florida. Surveys for this species have been 

performed in cooperation with a research group from the University of Florida. The only sighting of this species 

in the preserve was observed in 2002 (Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF) Biologist Robin Boughton, personal 

observation) and possibly responsible for the heavy sea turtle nest predation in 2006 by a medium sized canine. 

These surveys of occurrence will continue for this species in order to provide for any future management decisions. 

The only exotic plants requiring persistent management action are sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), Japanese privet 

(Ligustrum japonicum), and shrub verbena (Lantana camara). These are now well under control, requiring only 

occasional inspection of wetlands and disturbed sites for new volunteer plants. Signs of all exotics are routinely 

monitored so that any dramatic increase in existing populations or arrivals of new species can be dealt with swiftly. 

GTM Research Reserve is located in a state that has experienced significant invasions of exotic flora and fauna since 

World War II. Invasive exotic plants and animals create significant ecological degradation in Florida through direct 

and indirect competition with native flora and fauna. Invasive and nuisance species control costs private and public 

land managers millions of dollars annually in Florida. The Stewardship Staff of GTM Research Reserve will work 

cooperatively with other state, federal, and local partners to identify and control populations of invasive and nuisance 

exotic plant and animal species within and adjacent to the boundaries of the reserve. 

Table / Native nuisance/problem species. 

Common Name Scientific name 

Raccoons Procyon lotor 

Mosquitoes Aedes sp., Culex sp. 

Alligator Alligator mississipiensis 

Invasive and Nuisance Animal Species of Highest Concern 

• Feral Hogs, (Sus scrofa) 

• Feral Cats, (Felis catus) 

• Nine-banded Armadillo, (Dasypus novemcinctus) 

• Asian green mussels, (Perna viridis) 

• Golden (channeled) apple snail, (Pomacea canaliculta) 

• Cuban brown anole, (Anolis sagrei) 

• Cuban tree frog, (Ostepilus septentrionalis) 

• Fire Ants, (Solenopsis invicta) 

• Non-native and invasive mosquitoes (Table ) 

Table / Established invasive and non-native mosquitoes and important natural history traits (Juliano and. Lounibos ( 00 )). 

Species (origin) 

Macrohabitat 

preference 

Larval habitats 

Desiccationresistant 

eggs References 

Aedes aegypti (Africa) Urban, domestic † Man-made containers Yes Christophers (1960) 

Aedes albopictus (temperate Urban, suburban Phytotelmata 

and tropical Asia) 

* , man-made Yes Hawley (1988) 

containers 

Ochlerotatus atropalpus (E. Riparian Rock pools, man-made 

Yes Lounibos (2002) 

N. America) 

containers 

Ochlerotatus japonicus Rural, sylvan Rock pools, man-made 

Yes Lounibos (2002) 

(temperate Asia) 

containers 

Culex pipiens (Old World) Urban, domestic, Man-made containers, 

No Vinogradova (2000) 

suburban subterranean, small 

groundwater pools 

Culex quinquefasciatus Urban, domestic, Man-made containers, 

No Vinogradova (2000) 

(Africa) 

suburban small groundwater pools 

* Phytotelmata are parts of terrestrial plants that hold water and are occupied by a community of resident animals; 

includes tree holes, bromeliads, pitcher plants and bamboo.

Control Plans for Invasive and Nuisance Animal Species 

1. Feral Hogs: 

Florida Department of Environment Protection, CAMA Internal Policy for Control of Nuisance Animals states: 

“CAMA considers the occurrence of feral swine on CAMA managed lands to be incompatible with its land 

management objectives. Therefore, to protect state property under CAMA management, aggressive action will be 

taken to prevent and/or control the infestation of CAMA managed lands with feral swine.” 

The policy above further states, “Feral swine may be harvested by catching them in traps or with dogs, or by 

shooting them.” 

Feral hogs (feral domestic swine) are descended from the wild boar (Sus scrofa) of Europe and were first introduced 

to Florida by early Spanish explorers. Feral hogs are the most prolific large mammal in the United States; a sow 

can have two litters per year with an average of 5 pigs per litter. The rooting activity of feral swine is destructive to 

biological communities. They compete for food with native animals such as white tailed deer, turkeys, squirrels, and 

wood ducks. Feral swine prey on reserve wildlife such as snakes and salamanders, and small mammals. They are 

extremely destructive to upland habitats and pose a serious threat to rare and endangered plants and animals. They 

damage and overtake gopher tortoise burrows. Significant archaeological and cultural resources exist on CAMA 

managed uplands and submerged lands of GTM Research Reserve. Feral hogs have damaged shell mounds and are 

a threat to these cultural resources. 

The Stewardship Coordinator at GTM Research Reserve has lead responsibility to implement the control of feral hogs 

on reserve property. GTM Research Reserve proposes to address the feral swine problem here as below: 

• Contract the repair of 7000 linear feet of hog fence on the separating GTM Research Reserve – Guana River from 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission WMA lands. (completed in 2007) 

• GTM Research Reserve Stewardship Staff will consult with FWC and other partners to implement a hog trapping 

effort. (A nuisance wildlife trapper licensed through FWC began feral hog trapping and eradication efforts on 

reserve property in March 2008). Licensed trappers shall read and sign a copy of the DEP/CAMA Trapper’s 

Consent to Requirements for the Removal of Feral Swine. 

• GTM Research Reserve shall take every precaution to shield the public from viewing any hog destruction 

activities. 

• GTM Research Reserve shall take advantage of any period of public closure of the GTM Research Reserve 

– Guana River site for accelerated hog control activities. 

• In addition to periods of public closure, the shooting of feral swine shall remain an ongoing tool of the Feral Hog 

Control Plan on a year-round basis. During periods of public opening, shooting of swine may only occur outside of 

public hours on any day. Shooting shall be limited to those areas well away from public trails and activity. Extreme 

caution shall be used to avoid any depredation activities that would encroach on public sensitivities. 

• In accordance with OCAMA policy, firearms used by CAMA staff to harvest feral swine will be limited to .22 magnum 

rifles using long rifle ammunition, 12 gauge shotgun using shot no smaller than #1 buckshot, or .3006 rifles. 

• GTM Research Reserve personnel involved in the harvest are limited to the Environmental Administrator and 

the Resource Management Staff, including the Stewardship Coordinator, Biological Scientist, and selected 

Park Rangers. 

• All hunts on any given day will be coordinated through the Stewardship Coordinator or the Environmental Administrator. 

• Reserve staff shall not use the meat, or in any way benefit from the use of these animals. No live feral swine can be 

removed from GTM Research Reserve lands. Swine depredated by staff are to be removed from view of any trails 

and left well away from public view. Because of the health risks of handling hogs, and the possible disturbance of 

archaeological resources, hogs may be left unburied, as long as they are out of public view. The meat from feral 

swine killed by any licensed trapper not employed by DEP/CAMA may be used by the trapper for personal use. 

• Live cage traps baited with sour grain mash may be used to capture hogs in remote areas of the Reserve well 

away from public trails. All bait sites will be serviced regularly and cages secured during extended periods of nonuse. 

Any trapped swine will be dispatched by firearm at the site, and the carcass immediately moved to a location 

well away from public view. 

• Public and staff safety are of foremost concern during any hunt of feral swine. Efforts to insure efficient and 

humane depredation of feral swine is required. All reserve staff shall be made aware of the occurrence of swine 

brucellosis in feral hogs and methods to avoid exposure. Latex rubber gloves must be used by staff at any time they 

are handling swine. Any swine blood that comes in contact with human skin should be washed off immediately. 

• All firearms and ammunition are to be stored under lock and unloaded on GTM Research Reserve property 

when not in use. 

2. Feral Cats: Feral cats represent a direct threat to native wildlife species at GTM Research Reserve via direct 

predation on small mammals, including the Anastasia Island beach mouse. Feral cats are also known predators on 

songbirds, small reptiles and amphibians. They present a potential vector of infectious disease to native felids, such 

as the bobcat. 

6

6 

Feral cats are infrequently observed at GTM Research Reserve, primarily in the coastal strand habitat along SR A1A. 

This area is immediately across the highway from private residences, which may be contributing to the presence of 

the cats. GTM Research Reserve Stewardship Staff monitors these areas daily for a variety of problems, including 

wildlife issues. On those occasions where domestic cats are observed with a frequency to indicate feral status, 

have-a-hart live traps are baited and set for capture. Any feral cats captured are delivered to the St. Augustine 

Humane Society office. 

3. Nine-banded Armadillo: Armadillos are described as a nuisance species by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission due to their negative impacts on native flora and fauna. The armadillo’s foraging behavior disrupts ground 

nesting birds, reptiles and amphibians. They have been documented to disrupt gopher tortoise nesting. 

The Stewardship Staff will implement control efforts to reduce populations of the nine-banded armadillo on its upland 

habitats through hunting with CAMA owned firearms. This practice will be implemented in conjunction with efforts to 

depredate feral swine, and in compliance with all precautions of that policy to prevent exposure of the public to the hunting 

activities on GTM Research Reserve property. Such activity will only occur during non-public hours. All staff and volunteers 

involved in hunting activities must be pre-approved by the GTM Research Reserve Environmental Administrator. 

4. Asian Green Mussels: This bivalve species has been documented to occur in several locations in the Matanzas 

River drainage and at least two locations in the Tolomato River. This invasive competes with the American oyster and 

other native shellfish for habitat and presents the threat of significantly reducing populations of these commercially 

valuable resources. 

The Stewardship Staff will work with the Research Staff of GTM Research Reserve to document and monitor 

populations of this and other invasive mollusks within the reserve. Current best management practices for control, 

including physical removal when practical, will be implemented. 

5. Golden Apple Snail: The presence of this invasive species at GTM Research Reserve has only recently been 

documented. Live specimens and photographs of adults and eggs in a retention pond near Moultrie Creek at the 

southern end of the reserve have been obtained. The proximity of this population to Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve 

presents a serious threat to the aquatic ecosystem there. This species has become well established throughout much 

of south and central Florida in recent years. The golden apple snail has been observed in other location in Florida to 

have a very deleterious effect on aquatic vegetation. 

Current eradication techniques for this species are not established. The Stewardship Staff will monitor the extent 

of this species at the reserve and work with Invasive Species Biologist with DEP, FWC, NPS and other cooperating 

agencies in an effort to develop effective control techniques. 

6. Cuban Brown Anole: This species is well established in much of Florida including St. John’s and Flagler counties. It 

competes directly with native lizards for food and habitat. It also depredates native lizard species including the green anole. 

This species should be destroyed opportunistically upon encounter, using discretion to public sensitivities. The 

Stewardship Staff will produce educational materials to assist staff and visitors with photographs to assist in accurate 

identification of the Cuban anole as compared to our native lizards. 

7. Cuban Tree Frog: This species is established in much of Florida and specimens have recently been captured at 

GTM Research Reserve. Its threat to native fauna is similar to that of the Cuban brown anole in that it directly predates 

smaller native amphibians, including smaller tree frogs. 

This species should be destroyed opportunistically upon encounter, using discretion to public sensitivities. 

Educational materials should be designed to assist staff and visitors with accurate identification of this species. 

8. Fire Ants: This South American invasive insect has long been established in Florida and most of the southeastern United 

States. It is a well documented agricultural and ecological pest that directly predates small native species of vertebrates as 

well as invertebrates. It also presents a nuisance to humans and can present a safety concern to reserve visitors. 

Fire ant nest mounds should be treated upon discovery with pesticide that has been approved in advance by GTM 

Research Reserve staff as safe for humans and the environment. Staff and public eating areas should be monitored 

for cleanliness daily and cleaned frequently to prevent food attractions for fire ants. 

9. Mosquitoes: The GTM Research Reserve is working cooperatively with the Anastasia Mosquito Control District to 

develop environmentally sound methods of controlling mosquito populations while minimizing the impact on natural 

biodiversity. The primary and preferred tools used to control mosquitoes within the GTM Research Reserve are the 

use of BTI, a bacteria-based biological control agent, DEET containing mosquito repellants, and, where feasible, 

trapping technologies. 

Problem/nuisance Species 

Alligators in Guana Lake can become a problem due to the practice of crabbing with poultry tied to a line from the 

shallow water of the lake. This can be dangerous for the alligator if it swallows the line that is tied to a stake firmly 

attached to the substrate causing the alligator great stress and possibly death. FWC is contacted if an alligator 

is stuck to crabbing gear or if an alligator loses its fear of humans. Trappers permitted with FWC respond and 

lethally remove the alligator from the area. Removals of nuisance animals such as these are carried out by FWC or 

associated contractors.

The marshes bordering the Guana and Tolomato Rivers are breeding sites for native Black Salt Marsh Mosquito, 

Aedes taeniorhynchus. Fresh water wetlands associated with the peninsula’s central swale are sources of other 

mosquito species. St. Johns County’s Anastasia Mosquito Control District submitted an Arthropod Control 

Management Plan covering the Guana River State Park to the DEP Division of Marine Resources in 1987. This plan is 

still in effect but should be reviewed and, if necessary, updated. 

A. / Timber Resources 

Chapters 253 and 259, Florida Statutes, 

require an assessment of the feasibility 

of managing timber in land management 

plans for parcels greater than 1,000 

acres if the lead agency determines that 

timber management is not in conflict with 

the primary management objectives of 

the land. During the development of this 

plan, an analysis was made regarding the 

feasibility of timber management activities 

for this site (Figure 26). CAMA managed 

lands contain limited commercially 

harvestable timber, with less than 80 

acres of mesic pine flatwoods within its 

boundary. GTMNERR staff is actively 

restoring this degraded mesic flatwoods 

through prescription burning with a goal of 

increased biodiversity of its uplands and 

enhance buffering to the watershed of the 

Guana and Tolomato rivers. Reserve staff 

is coordinating with the Division of Forestry 

regarding an assessment of an additional 

50 acres of slash pine that have invaded a 

freshwater marsh on the Guana Peninsula. 

Reserve staff has determined that removal 

of this timber would be consistent with 

resource management goals including 

hydrological restoration of this marsh. 

DOF works exclusively with contractors 

who are experienced in timber removal on 

environmentally sensitive lands in order to 

insure minimal disruption to resources. 

A. / Prescribed Fire Plan 

The legislature of the State of Florida 

has recognized the fact that prescribed Figure 6 / Timber assessment letter. 

burning is a valuable land management 

tool and has addressed this issue with 

legal requirements associated with prescribed burns. These requirements include laws, rules, and policies 

administered by the Florida Division of Forestry, Environmental Laws and Endangered Species Laws and Rules. 

The primary laws are covered in Florida Statutes, Chapter 590 and Section 5I-2 of the Florida Administrative 

Code (Appendix B.5). A summary of the legal requirements that apply to prescribed fire activity of GTM Research 

Reserve are listed below. 

Florida Statutes Chapter 590.125 

(1) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term: 

(a) “Prescribed burning” means the controlled application of fire in accordance with a written prescription for 

vegetative fuels under specified environmental conditions while following appropriate precautionary measures 

that ensure that the fire is confined to a predetermined area to accomplish the planned fire or land-management 

objectives. 

(b) “Certified prescribed burn manager” means an individual who successfully completes the certification program 

of the division and possesses a valid certification number. 

(c) “Prescription” means a written plan establishing the criteria necessary for starting, controlling, and extinguishing 

a prescribed burn. 

6

6 

(d) “Extinguished” means that no spreading flame for wild land burning or certified prescribed burning, and no 

visible flame, smoke, or emissions for vegetative land-clearing debris burning, exist. 

(3) “Certified Prescribed Burning; Legislative Findings and Purpose.” 

(a) The application of prescribed burning is a land management tool that benefits the safety of the public, the 

environment, and the economy of the state. The Legislature finds that: 

1. Prescribed burning reduces vegetative fuels within wild land areas. Reduction of the fuel load reduces the risk 

and severity of wildfire, thereby reducing the threat of loss of life and property, particularly in urban areas. 

2. Most of Florida’s natural communities require periodic fire for maintenance of their ecological integrity. Prescribed 

burning is essential to the perpetuation, restoration, and management of many plant and animal communities. 

Significant loss of the state’s biological diversity will occur if fire is excluded from fire-dependent systems. 

3. Forestland and rangeland constitute significant economic, biological, and aesthetic resources of statewide 

importance. Prescribed burning on forestland prepares sites for reforestation, removes undesirable competing 

vegetation, expedites nutrient cycling, and controls or eliminates certain forest pathogens. On rangeland, prescribed 

burning improves the quality and quantity of herbaceous vegetation necessary for livestock production. 

4. The state purchased hundreds of thousands of acres of land for parks, preserves, wildlife management areas, 

forests, and other public purposes. The use of prescribed burning for management of public lands is essential to 

maintain the specific resource values for which these lands were acquired. 

5. A public education program is necessary to make citizens and visitors aware of the public safety, resource, and 

economic benefits of prescribed burning. 

6. Proper training in the use of prescribed burning is necessary to ensure maximum benefits and protection for the public. 

7. As Florida’s population continues to grow, pressures from liability issues and nuisance complaints inhibit the 

use of prescribed burning. Therefore, the division is urged to maximize the opportunities for prescribed burning 

conducted during its daytime and nighttime authorization process. 

Florida Administrative Code 5I-2.006 Open Burning Allowed. 

(2) Open Burning for Certified Prescribed Burn Managers (CPBM). (All burning conducted under this section is 

related to broadcast burning for the purposes of: Silvaculture, Wildlife Management, Ecological Maintenance and 

Restoration, Range and Pasture Management.) Open burning authorizations under this section require the Certified 

Prescribed Burn Manager’s certification number be presented at the time of the request, and that a Certified 

Prescribed Burn Manager be on site for the entire burn. 

(a) Prescription. A prescription for the burn must be completed prior to any ignition and it must be on site and 

available for inspection by a Department representative. The prescription will contain, as a minimum, (unless agreed 

to in writing locally between the burner and the District or Center Manager of the Division of Forestry) the following: 

1. Stand or Site Description; 

2. Map of the area to be burned; 

3. Number of personnel and equipment types to be used on the prescribed burn; 

4. Desired weather factors, including but not limited to surface wind speed and direction, transport wind speed and 

direction, minimum mixing height, minimum relative humidity, maximum temperature, and the minimum fine fuel 

moisture; 

5. Desired fire behavior factors, such as type of burn technique, flame length, and rate of spread; 

6. The time and date the prescription was prepared; 

7. The authorization date and the time period of the authorization; 

8. An evaluation and approval of the anticipated impact of the proposed burn on related smoke sensitive areas; 

9. The signature and number of the Certified Prescribed Burn Manager. 

(b) Open Burning Hours. 

1. Daytime CPBM Authorizations will be issued for the burning to be conducted from 8:00 a.m. CT or 9:00 a.m. ET 

and the fire must discontinue spreading one hour after sunset. 

2. Nighttime CPBM Authorizations will be issued with a Dispersion Index of 6 or above for the burning to be 

conducted between one hour before sunset and 8:00 a.m. CT or 9:00 a.m. ET the following day. Ignition of these fires 

is authorized up to midnight; however the fire can continue to spread until 8:00 a.m. CT or 9:00 a.m. ET the following 

day. If additional time is required a new authorization (daytime) must be obtained from the Division. The Division 

will issue authorizations at other times, in designated areas, when the Division has determined that atmospheric 

conditions in the vicinity of the burn will allow good dispersal of emissions, and the resulting smoke from the burn will 

not adversely impact smoke sensitive areas, e.g., highways, hospitals and airports. 

(c) Burn Manager Certification Process. Certification to become a Certified Prescribed Burn Manager is accomplished by: 

1. Satisfactory completion of the Division of Forestry’s Prescribed Fire Correspondence Course and direct experience 

in three prescribed burns prior to taking the course or;

2. Satisfactory completion of the Division of Forestry’s Prescribed Fire Classroom version of the Correspondence 

Course and a minimum of managing three prescribed burns prior to taking the course or; 

3. Satisfactory completion of the Florida Inter-Agency Basic Prescribed Fire Course and direct experience in three 

prescribed burns following successful completion of the classroom training. The burns conducted during the training 

do not count as part of this three burn requirement. - 217 

4. Applicants must submit a completed prescription for a proposed certifying burn to their local Florida Division of 

Forestry office prior to the burn for review and approval, and have the burn described in that prescription reviewed by 

the Division of Forestry during the burn operation. The local Division of Forestry District Manager (or their designee) 

will recommend DOF Prescribed Burn Manager certification upon satisfactory completion of both the prescription and 

required number of burns. 

5. In order to continue to hold the Division of Forestry Prescribed Burn Manager Certification the burner must comply 

with paragraph 5I-2.006(2) (d), F.A.C., or Division Certification will terminate five years from the date of issue. 

(d) Certification Renewal. A Certified Prescribed Burn Manager must satisfy the following requirements in order to 

retain certification. 

1. Participation in a minimum of eight hours of Division of Forestry approved training every five years relating to the 

subject of prescribed fire, or participation in a Division of Forestry recognized Fire Council Meeting, and 

2. The Certified Prescribed Burn Manager has submitted their certification number for two completed prescribed 

burns in the preceding five (5) years, or 

3. Participation in five (5) burns and have this documented and verified in writing to the Forest Protection Bureau’s 

Prescribed Fire Manager of the Division of Forestry by a current Certified Prescribed Burn Manager, or 

4. Retaking either the Prescribed Fire Correspondence Course or the Inter-Agency Basic Prescribed Fire Course. 

(e) Decertification. The Commissioner of Agriculture will revoke any Certified Prescribed Burn Manager’s certification 

if they demonstrate that their practices and procedures repeatedly violated Florida law or agency rules or is a 

threat to public health, safety, or property. Recommendations for decertification by the Division of Forestry to the 

Commissioner of Agriculture will be based on the Certified Burner Violations – Point Assessment Table, effective July 

1, 2003, which is incorporated by reference located at: 

http://www.fl-dof.com/wildfire/wf_pdfs/CBMpoints.pdf. 

GTM Research Reserve Guana River Site History 

Florida’s natural communities have evolved over the millennia by direct influence of fire burning throughout the 

landscape. The majority of natural communities recognized in Florida today have existed for approximately 20,000 

years. The biodiversity of many communities requires the influence of fire. Some communities have more frequent 

fire intervals than others and are more susceptible to carry fire. Fire frequency is dependent on the community 

pyrogenicity, or ease of ignition and ability to carry fire. Systems comprised mainly of herbaceous, fine fuels are 

usually the most pyrogenic. Systems comprised of this vegetation are responsible for the ignition of other less 

pyrogenic areas adjacent to or within them, such as coastal strand, oak scrub, or scrubby Flatwoods. 

Florida’s natural fire season can occur year round but peaks with the seasonal weather patterns that produce cloud 

to ground lightning, mainly thunderstorms. This time corresponds with Florida’s growing season. The peak season of 

lightning caused fire activity in Northeast Florida is May through August. Lightning fires are most common in May and 

June, despite the fact that more thunderstorms occur in July and August. May is the peak of the spring-time drought 

and the period of low moisture content in the vegetation which contributes to this natural timing of fires. 

Much of the eastern US forests had been clear-cut in the late 19 th century leaving logging slash across the landscape 

creating dangerous fuel conditions. Devastating fires followed this unsustainable harvesting practice, which lead to 

the organization of efforts to control wildfires. Throughout the twentieth century, forest agencies developed extensive 

programs to prevent or extinguish wildfires. As early as the 1970’s public agencies and scientific professionals 

began to reexamine the role of natural fire across North America. Due to an increased understanding of the natural 

community ecology and the role of fire to maintain ecological integrity, fire has been reintroduced by land managers 

as an ecological management tool. 

Because of the historical land use of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

(GMTNERR) Guana River site, fire as a natural force on the landscape was limited since the time of the first 

European settlement on the Guana peninsula to protect life and property. The first European settlement, a Spanish 

mission, La Natividad de Neustra Senora de Guadalupe was established in the late 1620’s and by 1689 housed 25 

families. Around 1780 the British occupied the peninsula at Mount Pleasant plantation and Grant’s Villa towards 

the southern end of the peninsula. These sites had many structures to support the crops of rice, corn, oranges, 

and indigo. Spain took control of Florida in 1783, the plantations were abandoned and Minorcans began to settle 

the peninsula in the early 1800’s. By the early 1900’s extensive mosquito ditching in the salt marsh and depression 

wetlands of the peninsula were completed altering local hydrology. Timber harvesting began in the late 1930’s 

and continued into the 1970’s with an operational sawmill on site among the pinelands of the northern peninsula. 

During this period the land was leased for cattle, hog grazing, apiary rights, and a hunting preserve. The landscape 

was actively managed for these uses. 

6

66 

The extent of the natural fire regime alteration is unknown. However it is evident that fire suppression of many scrub 

areas within the present day Reserve were allowed to succeed to the climax community of maritime hammock, which 

will not carry fire. Other communities were also adversely affected by fire suppression and hydrologic modifications. 

Subsequent to acquisition by the state, the Florida Park Service worked to re-introduce fire to the landscape as a 

management tool to restore the pyrogenic communities of the site. These efforts are now the responsibility of the 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. 

Objectives 

The fire management objective of the GTM Research Reserve is the restoration of the natural fire cycle to 

the pyrogenic communities of the reserve to maintain their ecological integrity. The specific objectives of fire 

management activities are: 

• Restore fire as an ecological component of the landscape 

• Restore or preserve pyrogenic communities 

• Restore or preserve habitat for rare plant and animal species 

• Promote diversity within natural communities 

• Maintain ecotones (natural transition zones) between communities 

• Reduce unnatural, hazardous fuel loading 

To accomplish these objectives the fire adapted communities have been separated into burn zones that can be 

managed by fire frequency established specifically for the communities comprising the zone (Figure 27). Each zone 

is surrounded by natural and/or man-made fire breaks that will ensure the containment of a controlled burn in each 

zone. Natural fire breaks consist of water bodies and non-combustible communities such as Oak Hammock. Manmade 

fire breaks consist of two track roads, ditches, trails, and maintained fire lines. A burn plan will be established 

each year for the zones that are scheduled to be burned within that year. Each unit to be burned within the current 

year will have a unit specific prescription used to accomplish the management objectives of that unit. The prescription 

will establish the required conditions needed to conduct a burn with the fire characteristics needed to accomplish 

those objectives. 

Prescribed Fire Frequency 

The goal of GTM Research Reserve is to restore fire as an ecological component of the landscape. Therefore 

the frequency of prescribed fire is dependent on the frequency established for each community by the scientific 

community through research and publication or by the best available ecological knowledge for that community. 

Some communities require frequent fires every 1 to 2 years for existence while others are adapted to less frequent, 

catastrophic fires, on the order of once a century. The following fire adapted communities occur at the Guana River 

site of the GTM Research Reserve with the listed fire interval: 

Natural Community Fire Interval 

Depression Marsh 2 – 25 years 

Tidal Marsh 8 – 25 years 

Mesic Flatwoods 1 – 8 years 

Coastal Strand 8 – 100 years 

Oak scrub 8 – 25 years 

Sand Pine Scrub 15 – 100 years 

Coastal Dune 8 – 100 years 

Due to a prolonged history of fire suppression in this area many of our communities have an excessive amount 

of unnatural fuel accumulation. These communities may need to be burned more frequently until the spatial 

configuration and composition of each community meets the habitat management goals. The management goals are 

based on the current state of knowledge for the “pristine” condition of each community type for this region of Florida. 

Prescribed Fire Timing 

The natural fire season in Florida is generally the time of year when two atmospheric conditions are met. There must 

be a significant amount of thunderstorm activity to induce lightning strike ignitions and the fuel moisture must be low 

enough to ignite and carry fire. The overall weather patterns that create these conditions occur during the late spring 

and early summer months in Florida when lightning ignites the vegetation and the fuels are dry enough to carry fire, 

often referred to as “the growing season”. Later in the year, during the peak of summer, lightning activity is high but 

the relative humidity and fuel moisture is often too high to burn in the environment. The pyrogenic communities in 

Florida have collectively evolved with this natural fire season. Re-growth is favorable during this time of year, allowing 

for many herbaceous species to rapidly take advantage of the post-fire environment. To best mimic the natural fire 

season GTM Research Reserve will conduct prescribed fires during the late spring and early summer months when 

the fuels of each management unit are at a natural fire maintained level. 

Many of the management units in GTM Research Reserve have suffered from lack of fire for several years, in some 

cases decades. In this situation it would not be safe to conduct the prescribed burn during the warmer late spring

and early summer months which is also characteristic of unstable weather conditions. In this situation GTM Research 

Reserve will burn during the cooler, more stable periods, late fall through early spring, for staff safety and hazardous 

fuel reduction. Once the vegetation is in a manageable, fire maintained state, growing season burns will then be 

conducted in that unit. The winter season burns are not favorable because burning during this time of the year favors 

woody species growth that has sufficient carbohydrate stores in their root system. Burning in the non-growing season 

may cause a shift in the vegetation from a natural herbaceous cover to a more woody, shrub dominated cover, thus 

reducing the diversity of the community. Serenoa repens (Saw Palmetto) is a good example of a species that has 

sufficient energy reserves in its extensive root system. Burning in the non-growing season will likely cause an increase 

in S. repens cover. 

Natural State of Communities 

It is the goal of the GTM Research Reserve to restore and maintain each community type to its natural condition, 

or pre-Colombian existence. It is understood that there is no set measurable standard for each community. Due to 

the non-equilibrium status of pyrogenic communities there will be variation in configuration and composition from 

different patches of communities based on the disturbance regime and specific site characteristics. The purpose of 

GTM Research Reserve prescribed fire management is to have each community structured within the range of natural 

variation for that community to the greatest extent possible. 

Depression Marsh: The depression marshes of the GTM Research Reserve Guana River site are relict interdunal 

swales from the late Pleistocene epoch when Atlantic beaches were one to four miles west of the present shoreline and 

sea levels were five to ten feet higher than present. This community is also known by other classification systems as an 

interdunal pond, interdunal freshwater wetland, or seasonal freshwater pond. The composition of this marsh should be 

predominantly emergent aquatic graminoids and aquatic forb species such as Spartina bakeri, Juncus spp. and Panicum 

hemitomum. Some shrubs, such as Myrica cerifera may become established when the hydroperiod is decreased over 

prolonged periods of time. Since the restoration effort to fill in mosquito ditches by the Florida Park Service, the tree cover 

has drastically reduced. Several areas of this community are still degraded and have a significant canopy of Pinus elliotii. 

Invading trees should be eradicated with the application of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment if necessary. Open 

water should also exist sporadically where depressions in the substrate allow rain fall accumulation over prolonged periods 

of time. This community type burns once every 2 – 25 years in Florida. GTM Research Reserve will apply prescribed fire to 

this community at the lower end of this frequency to control the invasion of pines and hardwoods in the marsh. 

Tidal Marsh: This community occurs along the shores of the Guana and Tolomato rivers comprising 1034 acres of 

the Guana River site at GTM Research Reserve. It is dominated by saline graminoid emergents and forbs such as 

Spartina alterniflora, Juncus roemarianus, Batis maritima, and Salicornia perennis. Vegetation zonation in tidal marshes 

is generally controlled by soil salinity and hydroperiod although other physical and biological factors are now known to 

influence the vegetative equilibrium in salt marsh communities. Natural fire in the surrounding landscape can spread 

into this grass dominated community. This community has a burn frequency of approximately once every 8 – 25 years 

in Florida. The marsh will be burned within this interval when more research is conducted to better understand the 

ecological implications and biological feedback of fire in this ecosystem. 

Mesic Flatwoods: This community constitutes approximately 20 acres of the reserve and is contiguous with a much 

larger expanse of Flatwoods in the Guana River Wildlife Management Area. This community is comprised predominantly 

of Pinus elliotii, Pinus serotina, Serenoa repens, Ilex glabra, and Lyonia ferruginea. The management goals for this 

community call for an uneven pine age structure, sparse over story, and to promote a diversity of ground cover plants. 

Such ground cover is important forage for Gopherus polyphemus of which there are currently over 60 gopher tortoise 

burrows in this unit. The frequency of fire in Mesic Flatwoods is once every 1 – 8 years. This unit will be burned every 

1 -2 years until the Serenoa repens is reduced in height and cover to allow for higher diversity of ground cover plants. 

Mechanical treatment might be required if frequent burning does not control the S. repens cover within this unit. 

Coastal Strand: This community covers approximately 677 acres of the Guana River site of GTM Research Reserve. 

Coastal strand occurs on stabilized coastal dunes with a nutrient poor, well drained sand substrate. This is a xeric 

community occurring in subtropical or temperate climates. In Northeast Florida it consists of dense, mixed stands of 

Quercus geminata, Quercus myrtifolia, Quercus chapmanii, Persea borbonia, and Serenoa repens. The under story 

is comprised of sparse, mixed, shrubs and herbaceous plants such as Ceratiola ericoides, Lyonia feruginea, and 

Vaccinium myrsinites. The vegetation is maintained by direct influence from wind and salt spray from the ocean along 

with infrequent fire. These two factors work in combination to keep the shrubby vegetation low in stature, except 

between dunes in deep trenches shaded from the oceans salt spray influence. The leeward-most portion of this 

community along Guana Lake and Guana River is early successional maritime oak hammock and will not burn except 

during extreme drought conditions. Nearly along its entire length, the coastal strand community is gradually maturing 

in the absence of fire, and is changing into hammock community (xeric/maritime) through ecological succession. 

The natural role of fire in coastal strand is very similar to scrub communities that are found scattered throughout the 

Florida peninsula; they are highly dependent upon fire to maintain its community integrity (Simon 1986; Fernald, 

1989; Johnson and Muller, 1993). Coastal strand naturally burns every 8 – 100 years. GTM Research Reserve will 

burn this community, on average, every 10 years in addition to mechanical mowing from the roadside of Highway 

A1A into the strand 200 feet for wildland/urban interface radiant heat concerns along the highway. 

Oak Scrub: Oak scrub is similar to coastal strand in species composition but exists farther inland from the direct effects 

of the ocean. This community once comprised a larger extent of the Guana River site but due to fire suppression now 

only covers approximately 15 acres of mature scrub. Oak scrub also occurs on well drained, sandy soils farther inland 

6

6 

from coastal strand. This community is dominated by evergreen oaks, predominantly Quercus geminata, and to a lesser 

extent Quercus myrtifolia and Quercus chapmanii. Other species that are typical of this community are Serenoa repens, 

Osmanthus regalis, and Lyonia ferruginea. Oak scrub is a fire dependent community requiring fire every 8 – 25 years. 

The Florida Park Service tried to maintain this community with prescribed fire but this particular unit proved too mature 

to be managed by fire due to their extreme height, enclosed canopy and low level of fuels in the under story. Mechanical 

treatment is required to regenerate this scrub and to prevent further succession to Oak Hammock. 

Sand Pine Scrub: This xeric plant community is typically dominated by an over story of Pinus clausa and has an under 

story of stunted Quercus geminata, Quercus myrtifolia and Quercus chapmanii. Ground cover is typically absent, especially 

in mature stands of P. clausa scrub while lichens form dense patches in some open areas. This community depends on fire 

and often experiences stand replacement fires resulting in even aged stands of P. clausa. The patch of Sand Pine scrub on 

the Guana River site of GTM Research Reserve is approximately 2 acres and is highly degraded with only a few P. clausa 

trees remaining. The mid-story xerophytic oak species and sparse ground cover of lichens and grasses typical of a sand 

pine scrub is absent at this site. Therefore this community may be too degraded for restoration with fire but every attempt 

will be made to maintain this Florida endemic community. Sand Pine scrub generally burns every 15 – 100 years. 

Coastal Dunes: Coastal dunes in Northeast Florida are composed of dense patches of salt tolerant graminoids such as 

Uniola paniculata, Spartina patens, and Sporobolus virginicus. Farther from shore perennial herbs and S. repens begin 

to appear. Leeward of the dune crest coastal strand species dominate including Q. geminata, Q. myrtifolia, Q. chapmanii, 

P. borbonia. Fire on barrier islands is a natural part of the system. Florida Natural Areas Inventory lists this community 

as experiencing occasional or rare fire. Research on the natural fire cycle of coastal dune grasslands is limited and 

more research is needed to fully understand the role of natural fire in this system. GTM Research Reserve will conduct 

prescribed burns on the dune grasslands to promote the growth of U. paniculata, important forage for the Endangered 

Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma) and as a measure for fuel reduction along the eastern 

side of US Highway A1A. A fire study program will be developed to better understand the vegetative response and fire 

return interval best applied to meet the management objectives of this community. 

Monitoring of Prescribed Fire Activity 

Monitoring the effects of prescribed fire is an important aspect of managing resources with prescribed burning. 

Monitoring is required to measure the effectiveness of burning and the only documented method of assessing 

management goals. Continuous monitoring and research of vegetation dynamics will be conducted as an important 

component of land management responsibilities to assess the goals and methods of prescribed fire application at GTM 

Research Reserve. Permanent photo-points are used to qualitatively monitor the composition and distribution of plant 

communities within each unit. This method will provide a valuable archive of information to measure the success of the 

prescribed burn program. In conjunction with photo-points, permanent vegetative sampling plots are established to 

quantitatively measure percent cover, composition of plant species, and species height in each plot. Faunal surveys 

will be developed to better understand the effects of prescribed fire treatments in the coastal strand habitat. This project 

will focus on small mammal and herpetological species. The quarterly beach mouse surveys will be used to study the 

effects of burning in the beach/dune community by following the Peromyscus polionotus phasma population numbers. 

Photopoints: Fixed photopoints are an extremely useful, cost effective qualitative tool for documenting structural 

recovery and vegetation dynamics within burn units through time. The methodology for documentation with 

photopoints has been standardized with a protocol to be used by the staff or volunteer working on the project. The 

images captured at the photopoints are made up of a series of four images (orientated north, south, east and west) 

or three unidirectional images that are stitched together to create a panoramic of the unit. The approach that provides 

the best visual coverage of the vegetation in the unit is used. All photos are to be taken on a quarterly schedule. When 

feasible, photopoints are established at least three randomly selected locations within each burn unit to provide a 

good representative sample image of the area to be documented. 

Vegetation Surveys: Vegetation surveys provide quantitative tool to monitor the effects of the prescribed fire program 

at GTM Research Reserve to assist in establishing and successfully attaining management objectives. These surveys 

provide data on species composition, percent cover, and average height of each species within vegetation plots or 

along transects. The surveys are conducted annually, in the growing season, during the month of April. This allows the 

GTM Research Reserve to track changes of vegetation in each burn unit. Long-term fixed-transect or quadrat vegetation 

surveys are established for all interior burn units and four of the coastal strand burn units to provide a representative 

sample of the vegetation with each unit. Units 1 – 3 have fixed quadrats of 3m X 3m located in a randomly selected field 

of view of the photopoints. Data recorded in each quadrat include species occurrence, percent cover of each species, 

and average height of the canopy and mid-story species. Within Units 4 – 18 in the coastal strand and units 19 – 25 a line 

intercept method is used due to the dense, scrubby vegetation. These transects are in randomly selected fixed locations 

in four coastal strand units and six beach/dune units. Data collected along each transect include species occurrence, 

percent cover, and canopy and mid-story average height. The protocol for this sampling scheme is defined in GTM 

Research Reserve’s sampling methodology for biological data. 

Coastal Strand Faunal Surveys: Methods for monitoring species response are essential to assess the short and long 

term impacts of management activity. Faunal surveys focus on amphibian, reptile, and small mammal species that occur 

in this coastal scrub type habitat. Faunal data will provide insight into the effects of the prescribed fire program and 

associated mechanical treatment on species assemblages and population trends. This effort will work in conjunction 

with a similar monitoring effort for scrub management on GRWMA by FFWCC using “Y trap arrays” to allow for more 

robust comparisons. The specific methodology is detailed in the GTM Research Reserve coastal strand survey protocol.

Quarterly Beach Mouse Trapping: The prescribed burn program in the beach/dune community is an experiment 

to examine the effects of fire on the biodiversity of this habitat. One goal of this program is to promote population 

growth of the Peromyscus polionotus phasma (Anastasia Island beach mouse). Vegetation response to burning 

is closely monitored using the vegetation line-intercept surveys for habitat measures. To monitor the P. p. phasma 

population response to burning, the quarterly transect surveys are used. This project has been conducted 

quarterly from the early 90’s when this subspecies was re-introduced to this section of St. Johns County. 

The monitoring has been conducted in the past to follow population trends in order to determine if and when 

supplemental re-introductions will be needed from the Anastasia State Park and Fort Matanzas National Monument 

populations. This monitoring program involves three transects are set with 2 traps every 10m for a total of 40 

traps per transect. The first transect (Transect A) starts at 30º 04’ 08.936 N, 81º 20’ 00.230 W and continues to 

30º 04’ 16.816 N, 81º 20’ 01.954 W. The second transect (Transect B) starts at 30º 05’ 49.539 N, 81º 20’ 24.248 

W and ends at 30º 05’ 56.530 N, 81º 20’ 25.960 W. The third transect (Transect C) starts at 30º 07’ 26.020 N, 81º 

20’ 47.505 W and ends at 30º 07’ 33.801 N, 81º 20’ 49.373 W. Trapping is conducted for two nights each quarter 

and follows the protocol of the permit issued under authority of the wildlife code of the State of Florida (Title 68A, 

Florida Administrative Code) by the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Burn Unit Descriptions 

Unit 1: This 59 acre unit consists of 15.5 acres of Mesic Pine Flatwoods, 27 acres of oak hammock, 15 acres of varied 

age oak scrub, and 1.5 acres of oak/cedar mix. The Mesic Pine Flatwoods has a dense mid-story of Serenoa repens 

and requires frequent burning and/or mechanical treatment to manage at a natural height and density. The varied age 

oak scrub is very mature and requires mechanical treatment to revert the scrub to an early successional stage. The 

scrub has reached a height making fire ineffective at maintaining the scrub. The oak hammock area does not require 

management activity and is used as a natural fire break. Fire breaks for this unit are the orange trail on the west and 

southern perimeter, the dike on the northern perimeter, and the oak hammock and blue trail on the western perimeter. 

Unit 2: This 56 acre unit consists of 20 acres of freshwater depression marsh, 8 acres of freshwater marsh with a pine 

canopy, 5 acres of mature scrub, and 23 acres of oak hammock. This marsh is part of a larger marsh system that 

extends north and south along the interior of the Guana peninsula. The freshwater depression marsh suffers from pine 

and hardwood encroachment due to artificial drainage by a ditch on the northern end used to manipulate water levels 

for wildlife management in the Guana River Wildlife Management Area by the FWC. Due to the artificially shortened 

hydroperiod this marsh requires frequent burning to maintain graminoid and herbaceous dominance. The pine canopy 

of the remaining portion of the freshwater marsh is beyond controlling with prescribed fire. Mechanical and herbicide 

treatment will be required to remove the over story of Pinus elliotii. The mature scrub in this unit has succeeded to early 

stages of oak hammock with mature oaks and 

does not warrant further management. The oak 

hammock does not require management activity 

24 

18 

and is used as a natural fire break for this unit. Fire 

19 

breaks for this unit are the dike on the northern 

13 25 

20 

perimeter, the blue trail and oak hammock on the 

east, west, and south perimeters. 

Unit 3: This 190 acre unit is comprised of isolated 

wetlands of varying ecological integrity and small 

patches of Pinus elliotii within an oak hammock 

matrix. The wetlands are highly degraded due to 

fire suppression and water level manipulations. 

The wetland areas are supporting pines that were 

able to establish in the open substrate with low 

water levels and limited fire activity. Mechanical 

treatment is needed to restore the marsh to 

an open, grass dominated wetland. The pine 

stands are disconnected and sparse requiring 

a discontinuous ignition method for burning. 

Fire breaks for this unit are oak hammock on all 

perimeters and the tidal marsh on a portion of 

the east perimeter. *Note: There is an active 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) nest 

in this unit located at -81.33157W, 30.01722N. 

Please reference the United State Fish and 

Wildlife Service activity rules and regulations. 

This unit may be burned from 16 May to 30 

September (non-nesting season) and the nest 

tree must be excluded from burning to prevent fire 

induced mortality. 

Units 4 – 18: These 14 units cover 678 acres of 

GTM Research Reserve between US Highway 

A1A on the east and Guana River and Guana 

¯ 

17 

16 

15 

21 

14 

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles 

22 

13 

Figure / GTM Research Reserve burn units. 

23 

24 

25 

12 

11 

1 

2 

3 

12 

11 

26 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 ex 

4 

¯ 

6

0 

Lake on the west. This coastal strand community is comprised of dense scrubby oaks and shrubs. On the leeward 

side of each unit farthest from the influence of the Atlantic Ocean the community is in the early successional stages of 

Maritime Hammock. A majority of these units are in the wildland/urban interface with homes a short distance across 

the highway. This community naturally burns very hot with high flame lengths. Due to this characteristic of coastal 

strand mechanical treatment is needed along the border with homes and other structures. The coastal strand will be 

mowed to a height of 2 feet from the highway to 200 feet into the interior. This will significantly reduce radiant heat 

from prescribed burns in this area protecting any adjacent structures. Fire breaks for these units are the maintained 

shoulder and pavement of US Highway A1A on the east perimeter, Guana River and Lake on the west perimeter, and 

mowed fire lines between each burn unit. Units 17 and 18 currently do not have a fire line separating each unit. A 

fire line was never constructed because these units have not been burned by management since the state acquired 

this property. These units are scheduled to be burned in 2008. Prior to burning the units will be evaluated for fire line 

construction. The maintained fire lines are approximately 50 feet wide and are mowed annually by reserve staff to 

maintain the fire protection qualities of mowed vegetation. 

Units 19 – 25: These units cover 111 acres of GTM Research Reserve between US Highway A1A and the Atlantic 

Ocean. Each unit is composed of small remnants of coastal strand, dune vegetation and grasses. Other than the 

remnants of coastal strand the fuel loads are low and will be easily managed by staff. These units have not been 

burned by management since acquisition by the state in 1984. Fire breaks are the Atlantic Ocean on the east 

and US Highway A1A on the western perimeter. The divisions between each unit were located in areas of low or 

sparse vegetation in order to design temporary fire breaks on the northern and southern terminus of each unit. 

Fire break locations were also located to take advantage of the 3 beach cross-over boardwalks and the vehicular 

access point. Temporary fire lines will be constructed using lawn tools and wet lines with Class A foam. More 

permanent breaks in the vegetation may be needed on the leeward side of the dunes in the coastal strand to 

separate the fuel of each unit. 

Unit 26: This unit covers 10 acres of GTM Research Reserve between Guana River and Guana lake impoundment. 

The unit lies on the Guana River dam and has naturally been vegetated by local plants and some exotic species. The 

area is also has the highest density of gopher tortoise burrows within the Guana River site of GTM Research Reserve. 

The goal of the prescribed burn program is to enhance the site for gopher tortoise forage and to control the exotic 

species that have colonized this area. Fire breaks are not needed for this site due to its perimeter of oak hammock, 

salt marsh, brackish impoundment, and parking lots. 

Table / Burn history (prescribed fire and wildfire). 

Year 

1970’s 1987 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2003 2005 

Unit 1 X X X X 

Unit 2 X X X X X X 

Unit 3 X X X X 

Unit 4 X X 

Unit 5 X X 

Unit 6 X X 

Unit 7 X X 

Unit 8 X 

Unit 9 X 

Unit 10 X 

Unit 11 X 

Unit 12 

Unit 13 X X 

Unit 14 X X X 

Unit 15 X X 

Unit 16 X 

Unit 17 X 

Unit 18 X 

Unit 19 

Unit 20 

Unit 21 

Unit 22 

Unit 23 

Unit 24 

Unit 25 

Unit 26

Wildfire Policy 

The Florida Division of Forestry (DOF) has been given the authority and responsibility by the legislature for 

prevention, detection, and suppression of wildfires wherever they may occur (Chapter 590 Florida Statutes). The 

Division of Forestry fulfills these responsibilities by working cooperatively with other agencies, individuals, and 

organizations such as GTM Research Reserve. 

GTM Research Reserve’s policy is to let wildfires be allowed to burn out naturally if they pose no harm to life, 

property, or the natural community and if the weather conditions and fire behavior are beneficial to the GTM Research 

Reserve’s fire management objectives. Appropriate action will be taken by a GTM Research Reserve Certified 

Prescribed Burner to obtain a permit from DOF. If there is threat of escape to property not managed by GTM Research 

Reserve, judgment is deferred to the DOF staff responding to the fire. Every attempt will be made to limit the amount 

of disturbance to the natural area from suppression activities. Burn out techniques, use of natural fire breaks, and 

water/foam wet lines are preferred to disking and plow lines. DOF should be notified of culturally significant resources 

and their locations to minimize degradation from suppression activity. 

Smoke Management 

Smoke management is a plan of action to conduct prescribed fires so that the smoke produced is dispersed 

without causing a health or safety hazard. GTM Research Reserve will utilize a smoke screening system for every 

prescribed burn to alleviate adverse impacts to smoke sensitive areas. Currently the Florida Division of Forestry 

has a tool available online to document a potential threat to a smoke sensitive area utilizing the expected weather 

conditions and fuel characteristics expected on the day of the burn. The smoke screening tool is located at: http:// 

flame.fl-dof.com/wildfire/tools_sst.html#SST. 

Strategies of smoke management are avoid smoke sensitive areas, disperse and dilute smoke, and reduce 

emissions. Smoke sensitive areas are highways, airports, communities, recreation areas, schools, hospitals, or 

factories. Smoke sensitive areas of GTM Research Reserve – Guana River are identified at the time the prescription 

is written. Critical smoke sensitive areas are areas that already have an air pollution problem or those within the 

probable impact area determined by fuel type and distance from fire. Critical smoke sensitive areas are located 

within 10% of the impact distance calculated for the fire acreage and fuel type. Prescribed burns will be conducted 

on each unit in a manner to prevent the dispersion of smoke in the direction of the identified smoke sensitive areas. 

GTM Research Reserve will conduct burns during weather conditions that promote the dispersion and dilution of 

smoke. The minimum level of each factor are conditions are mixing height above 1700 feet, transport wind speed of 

9 mph, and background visibility of at least 5 

miles. In order to reduce emissions the type of 

firing technique to be used will be determined 

24 

by the fuel load and type of each unit at the 

18 

¯ 

19 

time of burning. Backing fires generally reduce 

13 25 

emissions by combusting the fuel completely. 

20 

Evaluating moisture content of fuels to ensure 

the duff layer and larger non-target fuels will not 

17 

21 

ignite is another strategy to reduce emissions. 

Completing the burn earlier in the day and 

16 

12 

initiating mop-up when practical will also reduce 

22 

residual smoke that often causes emissions 

15 

problems with smoke sensitive areas. 

Fire Line Construction 

Fire lines are required to control prescribed burns 

on sub-divided units of continuous fuels. Natural 

features (ponds, non-combustible communities) 

are used where they provide adequate protection 

and control of fire in each burn unit. Existing 

roads and trails are also utilized to prevent further 

damage to the natural communities of the GTM 

Research Reserve. GTM Research Reserve 

currently only maintains constructed fire lines 

within the coastal strand adjacent to US Highway 

A1A (Figure 28). Additional fire line construction 

is needed in the coastal strand between units 

that have not been burned for management 

objectives. Prescribed fire in the Beach/Dune 

community will require temporary fire line 

construction with landscape equipment and 

Class A foam for wet line control. The perimeter 

of all other burn units utilizes natural features 

of the landscape or maintained trails that are 

frequently mowed to reduce vegetation height. 

¯ 

Legend 

Fire Breaks 

14 

GTMNERR Burn Zones 

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Miles 

13 

23 

24 

25 

12 

Figure / GTM Research Reserve maintained fire lines. 

11 

1 

2 

3 

11 

26 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 ex 

4

Prescribed Burning Staff Training 

Staff training will follow the guidelines 

established by the Office of Coastal 

and Aquatic Managed Areas 

“Prescribed Burning Procedures” and 

the Florida Interagency Prescribed 

Fire Training requirements for 

the functional positions used for 

prescribed fire operations at GTM 


A. 0 / Potential Surplus Lands 

There are no potential surplus 

lands within this management unit. 

Maintenance of the ecosystem functions 

and ecological value of the property 

requires conservation in perpetuity. 

A. / Budget Summary Table 

The following table is a summary of the 

issues, goals, objectives, strategies 

and performance measures identified 

in Chapter 6. The “Status” column 

identifies the current state (initiated or 

not initiated) of the activity. An “I” in this 

column indicates if this is an activity 

that is already underway. The “Type” 

column indicates if the activity will be 

repeated (typically annually) and the 

“Cost Estimate” column identifies the 

anticipated costs associated with the 

strategy not including infrastructure 

maintenance or personnel. Budget 

categories identified correlate with the 

CAMA Management Program Teams and 

NOAA Funded Programs and translate 

to those used by the Land Management 

Uniform Cost Accounting Council 

(pursuant to 259.037, F.S.) Headings: 

Ecosystem Science, Education and 

Outreach, and Resource Management. 

Please see chapters seven and eight for 

a detailed overview of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s Administration (Personnel 

Cost Estimates) and Facilities Plan 

(Infrastructure Improvement Costs). 


5 -Year Plan 

(Estimated Programming Costs $3,487,200*) 

Public Use 

Watershed 

13% 

Cultural Resources 

Habitat & Species Management 

14% 5% 

15% 

53% 


*Excluding Facilities Costs 

Figure / Estimated programming costs for full implementation. 


5 -Year Plan 

(Estmated Personnel Needs: 38.28 FTE's) 

Public Use 

Watershed 

19% 


Habitat & Species Management 

7% 

5% 

33% 


36% 

Figure 0 / Estimated personnel needs for full implementation.

Table 0 / Strategies: estimated timeline and cost. 

Public Use 

Goal: Ensure user experiences are sustainable and consistent with natural and cultural resource protection for the 

benefit of existing and future generations. 

Objectives/Strategies/Performance Measures Status Type 

I=Initiated, N=Not Initiated, R=Recurring, NR=Not Recurring 

Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

Objective One: Improve trail user satisfaction and sustain habitat quality by anticipating and reducing conflicts 

between trail users and tracking habitat condition. 


1. Summarize carrying capacity research and user survey results 

for integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and 

stewardship programs. 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

2. Monitor change in habitat condition immediately adjacent to the 

trails to detect impacts to natural biodiversity. 


N R 0.075 $15,000 2 

1. Work cooperatively with specific user groups to develop and 

implement a comprehensive trail use plan. 

N NR 0.12 $3,000 2 

2. Encourage and facilitate additional staff and law enforcement 

presence on the trails. 

I R 0.15 $5,000 1 

3. Develop and install signs to direct different user types to the 

most appropriate trails. 


1. Provide part-time seasonal staff to guide and welcome users 

I NR 0.09 $5,000 1 

to enhance the appreciation of the resource and promote 

stewardship. 

N R 0.6 $8,000 3 

2. Design all future signs and brochures using universal symbols. N R 0.03 $500 2 

3. Periodically conduct professionally developed trail user 

satisfaction surveys. 


N R 0.3 $35,000 3 

1. Trends in user satisfaction surveys. N R 0.015 $500 3 

2. Trends in law enforcement citations/incidents. I R 0.015 $250 1 

3. Trends in sensitive species change analyses or the habitats 

immediately adjacent to the trails as compared to control sites. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

4. Trends in user patterns to assess the number of users by trail 

type and to detect changes to the distribution of user types. 

N R 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Two: Improve accessibility to the trail system and improve educational opportunities for user groups with 

special needs. 


1. Maintain and summarize database of visitor use surveys for 

integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s stewardship and 

education program. 


N R 0.3 $500 3 

1. Evaluate existing boardwalk design and, if feasible, retrofit to 

improve amenities for users with special needs. 


1. Assess methods used by other “park” and wildlife management 

N NR 0.09 $12,000 1 

areas to improve interpretation programming for users with special 

needs. 

2. In partnership with other environmental educational 

N N 0.09 $6,000 2 

organizations and agencies, increase educational programming 

for users with special needs. 


N R 0.09 $5,000 4 

1. Trends in use by visitors with special needs. N R 0.015 $250 4 

2. Results of trail user surveys. N R 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Three: Enhance the amenities associated with compatible public use of the dam and surrounding 

estuaries. 


1. Summarize user survey information on amenities for integration 

into the stewardship and education program. 

N R 0.015 $250 4

Public Use 




Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 



1. Design and, if feasible, implement a solution to boat ramp and 

walkway erosion. 

2. Maintain two weekend year-round gate keepers on staff 

to increase staff member presence at the dam, to directly 

N NR 0.09 $25,000 1 

communicate with recreational users of this portion to the 

reserve, to collect use data for performance measures, to ensure 

access is not dependent on gate function, and to alert users of 

parking lot capacity. 


N R 3 $5,000 1 

1. Provide a weekend part-time naturalist to conduct guided marsh 

and trail programs during peak tourist season. 

N R 0.6 $5,000 1 

2. Design and conduct a user survey to prioritize implementation 

of resource compatible amenities and gauge satisfaction. 


N R 0.09 $25,000 4 

1. Trends in user satisfaction surveys. N R 0.015 $250 4 

2. Trends in attendance at events. N R 0.015 $250 4 

3. Trends in user numbers accessing the dam and trails. N R 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Four: Increase public awareness of the GTM Research Reserve and support of its mission. 


1. Develop a GTM Research Reserve Site Profile to summarize 

existing research information and to identify additional research 

needs for students and visiting investigators. 

I NR 0.24 $30,000 1 

2. Provide input into the GTM Research Reserve user guide and 

annual “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop. 


N R 0.045 $500 2 

1. Provide input into the GTM Research Reserve user guide and an 

annual “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop. 


1. Develop a GTM Research Reserve user guide highlighting 

recreational and educational opportunities within the GTM 

N R .01 $250 1 

Research Reserve’s entire boundary (partnering and coordinating 

with all agencies managing natural recreational lands within and 

adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve boundaries). 

2. In partnership with all agencies managing land within the GTM 

Research Reserve’s boundary organize and conduct annual “State 

N N 0.15 $20,000 5 

of the GTM Research Reserve” workshop providing information 

to newspapers and other media to inform the local citizenry of the 

status and trends in species biodiversity, public use, pollution, and 

habitat conservation. 

N R 0.09 $2,500 2 

3. Develop and update a formal marketing plan for the GTM 


N R 0.06 $5,000 3 

4. Correct all traffic signs and maps locating the GTM Research 

Reserve and specific resources. 

N NR 0.03 $5,000 1 

5. Enhance and update all GTM Research Reserve Websites (local, 

State and NERR) as needed. 

I R 0.03 $5,000 1 

6. Organize and implement events to highlight the GTM Research 

Reserve’s 10 year anniversary in 2009. 

N NR 0.12 $15,000 2 

7. Continue to host annual National Estuaries Day and Florida’s 

Birding and Foto Fest. 

8. Work in cooperation with St. Johns County Government 

I R 0.12 $5,000 1 

Television to develop programming that highlights the GTM 

Research Reserve’s resources and issues. 


I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

1. Completed GTM Research Reserve site profile. I NR 0.015 $250 1 

2. “State of the GTM Research Reserve” workshops conducted 

and attendance. 

N R 0.015 $250 2

Public Use 





Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

3. Completed GTM Research Reserve user guide. N NR 0.015 $250 5 

4. Correct information on signs and publications identifying or 

describing the GTM Research Reserve. 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

5. Development and implementation of a formal marketing plan. N NR 0.015 $250 4 

6. Attendance at the 10 year anniversary events, Estuaries Day and 

the Birding and Foto Fest. 

N NR 0.015 $250 3 

7. Hours of government television programming developed. N R 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Five: Enhance issue based information at the beach parking lots highlighting the GTM Research 

Reserve’s mission, current resource information and recreational opportunities. 


1. Summarize beach species monitoring data for integration into 

the parking lot kiosks and beach nature walks. 


1. Explore, and if feasible, conduct native plant dune restoration 

projects in coordination with educational programming. 


1. Review existing signage and design new signs and kiosks 

allowing for dynamic resource updates that provide information on 

Environmental Education Center (EEC) location, resource issues, 

and current events. 

2. Design and conduct user surveys incorporating resource 

specific questions to test user knowledge of beach habitats and 

the mission of the GTM Research Reserve. 


1. Increasing trends in user knowledge of beach habitats and 

the GTM Research Reserve’s mission based on user survey 

responses. 

2. Decreasing trends in unauthorized dune crossovers, litter, and 

nest disturbance. 

Objective Six: Reduce unauthorized activities associated with the trail system. 


1. Monitor and record data regarding the disturbance of sentinel 

habitats and cultural resource sites. 

2. Summarize disturbance monitoring research results for 

integration into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and 



N R 0.03 $500 3 

I R 0.09 $15,000 1 

N R 0.09 $15,000 2 

N R 0.075 $25,000 4 

N R 0.015 $250 5 

0.015 $250 1 

I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

1. Encourage additional law enforcement patrols. I R 0.015 $500 1 

2. Increase staff time in the vicinity of cultural resources and 

sensitive natural resources at peak visitor use times. 

3. Install enforceable signage to educate trail users of the 

significance of the area’s natural and cultural resources and up-todate 

regulations 


1. Conduct annual Cultural and Natural Resources Law 

Enforcement workshops targeting the GTM Research Reserve 

staff, volunteers, law enforcement officials, and trail users. 

2. Develop enforceable signage to educate trail users of the 

significance of the area’s natural and cultural resources and up-todate 

regulations. 

3. When feasible, include a natural and cultural resources section 

to trail etiquette signs. 

4. Submit information to newspaper and other public media on 

the topic of cultural and natural resource stewardship and the trail 

experience. 

N R 0.075 $500 2 

I NR 0.06 $1,000 1 

I R 0.09 $2,000 2 

I R 0.06 $1,000 1 

N R 0.015 $500 2 

N R 0.03 $1,000 3

6 

Public Use 






Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

1. Trends in law enforcement activities and citations. I R 0.015 $250 1 

2. Trends site disturbance. N R 0.015 $250 2 

3. Trends in user behavior patterns within the trail system. N R 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Seven: Reduce the daily accumulation of litter at the dam to quantities that can be collected by 

volunteers and staff to improve public and wildlife safety. 


1. Periodically generate and summarize a dataset that identifies 

the amount and type of litter generated. 


N R 0.03 $500 3 

1. Enforcement of anti-litter laws and habitat protection rules. I R 0.075 $500 1 

2. Increase staff member presence at this high use recreational 

location. 

I R 0.75 $2,000 1 

3. Conduct community/volunteer cleanup days. I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

4. Maintain monofilament recycling stations. C R 0.075 $1,000 1 

5. Install signage using universal symbols to ensure clear 

communication with all user groups. 

6. Install wildlife proof trash bins to prevent raccoons from pulling 

trash out of containers at night. 

7. Empty trash containers more frequently to prevent containers 

from filling. 


1. Design signage using universal symbols to ensure clear 

communication to all user groups. 

2. Staff a part-time naturalist specially trained in rules and common 

violations to be at the dam during peak fishing times. 


N NR 0.075 $500 1 

N NR 0.075 $2,500 1 

C NR 0.075 $500 1 

N R 0.06 $250 3 

N R 0.75 $2,500 2 

1. Decreasing trend in litter generated at the dam. C R 0.015 $250 1 

2. Increasing trend in the amounts of voluntarily collected 

monofilament. 

I R 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Eight: Reduce the number of fishing regulation violations at the dam between sunset and closing. 


1. Obtain law enforcement activity reports and create a database of 

fishing regulation violations for integration into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 


1. Increased ranger and law enforcement presence between 

sunset and closing, and document number of patrols in area for 

performance measuring. 

2. Increase ranger interaction with recreational users between 

sunset and closing to promote compliance of rules. 


1. In cooperation with FWC, conduct fishing clinics that emphasize 

conservation messages targeting users between sunset and 

closing. 


1. Decreasing trend in the number of law enforcement citations 

versus patrols conducted between sunset and closing. 

Objective Nine: Reduce the amount of beach litter and identify the source. 


1. In coordination with community clean-up events and the 

International Coastal Clean-up conduct an assessment of litter by 

type and amount. 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

N R 0.375 $1,000 2 

N R 0.075 $2,000 4 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

N R 0.06 $500 2

Public Use 





Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

2. Summarize ecosystem science strategies results for integration 

into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and stewardship 

program. 

N NR 0.03 $250 2 

3. Maintain and summarize a wildlife injury database. 


I R 0.075 $500 1 

1. Continue to maintain trash containers and monofilament 

recycling stations in beach parking lots. 

2. Provide additional raccoon-proof trash containers on the beach 

C NR 0.075 $500 1 

side of boardwalks to increase likelihood of users to dispose of 

trash properly. 

N NR 0.075 $1,000 1 

3. Increase weekend ranger and volunteer presence on the beach 

to improve compliance and cleanup during patrols. 

N R 0.375 $2,500 2 

4. Establish volunteer ranger positions to patrol beaches in 

morning to pick up trash. 


N R 0.075 $2,000 2 

1. In cooperation with Flagler and St. Johns County support an 

“Adopt a Beach” program. 

I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

2. Host community beach clean-up events. I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

3. Highlight the danger of litter to wildlife in education programs 

with beach kiosks. 

N R 0.015 $500 4 

4. Update parking lot signage to reflect the “leave no trace” theme. 


N R 0.015 $500 4 

1. Reducing trends in the quantity the most damaging and 

preventable beach litter. 

N R 0.015 $250 1 

2. Reducing trends in the number of litter-associated wildlife 

injuries. 

I R 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Ten: Reduce disturbance of nocturnal species and sensitive habitats and improve public safety. 


1. Maintain a database of parking violations to track repeat 

offenders, the numbers of vehicles parked beyond hours of 

operations by parking lot, overnight habitat damage and law 

enforcement citations. 

N R 0.075 $500 1 

2. Summarize data for incorporation into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s stewardship program. 


N R 0.015 $250 1 

1. Issue warning notices for late parkers, issue tickets with fines, 

and as a last resort tow vehicles of repeat violators. 

N R 0.375 $2,500 3 

2. Explore feasibility of installing automatic gates or pass 

dispensers at the entrances to the beach parking lots. 

N NR 0.09 $90,000 1 

3. Install signs at beachside that clearly state that the lot closes at 

sunset and the penalties for violations. 


N NR 0.03 $500 1 

1. Clearly inform the public of the hours of operation and 

consequences of remaining in the lot after hours (e.g., fines). 


N R 0.075 $1,000 1 

1. Trends in the number of cars parked beyond the hours of 

operation and repeat offenders. 

N R 0.015 $250 1 

2. Trends after hours law enforcement citations at the beach and 

parking lots. 

I R 0.015 $250 1 

3. Trends in overnight human disturbance of beach habitats and 

species. 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Eleven: Improve compliance of future docks with Aquatic Preserve rules. 


1. Conduct or facilitate and review scientific literature examining 

the impact of docks on benthic community structure. 

N NR 0.03 $45,000 2

Public Use 





2. Maintain a database of authorized docks and structures in the 

GTM Research Reserve’s Aquatic Preserves’ boundaries. 

3. Integrate information from literature reviews into the GTM 

Research Reserve’s education and stewardship program. 


1. Ensure that Aquatic Preserve Boundaries are known by dock 

permit applicants and reviewers. 

2. Proactively identify projects for meeting public interest 

criteria linked to the GTM Research Reserves management plan 

strategies. 

Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.075 $1,000 3 

N NR 0.015 $500 2 

N R 0.3 $2,500 2 

I R 0.15 $500 1 

3. Wherever practical post the Aquatic Preserve boundary. N NR 0.075 $500 

4. Use GIS to identify and document existing and new dock 

locations relative to the GTM Research Reserve’s Aquatic 

Preserves’ boundaries. 

5. Track authorized dock permits within the aquatic preserves’ 

boundaries. 

6. Determine ownership and post CAMA managed spoil islands 

within the GTM Research Reserve. 

7. Promote the use and distribution of the Aquatic Preserve Rule 

training video. 


1. Conduct periodic Aquatic Preserve Rule training workshops for 

regulatory staff as requested. 

N R 0.075 $1,000 3 

N R 0.075 $250 2 

N NR 0.075 $500 1 

I R 0.075 $1,500 1 

I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

2. Conduct dock builder workshops. I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

3. Encourage comprehensive marine, mooring and dock planning 

that considers long-term cumulative effects. 

4. Provide workshops and technical assistance as requested by 

county and city governments. 


1. Reducing trends in the number of unauthorized structures or 

docks within the Aquatic Preserves. 

2. Trends in the development and implementation of 

comprehensive marina, mooring and dock planning by local 

governments. 

I R 0.075 $250 1 

I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Twelve: Reduce damage to beach habitats and instances of wildlife harassment by unleashed 

domestic animals. 


1. Review and summarize scientific literature to ascertain the critical 

alarm distance for nesting birds for various domestic animal activities. 

2. Summarize research results for integration into the GTM 


3. Maintain and summarize a database of wildlife harassment 

incidents and habitat damage associated with domestic animals. 


1. Encourage consistent enforcement of applicable laws, 

regulations, and ordinances, particularly during least tern and sea 

turtle nesting season. 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

N NR 0.015 $250 3 

N R 0.075 $500 2 

N R 0.075 $500 2 

2. Clearly post regulations at all legal crossover locations. I NR 0.075 $500 1 

3. Create beach patrol volunteer positions and/or staff to regularly 

patrol and monitor the beach on the weekend to promote proper 

beach etiquette. 

Education and Outreach: 

1. Provide up-to-date information on the sensitivity of nesting 

birds to unleashed dogs and cats (beach signage, educational 

programming and outreach) using alarm distance research. 

N R 0.375 $2,500 2 

N R 0.075 $500 4

Public Use 






1. Reducing trends in the number of turtle and least tern nests 

damaged due to domestic animals. 

2. Reducing trends in the number of incidents of wildlife harmed or 

harassed by leashed and unleashed domestic animals. 

Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

I R 0.015 $250 1 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

Total 14.025 $525,000 


Goal: Improve the conservation of natural biodiversity by implementing the principles of adaptive management and 

ecosystem science. 



Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Objective Thirteen: Develop a habitat map for the GTM Research Reserve’s tidal and submerged resources to 

support change analyses. 


1. Conduct or facilitate research to map submerged habitat 

sediment grain size, bathymetry, hard-bottom resources and tidal 

marsh to serve as baseline for future change analyses and habitat 

suitability modeling efforts. 



3. Continue existing and develop new partnerships with other 

agencies and universities to accomplish benthic mapping needs of 

this region. 

4. Assist the Friends of the GTM Reserve and other partners 

in pursuit of grants to help fund and administer positions for 

conducting research and resource management projects. 


1. Provide GIS and GPS support for habitat mapping and ground 

truthing. 

2. Use the results of habitat change analyses to guide and assess 

the GTM Research Reserve’s restoration activities. 


1. Incorporate habitat change information as it becomes available 

into educational programming and outreach materials. 

2. Conduct workshops on tidal and submerged habitat mapping 

and change technologies. 

3. Incorporate the results of the GTM Research Reserve’s habitat 

change assessment into an annual “State of the GTM Research 

Reserve” workshop. 


Plan Year 

Initiated 

I NR 0.12 $75,000 1 

N NR 0.03 $250 2 

N NR 0.06 $500 3 

N R 0.03 $250 3 

I R 0.15 $3,000 1 

N R 0.09 $250 5 

N R 0.03 $500 5 

I R 0.09 $1,500 1 

N R 0.06 $500 2 

1. The percent area mapped by coverage type. I R 0.015 $250 1 

2. An accuracy assessment of data generated from mapping effort. N R 0.24 $2,500 2 

3. Initiation and implementation of mapping projects for trend 

analysis. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

Objective Fourteen: Initiate long-term biological monitoring of estuarine species composition (including nonnative 

species) to support change analyses of the GTM Research Reserve estuarine biodiversity. 


1. Facilitate or conduct projects to initiate long-term biological 

monitoring at multiple trophic levels within selected habitats. 

I R 0.3 $45,000 1

0 






2. Facilitate or conduct creel census or otherwise obtain data 

related to the GTM Research Reserve’s recreational and 

commercial fisheries productivity to follow and report on trends in 

species biodiversity, biomass and abundance. 


Research Reserve’s education and stewardship program 


Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

N R 0.3 $40,000 4 

N R 0.06 $250 2 

1. Provide GIS and GPS support for habitat biological monitoring. I R 0.09 $5,000 1 


1. Incorporate biodiversity information as it becomes available into 

educational programming and outreach materials. 

2. Conduct workshops on GIS modeling to support conservation 

of biodiversity. 

3. Provide training opportunities to staff and volunteers for 

recording, managing and analyzing trends in ecological datasets. 


N R 0.06 $500 4 

N R 0.09 $500 2 

N R 0.3 $2,500 3 

1. Number of long-term monitoring projects initiated. I R 0.015 $250 

2. Number of samples collected or surveys completed. N R 0.03 $250 2 

3. GIS products produced that support habitat change initiatives. I R 0.03 $250 1 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

Objective Fifteen: Reduce the frequency of off-road vehicle damage and restore damaged salt marsh habitat along 

the AIWW. 


1. Facilitate or conduct research and summarize published 

literature on salt marsh resiliency to physical damage. 

2. Summarize information from the GTM Research Reserve 

affiliated research projects and literature reviews for integration into 

the GTM Research Reserve’s education and stewardship program. 

3. Establish a photo-point database of off-road vehicle damage 

and habitat recovery projects by location. 


1. Report any unauthorized vehicle activities harming salt marsh 

habitat to the appropriate regulatory agency. 

2. When feasible, fence, post, and re-vegetate unauthorized 

access points. 

N NR 0.09 $1,000 3 

N R 0.03 $500 3 

N R 0.15 $2,500 2 

I R 0.015 $250 1 

I R 0.09 $15,000 1 

3. Provide GIS support to track damage by unauthorized vehicles. N R 0.015 $500 2 

4. Conduct regular staff or volunteer patrols, including aerial, water, 

and terrestrial surveys, to monitor for vehicle and other damage. 


1. Provide information concerning marsh habitat resiliency through 

displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public 


2. Produce press releases for newspapers about the issue and its 

ecological effects. 

3. Partner with homeowners associations and ATV distributors 

to promote awareness of marsh habitats and their sensitivity to 

vehicle traffic. 


1. Trends in patterns or frequency of salt marsh damage attributed 

to off-road vehicles. 

2. Trends in the number of staff/volunteer patrols of salt marsh 

habitat along the AIWW. 

I R 0.3 $1,000 1 

N R 0.09 $500 4 

N R 0.15 $2,400 2 

N R 0.015 $500 2 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

N R 0.015 $250 3






Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

Objective Sixteen: Identify the current status, biological significance, and source of water column, sediment and 

oyster tissue contaminants to support the tracking of long-term changes in the 

biological significance, source and trends in water column, sediment and oyster tissue contaminants. 


1. In partnership with State Universities pursue National Science 

Foundation’s Long-Term Ecological Reserve network status for the 

GTM Research Reserve to focus additional scientific resources on 

this issue. 

2. Facilitate or conduct modeling and long-term monitoring to 

identify the current status, biological significance, source, and 

trends in water column nutrient concentrations and sediment and 

oyster tissue pesticide, PAH, and heavy metal concentrations. 

3. Support continuation and full implementation of the NERR 

System-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP). 

4. Conduct or facilitate monitoring along suspected pollutant 

gradients affecting the GTM Research Reserve (e.g., Ponte Vedra 

Lake drainage system, headwaters of Pellicer Creek, Tributaries of 

the Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers). 

5. Use SWMP datasets to examine indicators of estuarine health 

such as duration of hypoxia, salinity change, turbidity and nutrient 

concentrations. 

6. Assist the Friends of the Reserve and other partners in pursuit of 

grants to help fund research and monitoring projects. 




1. Provide GIS and GPS support for water quality and contaminant 

monitoring. 

N R 0.12 $2,000 3 

I R 0.24 $150,000 3 

I R 0.6 $250,000 1 

I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

I R 0.15 $110,000 1 

N R 0.075 $500 2 

N R 0.06 $250 2 

N R 0.075 $2,000 2 

2. Develop trained volunteer based monitoring programs. I R 0.09 $2,000 1 

3. Partner with DEP’s TMDL Program, St. Johns River Water 

Management District (SJRWMD), Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services (FDACS), and the Department of Health 

(DOH) to obtain current data on water body classification affecting 

oyster harvesting and water quality. 


1. Incorporate water quality and contaminant information as it 

becomes available into educational programming and outreach 

materials. 

2. Incorporate information regarding pollutant sources, status and 

trends and potential solutions into an annual “State of the GTM 

Research Reserve” workshop. 

3. Initiate a volunteer based (e.g., Lake watch) water quality 

monitoring program for Pellicer Creek and Guana River. 


I R 0.06 $250 2 

I R 0.09 $500 1 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

N R 0.075 $45,000 3 

1. Number of monitoring programs initiated by pollutant type. N R 0.015 $250 3 

2. Number of biomonitoring tools tested, developed and 

implemented. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

3. Continued implementation of the NERR SWMP. I R 0.015 $250 1 

4. Pollutant sources, status and trends are identified and 

prioritized. 

5. Trends in the duration of hypoxia, salinity change, turbidity and 

nutrient concentrations are analyzed and interpreted. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

I R 0.015 $250 1






Objective Seventeen: Reduce mortality of by-catch associated with activities at the dam. 

Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 


1. Conduct periodic surveys to monitor the amount and type of bycatch 

N R 0.15 $250 2 

2. Summarize monitoring results for integration into the GTM 



N R 0.12 $250 2 

1. Identify and obtain local sponsorship for circle hook promotions. N R 0.075 $500 4 

2. Estimate and record by-catch disposal at the dam through 

periodic patrols at the dam and during clean-ups. 

N R 0.075 $250 2 

3. Increase staff/volunteer presence at the dam to promote 

compliance and encourage the release of by-catch. 

I R 0.3 $500 1 

4. Promote catch and release fishing activities. 


N R 0.075 $1,000 4 

1. Provide educational material on the ecological importance of 

by-catch. 

N R 0.075 $250 4 

2. Promote the use of circle hooks in cooperation with FWC. 


N R 0.075 $250 4 

1. Trends in by-catch at the Guana River Dam based on the cleanup 

dataset. 

N R 0.12 $250 3 

Objective Eighteen: Achieve measurable progress toward resolving issues concerning the sustainability of the 

commercial and recreational fisheries at the dam to ensure spillway management supports the sustainability of the 

commercial and recreational fisheries at the dam. 


1. Facilitate or conduct long-term monitoring of the Guana estuary 

fish and shellfish populations and water quality conditions on 

either side of the Guana River Dam especially during spillway 

water releases and up-river overflow events. 

N R 0.3 $50,000 2 

2. Summarize monitoring results for integration into the GTM 


N R 0.075 $500 2 

3. Obtain summary reports, and if feasible raw data, from all past 

fisheries monitoring efforts at the GTM Research Reserve. 


N NR 0.12 $500 4 

1. Encourage enforcement of up-to-date fishing regulations by 

increased patrols of ranger and law enforcement staff. 

I R 0.075 $500 1 

2. Obtain and maintain records of catch statistics of commercial 

species caught at the dam. 


N R 0.075 $250 3 

1. Conduct a workshop on the status and trends of local 

recreational and commercially important fisheries. 

N R 0.09 $2,500 3 

2. Promote catch and release recreational fishing experiences. 


N R 0.01 $250 4 

1. Track long-term changes in catch rates, size, and biomass by 

species. 

N R 0.075 $250 3 

2. Initiation of monitoring programs. N NR 0.075 $250 4 

3. Species and water quality below and above the dam are not 

significantly different or altered by spillway management. 

N R 0.075 $500 3 

Objective Nineteen: Increase activities to explain the GTM Research Reserve’s mission to the general public and to 

pursue partnerships with the offshore recreational 

and commercial fishing community to ensure the GTM Research Reserve’s mission is understood and appreciated. 


1. Facilitate research to map seafloor habitats. N NR 0.12 $45,000 4 

2. Facilitate right whale research projects. N R 0.03 $15,000 1 

3. Facilitate underwater archaeological surveys. I NR 0.09 $45,000 4






4. Summarize research, surveys, and monitoring results for 




1. Confirm the GTM Research Reserve boundaries are accurately 

depicted on offshore navigational charts. 

2. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s staff presence within the 

GTM Research Reserve’s oceanic habitats. 

3. Obtain and maintain records of catch statistics of commercial 

species caught within the GTM Research Reserves oceanic habitat 

for use in the GTM Research Reserve’s education and research 

program. 

Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

N NR 0.015 $500 3 

N R 0.075 $3,500 3 

N R 0.075 $500 4 

4. Provide GIS support for ocean mapping projects. N R 0.12 $2,000 2 

5. Work cooperatively with FWC to report encroachment by shrimp 

boats within legal state limit offshore. 


1. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s involvement with the 

Clean Boater Program and Clean Marina partnership program. 

2. Increase the GTM Research Reserve’s staff presence at offshore 

fishing tournaments, boat shows and similar events. 

3. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s oceanic habitat and 

fisheries resources through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 


N R 0.015 $500 3 

I R 0.09 $2,500 1 

I R 0.09 $3,000 1 

N R 0.09 $15,000 4 

4. Incorporate Ocean Literacy Standards into education programs. N R 0.075 $2,000 2 


1. The location and boundaries of the GTM Research Reserve are 

labeled correctly on navigation charts (including GPS charts). 

2. Trends in attendance at GTM Research Reserve hosted 

functions targeting coastal ocean audiences and contact hours for 

the GTM Research Reserve staff and volunteers at boat shows and 

fishing tournaments. 

N NR 0.015 $250 4 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

3. Oceanic resources are quantified and mapped. N R 0.015 $250 3 

Objective Twenty: Achieve measurable progress towards integrating the GTM Research Reserve’s education, 

research, and stewardship program to more effectively reduce hazards associated 

with past fire suppression, maintain natural fire ecology of pyrogenic habitats and to use fire as a tool to restore the 

natural succession of rare habitats or to support listed species recovery efforts. 


1. Conduct systematic monitoring of species composition (plants 

and animals) within experimental plots with an emphasis on the 

effects of fire on listed species and overall biodiversity. 

2. Conduct and facilitate research to evaluate methods of restoring 

the natural biodiversity and microclimate of coastal strand habitat. 



4. Repeat the gopher tortoise burrow census and conduct change 

analyses to document the distribution and trends in this keystone 

species. 


1. Establish plots within pyrogenic habitats to serve as long-term 

research sites. 

2. Establish mechanical removal versus fire treatment plots within 

the GTM Research Reserve coastal strand habitat. 

3. Conduct other activities as indicated in the GTM Research 

Reserve’s prescribed fire plan. 

I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

I R 0.015 $45,000 1 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

I R 0.09 $2,000 1 

I R 0.075 $2,000 1 

N NR 0.075 $2,000 3 

I R 0.12 $45,000 1





Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 


4. Maintain and procure adequate and reliable equipment and 

ensure staff is adequately trained to implement the GTM Research 

Reserve’s prescribed fire program. 

I R 0.03 $25,000 1 

5. Pursue continuing staff training on current DEP standards for 

prescribe fire implementation 


1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s prescribe fire program 

I R 0.03 $2,500 1 

through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming (Fire in 

Florida’s Ecosystem), and public outreach activities. 

I R 0.015 $300 1 

2. Deliver fire ecology programming to communities in high fire 

hazard areas adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve. 


I R 0.03 $1,000 1 

1. Acres of fire hazard reduced. N R 0.015 $250 3 

2. Acres of habitats restored. N R 0.015 $250 3 

3. Acres of habitats sustained in a prescribed successional 

rotation. 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

4. Sustained natural biodiversity and enhanced listed species 

abundance. 

N R 0.06 $500 3 

Objective Twenty-One: Achieve integration of the GTM Research Reserve’s education, research, and stewardship 

program to more effectively control and, if possible, to eradicate 

Exotic Pest Plant Control Council (EPPC) category I and category II invasive exotic species within CAMA managed 

lands. 


1. Monitor changes in natural biodiversity in sensitive habitats. N R 0.075 $20,000 3 

2. Monitor for new and established exotic species. 

3. Summarize ecosystem science strategy results for integration 

I R 0.075 $15,000 1 

into the GTM Research Reserve’s education and stewardship 

program. 


N R 0.015 $250 2 

1. Proactively respond to new exotic species invasions. I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

2. Control existing invasive species consistent with state and 

federal protocol to minimize non-target damage. 

I R 0.075 $15,000 1 

3. Build and maintain an exotic species GIS database. 


1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s invasive species 

N NR 0.09 $500 3 

control program through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 


2. Deliver invasive species ecology programming to communities 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve and encourage native 

landscaping. 

3. Facilitate and support Florida Friendly Yards and native 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

plant landscaping programs and surrounding watershed 

communities. 


I R 0.075 $10,000 1 

1. Area or number of non-native species removed. N R 0.015 $250 2 

2. Decreasing trend of ecological impact from non-native species 

as measured by loss of sentinel native species. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

3. The GTM Research Reserve’s CAMA managed habitats have 

fewer invasive species than adjacent unmanaged landscapes. 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

Objective Twenty-Two: Reduce illegal dune crossovers and substantially restore impacted dune vegetation by 

limiting beach access to authorized dune crossovers and by restoring dunes damaged by unauthorized access. 


1. Establish photo points to document unauthorized dune 

crossovers and to assess the success of dune restoration projects. 

N NR 0.075 $5,000 3 


Research Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 

N NR 0.015 $250 3







1. Increase staff and law enforcement patrols along State Road 

(SR) A1A. 

2. Fence, re-vegetate, and irrigate all unauthorized dune 

crossovers until restored to a natural or stable condition. 

3. Provide GIS support for dune restoration and monitoring 

projects. 


1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve dune habitat restoration 

program through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 


2. Deliver dune ecology programming to communities adjacent to 

the GTM Research Reserve and users of the beach. 


1. Reducing trends in unauthorized dune crossovers as measured 

by systematic photo point monitoring. 

Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.3 $2,000 2 

I NR 0.12 $3,500 1 

N NR 0.03 $500 3 

N R 0.09 $10,000 3 

I R 0.075 $2,000 2 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

2. Numbers of crossovers restored in dune habitats. N NR 0.015 $250 3 

Objective Twenty-Three: Restore natural hydrologic cycle and fire ecology to the GTM Research Reserve’s 

depression marsh habitats within the CAMA managed area. 


1. Monitor and prepare reports concerning the hydrology of the 

restored freshwater depression marsh habitat. 

2. Monitor and prepare reports relating to biodiversity of the 

restored freshwater depression marsh habitat. 




1. Use prescribed fire and vegetation removal to restore 

depression marsh habitats. 

2. In cooperation with FWC, fill ditches and restore hydrologic 

connectivity of the GTM Research Reserve’s freshwater marsh 

system. 

3. In cooperation with the Anastasia Mosquito Control District, 

ensure wildlife compatible methods of mosquito control are 

incorporated into the restoration plan. 

4. If feasible, reintroduce striped newts and other compatible 

species to the restored depression marsh habitat in accordance 

with approved species recovery plans. 


1. Interpret the GTM Research Reserve’s depression marsh 

restoration program through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 

programming, and public outreach activities to highlight the GTM 

Research Reserve’s resource management efforts. 

2. Deliver depression marsh ecology and restoration education 

programs to communities adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve 

and users of the trail system to promote community restoration 

and stewardship projects. 


1. Results of hydrologic and biological monitoring indicate 

restoration goals were met. 

I R 0.09 $15,000 1 

I R 0.09 $15,000 2 

N R 0.015 $500 3 

I R 0.12 $5,000 1 

I NR 0.12 $65,000 1 

I NR 0.075 $15,000 3 

N NR 0.075 $10,000 5 

N R 0.075 $10,000 2 

N R 0.075 $500 3 

N NR 0.015 $250 3 

2. Acres of depression marsh habitat restored. N NR 0.015 $250 1 

Objective Twenty-Four: Reduce disturbance of sea turtle and least tern nesting habitats by human activities. 


1. Conduct or facilitate research to establish protocols for 

evaluating disturbance. 

N NR 0.075 $75,000 3

6 






Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

2. Establish baseline conditions for this evaluation protocol. I NR 0.075 $25,000 3 

3. Continued sea turtle and least tern monitoring of CAMA 

managed beaches. 

I R 0.12 $5,500 1 




N R 0.015 $500 3 

1. Install walkover and parking lot signage. I NR 0.03 $5,000 2 

2. Develop a GIS database that identifies sea turtle and least tern 

nesting sites. 

I R 0.015 $2,500 1 

3. Install updated beach parking lot kiosks that alert beach goers 

to the current status of nesting turtles and birds. 

N R 0.09 $15,000 3 

4. Train volunteers to assist with field monitoring programs and to 

serve as beach ranger courtesy officers. 


N R 0.03 $2,000 3 

1. Interpret beach ecology through displays, fact-sheets, posters, 

K-12 programming, and public outreach activities. 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

2. Initiate beach nature walks on weekends during peak tourist 

seasons. 

3. In cooperation with local property managers and owners, 

N R 0.3 $2,000 3 

continue to develop and distribute new owner and tenant beach 

stewardship packets. 

N R 0.06 $2,500 4 

4. Design up-to-date seasonal beach and parking lot educational 

kiosks. 

N R 0.12 $15,000 2 

5. Recruit volunteers to assist with field monitoring programs. 


I R 0.075 $2,500 1 

1. Increasing trends in the success of nesting sea turtle and least 

tern populations. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

2. Decreasing trends in the observations of incidents of nest site 

disturbance by humans. 

N R 0.015 $250 3 

Objective Twenty-Five: Reduced wildlife impacts due to artificial lighting to non-detectable levels. 


1. Summarize research information regarding hatchling 

disorientation and beach lighting for integration into the GTM 

Research Reserve’s stewardship and education program. 


N R 0.015 $250 4 

1. Support and facilitate local community based beach lighting 

patrol programs for the beaches directly managed by CAMA. 


N R 0.075 $2,500 4 

1. Provide USFWS light switch stickers and other information in 

new home owner/ renter welcome packets. 


N N 0.03 $2,500 4 

1. Reducing trends in beach lighting violations. N R 0.015 $250 5 

2. Reducing trends in hatchling disorientation due to artificial light. N R 0.015 $250 4 

Objective Twenty-Six: Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning beach processes to guide decisions 

affecting local beach renourishment, inlet management, and stabilization projects. 


1. Summarize existing research information regarding coastal 

processes, inlet management and beach erosion from the GTM 

Research Reserve affiliated workshops for integration into the GTM 


2. Facilitate research to analyze beach profile data from the DEP 

I NR 0.06 $500 1 

Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems to determine erosion 

rates and long-term effects of sea level rise. 

N NR 0.09 $100,000 3 

3. Facilitate research to conduct finer time-scale profile 

measurements of the GTM Research Reserve beaches. 

N NR 0.06 $250,000 4






Est. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 


1. Report any unauthorized shoreline hardening or construction 

activities harming dune habitat to the appropriate regulatory 

agency. 


I R 0.075 $250 1 

1. Interpret beach processes through displays, fact-sheets, 


I R 0.03 $250 2 

2. Deliver a coastal processes and beach erosion workshop to 

communities adjacent to the GTM Research Reserve. 

I R 0.09 $2,500 1 

3. Establish a long-term beach profile database from the existing 

GTM Research Reserve education activities. 

4. Deliver a Matanzas inlet workshop to highlight the rarity of the 

N R 0.075 $500 3 

existence of a non-modified inlet and the dynamic processes that 

affect this unique inlet. 


I R 0.09 $2,500 1 

1. Workshop attendance and CTP attendee survey. I R 0.015 $250 1 

2. Beach erosion response plans are based on the best available 

scientific information. 

I R 0.015 $250 3 

Totals 12.535 $1,857,700 

Watershed 

Goal: Reduce the impact of watershed land use on coastal resources by identifying priority pollutants and 


Objectives/Strategies/Performance Measures Status Type Esti. 

FTE 


Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

Objective Twenty-Seven: Facilitate the development of watershed management plans for the GTM Research 

Reserve’s watersheds that use conservation strategies focused on sustainable ecosystems. 


1. Facilitate or conduct research that identifies watershed flow-ways 

and adequate buffers that protect water quality, link wildlife corridors 

and greenways, and promote sustainable land use practices. 

2. Ensure the GTM Research Reserve’s monitoring dataset is 

N NR 0.12 $100,000 2 

used by local, regional and State agencies to identify shortterm 

variability and long-term trends in nutrient concentrations, 

dissolved oxygen, salinity and as an index of eutrophication. 

3. Summarize scientific information from the GTM Research 

N R 0.06 $1,000 2 

Reserve and partner affiliated activities and research projects 




1. Provide GIS support for education and training programming 

N R 0.06 $250 2 

targeting coastal decision makers to encourage best 

management practices for the GTM Research Reserve’s 

watershed as requested. 

2. Serve as a demonstration site and a clearinghouse for new 

N R 0.15 $1,000 3 

technologies and methods that reduce pesticide and fertilizer use, 

conserve water, encourage renewable energy technologies and 

promote native landscaping. 

3. Partner with St. Johns County and Flagler County to place signs 

N NR 0.15 $25,000 1 

along highways to identify the boundary of the GTM Research 

Reserve watershed and to increase public awareness of the 

connection between landscape and estuary. 

4. Partner with St. Johns County, Flagler County and the SJRWMD 

N NR 0.09 $15,000 1 

to map flow-ways and storm water runoff entry points into the 

estuary. 

N NR 0.15 $75,000 2

Watershed 




FTE 


5. Encourage watershed-scale ecosystem management principles 

are included in the City and County Comprehensive Planning 

process. 

6. Support and encourage land acquisition and less than fee 

simple conservation programs to encourage science-based 

sustainable land use concepts in GTM Research Reserve’s 

watershed. 


1. Deliver a series of workshops focused on proactive watershed- 

scale conservation and development planning to integrate 

planning and research efforts by the SJRWMD, DEP, county 

planners, city planners, universities, major landowners, and 

concerned citizens. 

2. Incorporate the results of these watershed workshops into the 

GTM Research Reserve’s fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, 

and public outreach activities. 

3. Explore, and if feasible, implement NEMO initiatives for the 

communities in the GTM Research Reserve’s watershed. 

4. Deliver periodic workshops on green building techniques, 

green lodging, green marina, renewable energy technologies and 

other State sponsored programs supporting sustainable land use 

practices. 

5. Host a workshop to highlight case studies of less than fee 

simple land acquisition projects including mitigation banking and 

conservation easements. 


1. Positive changes in watershed land use patterns (i.e., Flowways 

and wildlife corridors are identified and conserved). 

2. Ecosystem-science-based watershed management Is included 

in City and County Comprehensive Plans. 

3. The GTM Research Reserve’s monitoring dataset is used by 

local, regional and State agencies to identify short-term variability 

and long-term trends in nutrient concentrations, dissolved oxygen, 

salinity and as an index of eutrophication. 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.375 $7,000 3 

I R 0.375 $7,000 1 

N R 0.12 $1,000 4 

N R 0.06 $500 4 

N R 0.495 $9,000 2 

I R 0.09 $1,000 1 

N R 0.06 $500 3 

N R 0.495 $3,000 5 

N R 0.495 $250 5 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Twenty-Eight: Proactively improve the environmental awareness and stewardship practices of residents 

of the Town of Nocatee so it may serve as a model of a sustainable coastal community. 


1. In cooperation with the Hastings Facility for Sustainability, 

conduct or facilitate research to examine technologies and 

landscaping alternatives to reduce nonpoint source pollutant 

runoff. 

2. Summarize scientific information from the GTM Research 

Reserve affiliated workshops and facilitated research projects 




1. Apply and demonstrate environmentally compatible 

landscaping practices at the EEC and if feasible, within the town of 

Nocatee. 

2. Provide feedback and recommendations for the management 

of the Nocatee preserve. 


1. Facilitate and integrate Florida Native Plant Society and Florida 

Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) concepts into the GTM Research 

Reserve’s EEC and educational programming. 

N NR 0.06 $100,000 3 

N R 0.03 $500 3 

N 0.15 $1,500 1 

N 0.09 $500 1 

I R 0.15 $10,000 2

Watershed 




FTE 


2. Deliver a “sustainable living” workshop to Nocatee residents 

and developers. 

3. Develop teaching modules catered to Nocatee residents’ issues 

and needs as a model for other communities in Northeast Florida. 

4. Export lessons learned in sustainable living to other 

communities. 

5. In partnership with the University of Florida Extension program 

develop a Green-Household and Landscaper Training Certificate 

Program. 


1. Trends in FYN certified yards established or Green-Household 

Certificates awarded in the Town of Nocatee. 

2. Trends in research projects conducted or facilitated with a 

nonpoint source pollutant reduction focus. 

3. Trends in water-use, fertilizer applied and electricity use in 

Nocatee. 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.09 $3,000 2 

I NR 0.24 $4,000 2 

N R 0.09 $500 3 

N R 1.5 $25,000 5 

N R 0.09 $250 3 

N R 0.06 $250 2 

N R 0.09 $250 3 

Objective Twenty-Nine: Increase the GTM Research Reserve education, stewardship and research programming 

within its southern component. 


1. Explore, and if feasible, coordinate a volunteer water quality 

monitoring program for Pellicer Creek linked to the GTM Research 

Reserve’s SWMP activities. 

2. Summarize information from the GTM Research Reserve’s 

southern component affiliated volunteer and SWMP monitoring 

projects for integration into the the GTM Research Reserve’s 

education and stewardship program. 


1. Increase staff presence and stewardship activities in the GTM 

Research Reserve’s southern component. 


1. Increase efforts to interpret coastal habitats through displays, 

fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach 

activities in the southern component of the GTM Research 


N R 0.15 $35,000 3 

N R 0.03 $250 3 

N R 0.15 $10,000 3 

N R 0.75 $10,000 2 

2. Plan workshops using facilities located in Marineland. I R 1 

3. Increase Friends of the Reserve’s presence and activities at the 

south office. 


1. The number of educational programs completed in the 

southern component of the GTM Research Reserve. 

2. The number of workshops delivered at the Marineland facility 

and surrounding area. 

3. The number of research projects initiated in the southern 

component of the GTM Research Reserve. 

4. The number of stewardship activities accomplished in the 

southern component of the GTM Research Reserve. 

N R 0.15 $2,000 2 

N R 0.015 $200 1 

I R 0.015 $200 1 

N R 0.015 $200 3 

N R 0.015 $200 4 

Total 7.29 $450,550

0 


Goal: Enhance understanding, interpretation, and preservation of the GTM Research Reserve’s cultural resources. 



Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

Objective Thirty: Complete Phase I and Phase II archaeological surveys of CAMA managed lands on the Guana 

Peninsula. 


1. Summarize research information regarding cultural resources 



2. Working with partners, pursue grant funding to refine 

N R 0.06 $250 3 

information on known archaeological sites and identify prehistoric 

settlement patterns. 


N NR 0.3 $500 3 

1. Complete Florida Master Site File forms for all known but 

unrecorded sites. 

2. Plan and initiate a program of professionally conducted 

I R 0.12 $250 1 

cultural landscape studies throughout CAMA managed uplands 

incorporating Phase I and if feasible, Phase II archaeological 

surveys. 

N R 0.15 $150,000 3 

3. Provide GIS support for archaeological surveys. 


1. Interpret the results of archaeological surveys through displays, 

I R 0.06 $2,000 1 

fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach 

activities. 


N R 0.12 $15,000 5 

1. Number of cultural sites surveyed using Phase I criteria. N NR 0.015 $200 4 

2. Number of cultural sites surveyed using Phase II criteria. N NR 0.015 $200 5 

3. Initiation of a Cultural Landscape Study for CAMA managed 

lands on the Guana Peninsula. 

N NR 0.015 $200 5 

4. Number of new sites recorded. N NR 0.015 $200 5 

5. Percent of the Guana Peninsula surveyed using Phase I Criteria. N NR 0.03 $200 5 

Objective Thirty-One: Develop the first complete scope of collections for all artifacts collected from CAMA 

managed lands within the GTM Research Reserve. 


1. Identify the location, condition and obtain a digital photo and 

description of all artifacts previously collected by archaeologists. 


1. Assemble a “scope of collections” statement, including a 

I NR 0.06 $2,500 1 

catalog and inventory of all permanent collections held at the GTM 

Research Reserve or elsewhere. 

I NR 0.12 $500 2 

2. Provide GIS support for these archaeological inventories. 


1. Interpret information, photos and collected artifacts through 

I R 0.01 $250 1 

displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public 



N NR 0.03 $2,000 5 

1. Completion of the “scope of collections”. N NR 0.015 $250 2 

2. The number of artifacts cataloged. N NR 0.015 $250 2 

Objective Thirty-Two: Enhance opportunities for the public to experience the significance of the cultural resources 

on CAMA managed lands within the GTM Research Reserve. 


1. Summarize information regarding cultural resources for 




1. Install adaptable interpretive kiosks to provide up-to-date 

I NR 0.06 $500 1 

information on cultural resources for visitors to the GTM Research 


I NR 0.12 $10,000 1


Goal: Enhance understanding, interpretation, and preservation of the GTM Research Reserve’s cultural resources. 



2. Work cooperatively with the Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime 

Program (LAMP) and other partners to explore and, if feasible, 

establish a Florida National Maritime Heritage Designation for the 

GTM Research Reserve and surrounding area. 


1. Seek training for staff and volunteers in cultural resource 

interpretation. 

Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

I NR .01 $500 1 

N R 0.03 $3,000 1 

2. Host Archaeology Symposia at the GTM Research Reserve. I R 0.06 $1,000 1 

3. Develop a program involving docents to provide cultural 

resource information to trail users and EEC visitors. 

4. Develop kiosks, fact sheets and brochures to interpret specific 

cultural artifacts and resource sites such as Shell Bluff, Wright’s 

Landing, Sanchez Mound and other significant sites or artifacts. 

5. Include information on cultural resources and history in the GTM 

Research Reserve K-12 and adult education programming. 


1. Trends in user satisfaction survey responses regarding cultural 

resource interpretation on visitor use surveys. 

2. Increased partnerships with cultural resource based 

organizations, educators and scientists. 

3. Trends in educational opportunities involving the GTM 

Research Reserve’s archaeological resources including media 

coverage and the number of new kiosks, fact sheets, displays and 

brochures. 

N R 0.06 $300 4 

N R 0.09 $10,000 3 

N R 0.03 $250 5 

N R 0.03 $1,000 3 

I R 0.015 $300 1 

N R 0.03 $250 5 

Objective Thirty-Three: Develop an effective approach to maintain and conserve known archaeological sites and 

their associated artifact assemblage from vandalism, erosion and other forms of degradation. 


1. Monitor the condition of sites through the use of photo points. N R 0.15 $1,000 3 

2. Summarize information from surveys and photo points for 




1. Regularly assess the condition of recorded and unrecorded 


N R 0.03 $250 3 

I R 0.15 $1,000 1 

2. Document vandalism and hog disturbance. N R 0.15 $250 2 

3. Discourage vandalism and hog disturbance through fencing 

and other means as deemed necessary. 

4. Seek professional archaeological assessments to document 

and determine feasibility of relocation, re-creation and repair of 

historic structures. 

5. Work cooperatively with the FIND and other partners to 

explore, and if feasible, preserve and interpret historical maritime 

settlements threatened by coastal erosion. 


1. Develop kiosks, fact sheets and brochures to interpret repair, 

relocation, re-creation and rehabilitation of historic structures of 

cultural sites threatened by coastal erosion. 


1. Trends in visible damage through time as documented by photo 

points. 

2. Historic structures and artifacts are preserved, relocated, recreated 

or repaired. 

I R 0.09 $5,000 1 

I NR 0.12 $100,000 1 

N NR 0.12 $180,000 3 

N R 0.06 $10,000 4 

N R 0.03 $250 3 

N R 0.015 $250 2 

TOTAL 2.6 $499,850


Goal: Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning global and meteorological processes and as a 




Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Objective Thirty-Four: Retrofit the GTM Research Reserve’s EEC facilitates to serve as a demonstration site for 

green technologies and to reduce its reliance on nonrenewable energy. 


1. Collect and summarize data regarding energy and cost savings 

associated with various retrofits and integrate this information into 

the education and stewardship program. 


1. Develop an Environmental Systems Management Plan for the 

GTM Research Reserve’s facilities and vehicles. 

2. Maintain on-site demonstration displays for FYN landscapes 

and renewable energy technologies, such as reducing the use 

of maintenance intensive sod for landscaping and replacing the 

areas of sod with native ground cover. 


1. Develop fact sheets and brochures to interpret EEC 

improvements (water conservation, energy demand and 

recycling). 

2. Conduct a workshop addressing green building retrofitting 

technologies. 

3. Develop on-site demonstration displays for FYN landscapes, 

green technologies, sustainable living, and best management 

practices (BMP’s). 

4. Develop a volunteer based committee to take ownership of 

landscaping and building technologies to implement portions 

of the Environmental Management System plan for the EEC 

(i.e., reduce areas to be mowed, decrease impervious surfaces, 

better manage landscape vegetation, research and recommend 

alternative energy sources, reduce energy consumption, and 

increase recycling). 


1. Trends in the GTM Research Reserve’s water and fuel 

consumption, electricity used, and recycling program. 

2. Trends in public requests for green building and renewable 

energy information. 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

I NR 0.30 $500 1 

N R 0.09 $200 4 

I R 0.15 $2,000 1 

N R 0.06 $1,500 4 

N R 0.03 $500 2 

N R 0.06 $100 4 

N R 0.06 $250 3 

N R 0.02 $200 3 

N R 0.01 $200 3 

Objective Thirty-Five: Disseminate up-to-date scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise. 


1. Partner with United States Geological Survey researchers to 

establish Sediment Elevation Table monitoring within the GTM 


2. Facilitate or conduct species range expansion monitoring 

including invasive species. 

3. Partner with NOAA on sea level rise projects for access to the 

most current data sets and projections. 

4. Summarize information from the GTM Research Reserve’s 

workshops and monitoring programs for integration into the GTM 


5. Facilitate or conduct monitoring of long-term sentinel emergent 

marsh habitats associated with the GTM Research Reserve’s 

SWMP activities. 

N R 0.12 $20,000 2 

N R 0.15 $1,000 4 

N R 0.15 $200 4 

N R 0.03 $200 2 

N R 0.12 $20,000 2


Goal: Serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning global and meteorological processes and as a 





1. Based on the current state of knowledge of sea level rise, 

assess potential natural and cultural resource losses and begin a 

long-term planning process. 

2. Provide GIS support to educational and research climate 

change and sea level rise initiatives. 

3. Work cooperatively with local and regional partners to develop 

and implement restoration or acquisition plans to respond to 

marsh habitat migration scenarios associated with predicted sea 

level rise. 


1. Develop fact sheets and brochures to interpret the fate of 

specific cultural and natural resources based on the best available 

information on global climate change and sea level rise. 

2. Include research results for the GTM Research Reserve’s 

sediment elevation tables into the GTM Research Reserve’s 


3. Conduct workshops addressing climate change and sea level 

rise for the local community and Northeast Florida region. 


1. Trends in requests for the GTM Research Reserve to provide 

information regarding sea level rise and climate change. 

2. Trends in sea level rise and climate change research projects 

initiated. 

3. Trends in long-term planning for habitat migration and cultural 

resources preservation. 

A. / Analysis of Contracting Potential 

Table / Potential for outsourcing of services. 

Esti. 

FTE 

Cost 

Estimate 

Plan Year 

Initiated 

N R 0.06 $500 4 

N R 0.15 $5,000 4 

N R 0.12 $100,000 5 

N R 0.06 $1,500 4 

N R 0.02 $250 5 

I R 0.03 $250 2 

N R 0.03 $250 3 

N R 0.03 $250 2 

N R 0.03 $250 2 

TOTAL 1.87 $155,100 

Potential Contracting for Activities on GTM Research Reserve 

Activity Approved Conditional Rejected 

Prescribed burning X 

Minor fire line installation X 

Fire line, fence, and trail maintenance X 

Fence installation X 

Roller chopping X 

Organism inventory and monitoring X 

Listed species mapping and needs assessment X 

Restore/enhance encroachment and ruderal areas X 

Determine extent of hydrologic needs of buffer preserve X 

Restore hydrology via fill and excavation X 

Reduce exotic species X 

Education facilities, programs, and literature development and 

printing 

X 

Education signs development and installation X 

Trail and boardwalk installation X 

Law enforcement and patrol X 

Timber harvesting X

A. / Land Management Review Team Recommendations and Management Response 

Land management review teams were established by Section 259.036, Florida Statutes, to evaluate 

management of conservation, preservation, and recreation lands titled in the name of the Board of 

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The teams determine whether the lands are being 

managed for the purposes for which they were acquired and in accordance with a land management 

plan adopted pursuant to s. 259.032 by the Board of Trustees, acting through the Department of 

Environmental Protection. The managing agency is to consider the findings and recommendations of the 

land management review team in finalizing the required update of its management plan. 

A land management review was conducted for Guana River State Park on December 10, 2003, prior to the 

management lease being transferred from DEP’s Division of Recreation and Parks to the Office of Coastal 

and Aquatic Managed Areas. The land formerly known as Guana River State Park is the only upland 

section of GTM Research Reserve owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund 

and subject to reviews by the Land Management Review Team. Recommendations and findings from the 

Guana River State Park 2003 review were considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into this GTM 

Research Reserve plan update. 

The 2003 Land Management Review Team had two recommendations for the manager: 1) terminate the 

Boy Scout Use Agreement because of the sensitivity of the resources at the site and other management 

reasons, and 2) work to eliminate conflicting vehicle/pedestrian use on the joint FWC entrance road/ 

DRP hiking trail, during hunting season. In light of the fact that no record exists to date of the use of 

this property by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for activities authorized by this Use Agreement, no 

impacts to resources have occurred; and considering that the GTM Research Reserve has cultivated 

mutually beneficial relationships with local BSA troops through community service and Eagle Scout merit 

projects that support the Research Reserve’s mission, the Research Reserve feels that this action should 

be deferred for the current time. Regarding the entrance, in 2005 CAMA recommended that the hunter 

access be relocated to the Roscoe Boulevard entrance. This recommendation was not accepted by FWC 

due to concerns about increased vehicular traffic through the residential area surrounding the Roscoe 

Boulevard entrance that hunter access there would create. Research Reserve staff has posted 15 mph 

speed limit signage along the shared portion of the trail and is actively working with DEP and FWC law 

enforcement to reduce the speed of hunter vehicles on this trail. Signage has also been posted to alert 

pedestrians to the presence of vehicles on this trail during hunting season.

Land Management Review of 

Guana River State Park 

Lease No. 3462 

December 10, 2003 

Prepared by Division of State Lands Staff 

William Howell, OMC Manager 

Joseph Duncan, Administrative Assistant 

For 

Guana River State Park Review Team 

FINAL REPORT 

March 10, 2004 

Land Manager: DRP 

Area: 2,398 acres 

County: St. Johns 

Mngt. Plan Revised: 3/26/1999 

Mngt. Plan Update Due: 3/26/2009

6 

Management Review Team Members 

Agency Team member Team member 

Represented Appointed In attendance 

Division 

of 

Forestry 

Bill 

Korn 

DRP 

Randall 

Hester 

F WCC 

Mike 

Abbott 

Private Land Manager Billy Lipthrott 

DEP 

Jennifer 

Auger 

Conservation 

Org. 

( TNC) 

Walt 

Thomson 

County 

Legislative Intent and Guidance: 

Bruce 

Maguire 

Bill 

Korn 

Randall 

Hester 

Mike 

Abbott 

Billy 

Lipthrott 

Evan 

Process for Implementing Regional Management Review Teams 

McCluny 

Chapter 259.036, F. S. was enacted in 1997 to determine whether conservation, preservation, and recreation lands 

owned by the state Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) are being managed properly. It 

directs the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish land management review teams to evaluate the 

extent to which the existing management plan provides sufficient protection to threatened or endangered species, 

unique or important natural or physical features, geological or hydrological functions, and archaeological features. The 

teams also evaluate the extent to which the land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the 

degree to which actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the adopted 

management plan. If a land management plan has not been adopted, the review shall consider the extent to which the 

land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management 

practices are in compliance with the management policy statement and management prospectus for that property. If 

the land management review team determines that reviewed lands are not being managed for the purposes for which 

they were acquired or in compliance with the adopted land management plan, management policy statement, or 

management prospectus, DEP shall provide the review findings to the Board, and the managing agency must report to 

the Board its reasons for managing the lands as it has. A report of the review findings is given to the managing agency 

under review, the Acquisition and Restoration Council, and to the Division of State Lands. Also, DEP shall report the 

annual review findings of its land management review teams to the Board no later than the second board meeting in 

October of each year. 

Review Site 

The management review of Guana River State Park considered approximately 2,398 acres in St. Johns County that 

are managed by the Division of Recreation and Parks (DRP). The team evaluated the extent to which current 

management actions are sufficient, whether the land is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired, and 

whether actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the management plan. The 

DRP management plan was approved on March 26, 1999, and the management plan update is due on March 26, 

2009.

Review Team Determination 

Is the land being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired? 

After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this 

question. All team members agreed that Guana River State Park is being managed for the 

purpose for which it was acquired. 

Are actual management practices, including public access, in compliance with the management 

plan? 

After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this 

question. All team members agreed that actual management practices, including public access, 

were in compliance with the management plan for this site. 

Exceptional Management Actions 

The following items received high scores on the review team checklist (see attachment 1), which indicates 

that management actions exceeded expectations 

Exceptional management actions: 

• Management and protection of the Beach Dune, Coastal Strand, Shell Mound, Maritime Hammock, 

Depression Marsh, Estuarine Tidal Marsh. 

• Protection and preservation of cultural sites. 

• Excellent protection of animals and plants. 

• Excellent restoration of ditches. 

• Exceptional law enforcement presence. 

• Exceptional effort to acquire inholdings/additions. 

• Exceptional boundary surveys and gates/fencing. 

• Exceptional roads, parking and recreational opportunities. 

• Exceptional environmental education/outreach. 

• Exceptional buildings, equipment, staff and waste disposal program. 

Recommendations and Checklist Findings 

The management plan must include responses to the recommendations and checklist items that are 

identified below. 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations resulted from a discussion and vote of review team members. 

1. The team recommends that the DRP consider pursuing terminating the Use Agreement to the 

Boy Scouts because of the sensitivity of the resources, both natural and cultural, at this site, and 

for other management reasons. (VOTE: 5+, 0-) 

Manager’s Response:

DRP: Agree. We will consider this and take action if determined to be a feasible course of action. However, it 

should be noted that the use agreement does not expire until 2013 and that it would be automatically be renewed 

for an additional 25 years if the North Florida Council is not in default on any terms of the agreement. 

CAMA: Agree. Manager will consult with DEP Office of General Counsel to determine whether any action is 

advisable. 

2. The team recommends that both managing agencies at this site work together to eliminate 

conflicting vehicle/pedestrian use on the joint FWC entrance road/DRP hiking trail, during the 

hunting seasons. (VOTE: 5+, 0-) 

Manager’s Response: 

DRP: Agree. 

CAMA: Agree. Discussions have begun, with the goal of agreeing on a plan of action prior to the opening of the 

new GTMNERR Environmental Education Center, the recreation area enhancements, and new entry fee station 

before the 2004 hunting season. 

Checklist findings 

The following items received low scores on the review team checklist (see Attachment 1), which indicates 

that management actions, in the field, were insufficient (f) or that the issue was not sufficiently addressed 

in the management plan (p). These items need to be further addressed in the management plan update. 

1. Discussion in the management plan of burn frequency needs by community type (p). 


DRP: Agree 

CAMA: Agree 

2. Discussion in the management plan of the need to monitor surface water quality and quantity 

(p). 


DRP: Disagree. We do not see the need to conduct detailed water quality/quantity monitoring at this park – nor 

do we have the staff or funding to undertake such an effort. However, if the need arises to begin monitoring in a 

specific area for a specific reason, we will do so. 

CAMA: Research and monitoring is an integral part of the CAMA and GTMNERR program and will greatly 

increase throughout the reserve. Specific actions in the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, Guana River, and 

Guana Lake are being discussed by GTMNERR in consultation with research partners. 

3. Discussion in the management plan of the need for bathrooms at the beach parking lots (f). 

Manager’s response: 

DRP: Disagree. It is beyond the scope of the review team’s responsibilities to plan facilities or development 

on state lands. 

CAMA: Disagree. Existing portable toilets meet the need. The provision of water supply, on-site sewage 

disposal system, buildings, additional maintenance, security, and public use impacts and financial costs are far 

beyond the scope of the review and the adverse impacts to the natural systems may be determined to be 

unacceptable by GTMNERR. 

4. Discussion in the management plan of the need for more funding (f). 

Manager’s response: 

DRP: Agree. 

CAMA: Agree. Additional funds are much needed and can be put to very beneficial uses. The incorporation of 

this property directly within the GTMNERR program and the increased state support of the Aquatic Preserve 

Program should go a long way to addressing funding and staffing needs.

Team Member’s Comments 

Natural Communities: protection and maintenance: (I.A) 

• Excellent work to eliminate dune walkover trails by more law enforcement and new boardwalk 

walkovers. 

• Land management plan/community mapping needs updating. Suggest mapping of old growth 

pine. 

Listed Species: protection and preservation: (I.B) 

• Hog populations appear to be under control. 

• Burn more frequently. 

• Management plan needs to address population-monitoring trends for striped newts, delete gopher 

tortoise. Survey needs discussion. 

• Good work monitoring sea turtles shore birds and St. Augustine beach mice. 

Cultural Resources: (II.A; II.B) 

• Good effort at identifying and protecting endangered cultural/archeological sites. 

Prescribed Fire (Natural Community Maintenance): (III.A) 

• No burn plan found in comprehensive management plan. 

• Special efforts have been taken to prepare permanent firebreaks and burn in coastal strand. 

Continued effort is needed in depression marsh and flat woods to achieve desired community 

goals. Revise burn frequency for coastal strand. 

Restoration of Disturbed Natural Communities: (III.B) 

• Good job restoring back filling ditches in depression marsh. 

• Excellent efforts to reduce illegal beach access through dunes. 

Non-native Invasive and Problem Species: (III.D) 

• Currently biologist shooting hogs as necessary. Problems with hogs did not appear significant in 

sites visited. 

Hydrologic/Geologic Function: (III.E) 

• There was not a reference to ground water or surface monitoring in the plan. 

• There is a need to update plan with recent trends in coli form levels in Guana River. 

Resource Protection: (III.F) 

• Need to evaluate the benefit of resource protection signage along Tolomato River shoreline. 

There is also a need to address the policy towards public access along this same section of river. 

• Address fence hole problems at WMA boundary. 

Public Access and Education: (IV.H) 

• More trail-based interpretations would be beneficial. Several nice kiosks do exist. Additional 

information on cultural heritage is recommended. 

Management Resources: (V.2.; V.3; V.4) 

• DEP needs to provide more funding for Guana River State Park. 

• Bathrooms are needed at beach parking lots. 

• Funding was inadequate. 

Exceptional Management Actions: 

• Swale and dune restoration. 

• Good archeological protection. More may be needed. 

Areas of Insufficient Management: 

• There is a need for a more specific plan. A significant upgrade is needed and words like may, 

should or it’s recommended should not be used. 

Recommendations for Improving Management of this Site: 

• Improve fire management program. 

• Trap hogs and stop wasting hogs by shooting them and leaving them lay. Hogs should be 

removed from the property, but utilized for food. Consider contracting with a hog trapper. 

Potential PR problem. 

• Identify increased opportunities for public interpretation of cultural/archeological sites. 

• The management plan is vague and needs to be upgraded. The author spent too much time 

discussing what has been done in the past and not enough on what is proposed. There are 

numerous inaccuracies.

00 

Attachment I 

PLAN REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 Average 

Beach Dune I.A.1 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Coastal Strand I.A.2 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Mesic Flatwood I.A.3 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Scrub I. 

A. 

4 1 1 0 0 1 0.60 

Shell mound I.A.5 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Maritime hammock I.A.6 1 1 0 0 1 0.60 

Depression marsh I.A.7 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Estuarine Tidal Marsh I.A.8 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Animals I.B.1 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Plants I. 

B. 

2 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Survey II. 

A 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Protection and Preservation II.B 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Area Being Burned III.A.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Frequency III.A.2 1 0 0 0 1 0.40 

Quality III. 

A. 

3 1 0 1 0 1 0.60 

Depression marsh III.B.1 1 1 1 1.00 

Beach dune III.B.2 1 1 1 1.00 

Animals III.D.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Plants III. 

D. 

2 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Roads/Culverts III.E.1a 1 0 1 0 1 0.60 

Ditches III.E.1b 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Surface water quality III.E.3a 1 0 0 0 1 0.40 

Surface water quantity III.E.3b 1 0 0 0 1 0.40 

Boundary survey III.F.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Gates & fencing III.F.2 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Signage III.F.3 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Law enforcement presence III.F.4 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Expanding Development III.G.1a 1 1 1 0 1 0.80 

Inholdings/additions III.G.2 1 1 1 1.00 

Roads IV. 

1a 

1 0 1 1 1 0.80 

Parking IV.1b 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Recreational opportunities III.F.2 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 

Interpretive facilities and 

signs 

III.F.3 1 1 0 1 0.75 

Environmental 

education/outreach 

III.F.4 1 1 1 1.00 

FIELD REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 Average 

Beach Dune I.A.1 4 4 4 5 4 4.20 

Coastal Strand I.A.2 4 4 4 3 4 3.80 

Mesic Flatwood I.A.3 4 2 3 2 3 2.80 

Scrub I. 

A. 

4 4 3 3 3 3.25 

Shell mound I.A.5 4 3 4 4 4 3.80 

Maritime hammock I.A.6 4 4 4 4 4.00

Depression marsh I.A.7 4 3 4 3 4 3.60 

Estuarine Tidal Marsh I.A.8 4 4 3 3 4 3.60 

Animals I.B.1 4 4 4 3 4 3.80 

Plants I. 

B. 

2 4 3 3 4 3.50 

Survey II. 

A 4 3 3 3 3 3.20 

Protection and Preservation II.B 4 4 4 5 4 4.20 

Area Being Burned III.A.1 2 2 3 3 3 2.60 

Frequency III.A.2 2 2 3 3 2.50 

Quality III. 

A. 

3 4 4 3 3 3.50 

Depression marsh III.B.1 5 4 4 3 4 4.00 

Beach dune III.B.2 5 4 5 5 5 4.80 

Animals III.D.1 4 4 3 4 4 3.80 

Plants III. 

D. 

2 4 3 3 4 4 3.60 

Roads/Culverts III.E.1a 4 4 3 4 4 3.80 

Ditches III.E.1b 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 

Surface water quality III.E.3a 4 3 3 3 3.25 

Surface water quantity III.E.3b 4 3 3 3 3.25 

Boundary survey III.F.1 4 4 3 5 4 4.00 

Gates & fencing III.F.2 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 

Signage III.F.3 4 4 3 3 3 3.40 

Law enforcement presence III.F.4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 

Expanding Development III.G.1a 4 3 3 2 3 3.00 

Inholdings/additions III.G.2 4 4 3 3.67 

Roads IV. 

1a 

4 4 3 4 3 3.60 

Parking IV.1b 

4 3 4 4 3 3.60 

Recreational opportunities III.F.2 5 4 4 5 3 4.20 

Interpretive facilities and 

signs 

III.F.3 

4 3 2 2 2.75 

Environmental 

III.F.4 

education/outreach 

5 4 4 4 5 4.40 

Waste disposal V.1.a 3 3 4 4 3.50 

Sanitary facilities V.1.b 2 2 2 2 2.00 

Buildings V.2.a 4 3 3 4 3.50 

Equipment V.2.b 4 3 3 4 3.50 

Staff V.3 4 3 4 4 3.75 

Funding V.4 2 2 1 3 2.00 

0

0 

A. / Recorded Archaeological Sites 


FMSF # Site Name Property Management Description 

SJ00003 WRIGHT’S LANDING CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric midden 

SJ00004 SANCHEZ MOUND CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric burial mound 

SJ00032 SHELL BLUFF LANDING CAMA - GTMNERR 

Homestead; Prehistoric 

midden 

SJ00033 SOUTH OF WRIGHT’S LANDING CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric midden 

SJ02547 NN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ02548 LITTLE ORANGE CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 


SJ02550 GUANA 1 CAMA - GTMNERR Habitation (prehistoric) 


SJ02552 GUANA 6 CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 


SJ03145 MARSHALL CREEK MIDDEN NORTH CAMA - GTMNERR Habitation (prehistoric) 

SJ03146 MARSHALL CREEK MIDDEN SOUTH CAMA - GTMNERR Habitation (prehistoric) 

SJ03147 CREWS LANDING CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03149 SHANNON ROAD MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03150 GUANA RUINS CAMA - GTMNERR Building remains 

SJ03151 GUANA SHELL MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03175 AIRPORT MIDDEN 1 CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03185 CASA COLA MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03187 SOMBRERO CREEK MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03189 UNRECORDED SITE B CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03205 GUANA NORTH CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03229 SOUTH PARKING LOT CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric midden 

SJ03235 GUANA 2 CAMA - GTMNERR Habitation (prehistoric) 

SJ03236 GUANA 3 CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03237 GUANA 4 CAMA - GTMNERR 

Single artifact or 

isolated find 

SJ03238 GUANA 7 CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03244 GUANA LAKE EAST CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03252 ON THE LINE CAMA - GTMNERR Building remains 

SJ03286 BEACHSIDE SHELL MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03486 THREE MILE CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ04801 TOLOMATO BAR ANCHORAGE SITE CAMA - GTMNERR 

Anchorage middenunderwater 

SJ04872 STOKES CREEK BARGES CAMA - GTMNERR Saltwater submerged site 

SJ04988 VILANO BEACH RUDDER CAMA - GTMNERR Shipwreck artifact 

SJ05322 EVENDEN-WILLIAMS CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ05353 ANCIENT SHIPWRECK ARTIFACT CAMA - GTMNERR Tidal-estuarine 

SJ05398 DOUBLE H MOUND CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ05401 SHIPWRECK TIMBER CAMA - GTMNERR Shipwreck artifact 

SJ05407 BLACK SOOT MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ00037 PALM VALLEY FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric burial mound 

SJ00038 JENKS LANDING FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. 

Artifact scatter-low density 

( < 2 per sq meter) 

SJ00050 BOOTH LANDING FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. 



SJ00072 CAPO CREEK FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ02463 GUANA RIVER FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ02464 OLD SAW MILL FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ02554 GUANA RIVER SHELL RING FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Habitation (prehistoric) 

SJ02555 NN FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric shell midden 


SJ02557 NN FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric shell midden





SJ03242 NORTH FIRE CUT FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Building remains 

SJ03243 COQUINA BLOCK FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Building remains 

SJ03253 MCNEIL POND EAST FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03254 BRITISH DIKES FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. 

Agriculture/Farm 

structure 

SJ03255 SUGAR MILL FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. 

Mill of unspecified 

function 

SJ03485 HUNTER’S FIND FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Prehistoric midden 

SJ04802 COQUINA FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Historic well 

SJ04987 CATTLE DIP FWC - Guana River Wildlife Mgt. Land-terrestrial 

SJ03148 NEDER MIDDEN SJRWMD - Stokes Landing Con Area 

Site for procurement of 

raw materials 

SJ03184 NEDER ISLAND SJRWMD - Stokes Landing Con Area Building remains 



SJ03203 RHOTAN MIDDEN CAMA - Pellicer Creek AP Prehistoric shell midden 

FL00002 MARINELAND MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric midden 

FL00010 HOMESTEAD MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric midden(s) 

FL00026 MALA COMPRA CAMA - GTMNERR 

Agriculture/Farm 

structure 

FL00027 MAKER MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

FL00030 WATERWAY MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

FL00031 PIRATES COVE MIDDEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ00042 WEFF CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ00043 CRESCENT BEACH CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ00046 SUMMER HAVEN CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ00090 POMPANO FARM CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03131 SAND DOLLAR MIDDEN I CAMA - GTMNERR 


raw materials 

SJ03132 SAND DOLLAR MIDDEN II CAMA - GTMNERR 


raw materials 

SJ03157 EVANS CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03167 P V KELLEY CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03168 CRESCENT BEACH 2 CAMA - GTMNERR Land-terrestrial 

SJ03169 RIVERVIEW CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03171 GRIFFIN CAMA - GTMNERR Land-terrestrial 

SJ03173 SOUTH CRESCENT BEACH CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03289 WEARY TUNE CAMA - GTMNERR Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03740 HENANDEZ ISLAND CAMA - GTMNERR Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03756 MOSES CREEK POINT CAMA - GTMNERR Building remains 

SJ00035 

ROOTAN BRANCH COMPLEX & 

MOUNDS 

DEP - Faver-Dykes State Park Building remains 

SJ03133 HEMMING POINT DEP - Faver-Dykes State Park Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03742 FDSP CAMPGROUND NATURE TRAIL DEP - Faver-Dykes State Park 



SJ04990 CLUSTER 1 DEP - Faver-Dykes State Park Building remains 

FL00011 WASHINGTON OAKS MIDDEN DEP- Washington Oaks State Park Prehistoric shell midden 

FL00032 SOUTHERN MIDDEN DEP- Washington Oaks State Park Land-terrestrial 

FL00175 BIG OAK DEP- Washington Oaks State Park Habitation (prehistoric) 

FL00176 SAND DUNE DEP- Washington Oaks State Park Campsite (prehistoric) 

FL00187 BING’S LANDING Flagler County Parks Building remains 

FL00012 WADSWORTH MIDDEN Flagler County-Princess Place Pre. Prehistoric shell midden 

0

0 



FL00145 ROBERSON HOUSE Flagler County-Princess Place Pre. Building remains 

FL00252 MARINELAND HAMMOCK Flagler County - River To Sea Pre. 


raw materials 

SJ00028 FORT MATANZAS MIDDEN NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Prehistoric midden 

SJ00044B 

FT MATANZAS NATIONAL MON. 

(ARCH’L) 

NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Historic fort 

SJ03225 VISITOR CENTER MIDDEN/FOMA 5 NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument 


raw materials 

SJ03231 FOMA-003 NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Historic refuse / Dump 

SJ03232 FOMA-004 NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Historic refuse / Dump 

SJ03233 FOMA-006 NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Homestead 

SJ03241 CUSTOMS HOUSE SITE NPS - Ft Matanzas Nat. Monument Habitation (prehistoric) 

SJ03159 MURAT POINT SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03160 GOVERNMENT ISLAND MIDDEN SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Prehistoric shell midden 

SJ03294 POTSHOT SITE SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Land-terrestrial 

SJ03295 LAST RISE SITE SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Land-terrestrial 

SJ03315 MOSES CREEK CONSERVATION AREA SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Building remains 

SJ03751 BRADDOCKS POINT SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03752 MOSES CREEK BLUFF SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Campsite (prehistoric) 

SJ03753 CROSSROADS SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Land-terrestrial 

SJ03754 MORSES CREEK MOUND SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Land-terrestrial 

SJ03755 BADDOCK POINT 2 SJRWMD - Moses Creek Cons. Area Building remains 

FL00140 FT FULTON SJRWMD - Pellicer Creek Cons. Area Historic refuse / Dump 

FL00146 DUPONT MILL SJRWMD - Pellicer Creek Cons. Area Sugar mill 

FL00149 MURITT’S OLDFIELD AND HOUSE SJRWMD - Pellicer Creek Cons. Area Building remains 

FL00186 OLD KING’S ROAD SJRWMD - Pellicer Creek Cons. Area Land-terrestrial

Appendix B 

Resource Data 

B. / Code of Federal Regulations 

0

0 

B. / State Legal Requirements 

Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC)/DSL Requirements for a 

Conceptual State Lands Management Plan: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/oes/ARC/Mgt%20Plan/SLMP.pdf 

B. / Aquatic Preserve Resolution 

WHEREAS, the State of Florida, by virtue of its sovereignty, is the owner of the beds of all navigable waters, salt and 

fresh, lying within its territory, with certain minor exceptions, and is also the owner of certain other lands derived from 

various sources; and 

WHEREAS, title to these sovereignty and certain other lands has been vested by the Florida Legislature in the State 

of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, to be held, protected and managed for the longrange 

benefit of the people of Florida; and 

WHEREAS, the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as a part of its overall 

management program for Florida’s state-owned lands, does desire to insure the perpetual protection, preservation 

and public enjoyment of certain specific areas of exceptional quality and value by setting aside forever these certain 

areas as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries; and 

WHEREAS, the ad hoc Florida Inter-Agency Advisory Committee on Submerged Land Management has selected 

through careful study and deliberation a number of specific areas of state—owned land having exceptional biological, 

aesthetic and scientific value, and has recommended to the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund that these selected areas be officially recognized and established as the initial elements of a 

statewide system of aquatic preserves for Florida; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund: 

THAT it does hereby establish a statewide system of aquatic preserves as a means of protecting and preserving in 

perpetuity certain specially selected areas of state-owned land: and 

THAT specifically described, individual areas of state-owned land may from time to time be established as aquatic 

preserves and included in the statewide system of aquatic preserves by separate resolution of the State of Florida 

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; and 

THAT the statewide system of aquatic preserves and all individual aquatic preserves established hereunder shall be 

administered and managed, either by the said State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust 

Fund or its designee as may be specifically provided for in the establishing resolution for each individual aquatic 

preserve, in accordance with the following management policies and criteria: 

(1) An aquatic preserve is intended to set aside an exceptional area of state-owned land and its associated waters 

for preservation essentially in their natural or existing condition by reasonable regulation of all human activity which 

might have an effect on the area. 

(2) An aquatic preserve shall include only lands or water bottoms owned by the State of Florida, and such private 

lands or water bottoms as may be specifically authorized for inclusion by appropriate instrument from the owner. 

Any included lands or water bottoms to which a private ownership claim might subsequently be proved shall upon 

adjudication of private ownership be automatically excluded from the preserve, although such exclusion shall not 

preclude the State from attempting to negotiate an arrangement with the owner by which such lands or water bottoms 

might be again included within the preserve. 

(3) No alteration of physical conditions within an aquatic preserve shall be permitted except: (a) minimum dredging 

and spoiling for authorized public navigation projects, or (b) other approved activity designed to enhance the quality 

or utility of the preserve itself. It is inherent in the concept of the aquatic preserve that, other than as contemplated 

above, there be: no dredging and filling to create land, no drilling of oil wells or excavation for shell or minerals, and 

no erection of structures on stilts or otherwise unless associated with authorized activity, within the confines of a 

preserve - to the extent these activities can be lawfully prevented. 

(4) Specifically, there shall be no bulkhead lines set within an aquatic preserve. When the boundary of a preserve is 

intended to be the line of mean high water along a particular shoreline, any bulkhead line subsequently set for that 

shoreline will also be at the line of mean high water. 

(5) All human activity within an aquatic preserve shall be subject to reasonable rules and regulations promulgated and 

enforced by the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and/or any other specifically 

designated managing agency Such rules and regulations shall not interfere unduly with lawful and traditional public 

uses of the area, such as fishing (both sport and commercial), hunting, boating, swimming and the like. 

(6) Neither the establishment nor the management of an aquatic preserve shall infringe upon the lawful and 

traditional riparian rights o private property owners adjacent to a preserve. In furtherance of these rights, reasonable 

improvement for ingress and egress, mosquito control, shore protection and similar purposes may be permitted by

the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and other jurisdictional agencies, after 

review and formal concurrence by any specifically designated managing agency for the preserve in question. 

(7) Other uses of an aquatic preserve, or human activity within a preserve, although not originally contemplated, may 

be permitted by the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal improvement Trust Fund and other jurisdictional 

agencies, but only after a formal finding of compatibility made by the said Trustees on the advice of any specifically 

designated managing agency for the preserve in question. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Trustees for and on behalf of the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund have hereunto subscribed their names and have caused the official seal of said State of 

Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to be hereunto affixed, in the City of Tallahassee, 

Florida, on this the 24th day of November A. D. 1969. 

CLAUDE R. KIRK, JR, Governor TOM ADAMS, Secretary of State 

EARL FAIRCLOTH, Attorney General FRED O. DICKINSON, JR., Comptroller 

BROWARD WILLIAMS, Treasurer FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN, Commissioner of Education 

DOYLE CONNER, Commissioner of Agriculture 

As and Constituting the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund 

B. / Florida Statutes (F.S.) 

Florida Statutes, Chapter 253: State Lands 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteandURL=Ch0253/titl0253.htm 

Florida Statutes, Chapter 258: State Parks and Preserves 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteandURL=Ch0258/ch0258.htm 

Part II (Aquatic Preserves): 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteandURL=Ch0258/part02.htm 

Florida Statutes, Chapter 259: Land Acquisitions for Conservation or Recreation 


Florida Statutes, Chapter 370: Saltwater Fisheries 


Florida Statutes, Chapter 372: Wildlife 


Florida Statutes, Chapter 403: Environmental Control 

(Statute authorizing DEP to create Outstanding Florida Waters is at 403.061(27)) 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteandURL=Ch0403/ch0403.htm 

B. / Florida Administrative Codes (F.A.C.) 

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 18-20: Florida Aquatic Preserves 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/18-20.pdf 

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 18-21: Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management 


Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 18-23: State Buffer Preserves 


Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302: Surface Water Quality Standards 

(Rule designating Outstanding Florida Waters is at 62-302.700) http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62- 

302/62-302.pdf

B.6 / Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) 

Memorandum of Understanding between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Environmental Protection Division of Marine Resources 

and the Division of Recreation and Parks 


and the St. Johns River Water Management District 


and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 


and Flagler County 


and the National Park Service 

Memorandum of Understanding for the citizens of St. Johns and Flager counties

B. / Trustees Lease Agreement 

6

0 

B. / Letter of Compliance of the Management Plan with the Local Government Comprehensive Plan 

This management plan is in compliance with St. Johns and Flagler County’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan is 

intended to be in compliance with the State Lands Management Plan, adopted March 17, 1981 by the Board of 

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and considers balanced public utilization, specific agency statutory 

authority, and other legislative or executive constraints.

Appendix C 

Reference Materials 

C. / Acronym List 

Acronym Definition 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AIWW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

ANERR Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve 

AP Aquatic Preserve 

ARC Acquisition and Restoration Council 

BBA Breeding Bird Atlas 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BSA Boy Scouts of America 

BTIITF Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund 

CAMA Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands 

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

CDMO Centralized Data Management Office 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CICEET Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology 

CR County Road 

CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program 

CSO Citizen Support Organization 

CTP Coastal Training Program 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DHR Division of Historical Resources 

DNR Department of Natural Resources (now DEP) 

DSL Division of State Lands 

EEC Environmental Education Center 

EEL Environmentally Endangered Lands 

EPPC Exotic Pest Plant Council 

ERD Estuarine Reserves Division 

F Fahrenheit 

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 

F.A.W. Florida Administrative Weekly 

FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program 

FDACS Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services 

FDOF Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry 

FEPPC Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 

FGS Florida Geological Survey 

FIND Florida Inland Navigation District 

FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

FLAIR Florida Accounting Information Resource 

FLUCCS Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System 

FNAI Florida Natural Area Inventory 

F.S. Florida Statutes 

FTE Full Time Equivalency 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWRI Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

FYN Florida Yards and Neighborhoods 

GEMS Gulf Ecological Management Sites

Acronym Definition 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GRF Graduate Research Fellowship 

GRMAP Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

GRWMA Guana River Wildlife Management Area 



Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

IAC Interagency Advisory Committee 

IDSI International Dark Skies Initiative 

LAMP Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program 

LATF Land Acquisition Trust Fund 

LBR Legislative Budget Request 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LIFE Learning in Florida’s Environment 

MAG Management Advisory Group 

MHWL Mean High Water Line 

MLWL Mean Low Water Line 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MYA Million Years Ago 

NC Natural Communities 

NCB Northern Coastal Basin 

NEFB Northeast Florida Blueways 

NEMO Non-point Education for Municipal Officials 

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve 

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

NMS National Marine Sanctuary 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS National Ocean Service 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

OFW Outstanding Florida Water 

OPS Other Personnel Services 

PCAP Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve 

ppt Parts Per Thousand 

RBNERR Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 

SCS Soil Conservation Service 

SFA Stewardship Focus Area 

SHCA Strategic Habitat Conservation Area 

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District 

SOC Save Our Coast 

SR State Road 

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

SWMP System-wide Monitoring Program 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

UF University of Florida 

UNH University of New Hampshire 

U.S.C. United States Code 

U.S.D.A. United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United Sates Geological Survey 

VHF Very High Frequency 

WMD Water Management District

C. / References 

Bahr, L. M., & Lanier, W. P. (1981). The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic Coast: A community profile 

(FWS/OBS-81/15). Washington, DC: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 105 pp. 

Baker, H. A. (1988). Erosion at the Shell Bluff Landing site (8SJ32). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Division of Historical 

Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research. 

The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, F.S. § 253.03 (1967). 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2002). Florida statistical abstract. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 

Christophers, R. (1960). Its life history, bionomics and structure: Aedes aegypti (L.) the yellow fever mosquito. London, 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 

The Clean Water Act (as Amended), 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387 (1972). 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as Amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1451-1464 et seq. (West 1982 & Supp. 1988). 

Coile, N. C., & Garland, M. A. (2003). Notes on Florida’s endangered and threatened plants (Botany Contribution No. 

38) (4th ed). Gainesville, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. 

Cooke, C. W. (1945). Geology of Florida (Bulletin 29). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Geological Survey. 339 pp. 

Coultas, C. L., & Hsieh, Y. (Eds.). (1997). Ecology and management of tidal marshes: A model from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 355 pp. 

Cox, J., Kautz, R., MacLaughlin, M., & Gilbert, T. (1994). Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation 

system. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 

Deagan, K. A. (1978). Cultures in transition: Fusion and assimilation among the Eastern Timuca. In J. T. Milanich, & 

S. Proctor (Eds.), Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeast Georgia during the historic period. 

(pp.89-119) Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 

Deagan, K. A. (1981). Downtown survey: the discovery of sixteenth-century St. Augustine in an urban area. American 

Antiquity, 6(3). 

Deagan, K. A. (1987). Artifacts of the Spanish colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 00- 00: Ceramics, glassware 

and beads (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 244 pp. 

Fernald, E. & Patton, D. (Eds.). (1984). Water resources atlas of Florida. Tallahassee: Florida State University, Institute 

of Science and Public Affairs. 

Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975, F.S. § 258.35-258.46 (1975). 

Florida Department of Natural Resources. (1985). Guana River state land conceptual plan. Tallahassee, FL: Division of 

Recreation and Parks. 52 pp. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. (1990). Matrix of habitats and distribution by county of rare/endangered species in 

Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Author. 92 pp. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, & Florida Department of Natural Resources. (1990). Guide to the natural communities 

of Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Authors. 111 pp. 

Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, F.S. § 286.011 (1976). 

Gannon, M. (Ed.). (1996). The new history of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 480 pp. 

Goggin, J. (1952). Space and time perspective in northern St. Johns archeology, Florida (Yale University Publications 

in Anthropology, No. 47). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 147 pp. 

Hann, J. (1990). Summary guide to Spanish Florida missions and vistas, with churches in the sixteenth and 

seventeenth centuries. The Americas, 6(4). 

Hawley, W. A. (1988). The biology of Aedes albopictus. Journal - American Mosquito Control Association, (Suppl), 

1-40. 

Haydt, P. J., & Frazel, Inc. (2003). Northern coastal basin surface water improvement and management plan. (pp. 99). 

St. Johns River Water Management District. 

Hyde, L. W. (1965). Principal aquifers in Florida. (Map Series No. 16). Tallahassee, FL: U.S. Geological Survey in 

cooperation with Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology. 

Ivey, R. (1949). Life history on three mice from the Florida East Coast. Journal of Mammalogy, 0(2), 157-162. 

Johnson, D. W., Hungate, B. A.,, Dijkstra, P., Hymus, G., & Drake, B. (2001). Effects of elevated carbon dioxide on 

soils in a Florida scrub oak ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 501-507. 

Johnson, S. (2002). Life history of the striped newt at a north-central Florida breeding pond. Southeastern Naturalist, 

(4), 381-402. 

Jones, C. P., & Mehta, A. J. (1978). Glossary of inlets: Ponce de Leon Inlet (Report No. 23, p. 57) Gainesville, FL: 

Florida Sea Grant. 

Juliano, S. A. & Lounibos, L. P. (2005) Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: Effects on resident species and human health. 

Ecology Letters (5), 558-574.

Kautz, R. S., & Cox, J. A. (2001). Strategic habitats for biodiversity conservation in Florida. Conservation Biology, 

(1), 55-77. 

Kinnaman, S. L. (2006). Potentiometric surface of the upper Floridan Aquifer in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District and vicinity, Florida (Open-File Report). U.S. Geological Survey. 

Kojima, H., & Hunt, S. D. (1980). Glossary of inlets: Fort George Inlet (Report No. 10, Rep. No. 23). Gainesville, FL: 

Florida Sea Grant. 52 pp. 

Kushlan, J. A. (1990). Freshwater marshes. In R. L. Myers, & J. J. Ewel, (Eds.), Ecosystems of Florida. (pp. 324-363). 

Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press. 

Laegdsgaard, P., & Johnson, C. R. (1995). Fish communities in subtropical mangroves and adjacent habitats: The 

importance of nurseries for commercial species. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 126, 67-81. 

Lounibos L. P., Suárez S., Menéndez Z., Nishimura N., Escher R. L., & O’Connell, S. M. (2002). Does temperature 

affect the outcome of larval competition between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus? Journal of Vector Ecology, 

, 86-95. 

Michener, W., Blood, E. R., Bildstein, K. L., Brinson, M. M., & Gardner, L. R. (1997). Climate change, hurricanes and 

tropical storms, and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications, (3), 770-801. 

Milanich, J. T. (1994). Archaeology of pre-Columbian Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 476 pp. 

Milanich, J. T. (1995). Florida Indians and the invasion from Europe. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 290 pp. 

Milanich, J. T., & Fairbanks, C.H. (1980). Florida archaeology. New York: Academic Press. 290 pp. 

Milanich, J. T., & Proctor, S. (Eds.). (1980). Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia 

during the historic period. The Western Historical Quarterly, (2), 205-206. 

Miller, J. A. (1986). Hydrogeologic framework of the Florida aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, Alabama, 

and South Carolina (Professional Paper 1403-B). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Miller, J. D., & Sigua, G. C. (2003) Status and trends of water quality in the northern Coastal Basins (Draft Technical 

Memorandum). Palatka, FL: St. Johns River Water Management District. 

Miller, J. J. (1991). the fairest, frutefullest and pleasantest of all the world: An environmental history of the northeast part 

of Florida. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

Montague, C.L., & Wiegert, R. G. (1990). Salt marshes. In R. L. Myers, & J. J. Ewel, (Eds.), Ecosystems of Florida (pp. 

481–516). Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 921 (2003). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1982). Local climatological data, annual summary and 

comparative data , Jacksonville, Florida. Asheville, NC: Author. 

Newman, C. (2003). Field Notes: Matanzas State Forest and Faver Dykes State Park addition. Tallahassee, FL: 

Conservation and Recreation Lands, Cultural Resources Management Program, Bureau of Archaeological 

Research. 

Newman, C. L. (1995). Of crabs, rice plantations, and shell middens: The Guana Tract. The Florida Anthropologist 

0(3), 1. 

The Randall Act, Chapter 67-393 Laws of Florida (1967). 

Ross, S. T. (1983, June). A review of surf zone icthyofaunas in the Gulf of Mexico. In N. B. Cofer, & E. W. Cake, Jr. 

(eds.). Proceedings of the northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries and Barrier Islands Research Conference (pp. 25-34). 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service SE Regional Office. 

Scott, T. M. (1992) A geological overview of Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Geological Survey. 

Scott, T. M., & Hajishafie, M. (1980). Top of Floridan aquifer in the St. Johns River Water Management District (Map 

Series Tallahassee, 1980, Issue 95). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Resource Management, Bureau of Geology. 

Seaman, W. (1985). Florida aquatic habitat and fishery resources. Gainesville, FL: Florida Chapter of American 

Fisheries Society. 153 pp. 

Smith, D. (2006). Fort Matanzas National Monument. Retrieved November 21, 2006, from About.com Website: http:// 

usparks.about.com/library/miniplanner/blfortmatanzasnm.htm. 

Snell, L. J. & Anderson, W. (1970). Water resources of Northeast Florida (Report of Investigation No. 54). Tallahassee, 

FL: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology. 77pp. 

Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management, F.A.C. § 18-21 (2007). 

Stanton, W. (2001). Memo on file. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Surface Water Quality Standards, F.A.C. § 62-302 (2006). 

Tanner, W. F. (1960). Florida coastal classification. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 0, 

259-266. 

Taylor Engineering, Inc. (2003). South Amelia Island structure evaluation. Prepared for Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation. Jacksonville, FL: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Population data for census block groups. Washington, DC: Author. 

Vinogradova, E. B. (2000). Mosquitoes Culex pipiens: taxonomy, distribution, ecology, physiology, genetics, applied 

significance and control. Sofia, Bulgaria: Pensoft. 280 pp 

Warburton, K., & Blaber, S. J. M. (1992). Patterns of recruitment and resource use in a shallow water fish assemblage 

in Moreton Bay, Queensland. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 0, 113-126. 

Water Quality Standards, F.A.C. § 17-3 (2007). 

White, A. W. (1970). The geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula (Geological Bulletin No. 51). Tallahassee, FL: 

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology. 

Winsberg, M. D. (2003). Florida weather (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 218 pp.

6 

Appendix D 

Public Involvement 

D. / Citizen Support Organization (CSO) 

The Friends of GTM Reserve, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(3) CSO that was established in 2001 to support and enhance 

environmental education, stewardship of natural and cultural resources, and scientific research of the GTM Research 

Reserve through volunteer initiatives, citizen involvement, and community partnerships. In 2004 this organization 

merged with the Friends of Guana River State Park with the surviving corporation being the Friends of GTM Reserve. 

The Friends group raises funds, provides volunteer services, and promotes environmental awareness of the GTM 

Research Reserve. Becoming a member, making a donation or memorial gift are some of the ways that the public’s 

generosity can benefit the GTM Research Reserve. 

D. / Management Advisory Group 

Management of the GTM Research Reserve is guided by an advisory group. The advisory group is composed 

of citizen and government representatives. The advisory group is designed to provide for broad and varied 

representation among the many involved governmental agencies, commercial interests, special interest groups, 

research and education entities and the general public that became involved during the site nomination process. 

Following GTM Research Reserve designation, DEP established a twenty-one member Management Advisory Group 

(MAG) for advisory input for the long term management. Representation consists of various disciplines that represent 

the principles, goals and mission of the GTM Research Reserve. Essential representatives are those of the local 

citizens, local government, co-management entities, private property owners, scientists and environmental educators. 

The MAG is currently composed of the following representatives: 

• Mayor of the Town of Marineland or his/her Designee 

• A Commissioner of Flagler County or his/her Designee 

• A Commissioner of St. Johns County or his/her Designee 

• A representative of the St. Johns River Water Management District 

• A representative from the DEP Division of Recreation and Parks 

• A representative from the National Park Service 

• A representative from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission 

• A Commissioner of the St. Augustine Port, Waterway & Beach District or His/her Designee 

• A representative of the Division of Forestry 

• A representative of the FIND 

• Ten citizens among whom there is at least one representative each for the science of estuarine ecology, 

environmental education and private property owners. 

• A representative of the GTM Research Reserve citizen support organization, Friends of GTM Reserve. 

DEP requests appointment of the local and state government representatives by the respective agency/office which 

they represent. The private citizens are appointed by the MAG, from nominations solicited from the public at-large. 

Citizens from both St. Johns and Flagler counties will be appointed. 

The MAG charter is maintained by the MAG and includes provisions such as: the length of terms of office of 

MAG members; the establishment of appropriate ad hoc subcommittees to address pertinent subjects such as 

environmental education and scientific research; and all the other procedural functions of the MAG. 

The length of the initial terms of the private citizen advisory group members is three years. These terms are staggered 

to facilitate a smooth transition in the MAG membership for continuity of GTM Research Reserve operations. 

Table / Management advisory group membership. 

GTM Research Reserve Management Advisory Group 

Name Affiliation 

Mark Arnold Jacksonville resident 

Barbara Battelle Palm Coast resident 

Barry Benjamin St. Augustine Port, Waterway, and Beach District 

Christopher Benjamin St. Augustine resident 

Douglas Carter DEP, Division of Recreation and Parks 

Thomas W. Cheyne USDA Natural Resources 

Mark Crosley Asst. Executive Director, Florida Inland Navigation District 

Michael Cullum Director, St. Johns River Water Management District 

Jim Darby Chair, Flagler County Board of County Commissioners

Name Affiliation 

Justin Ellenberger Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 

David Miles City of St. Augustine 

Jim Netherton Mayor, Town of Marineland 

Pierre Pierce St. Augustine resident 

Ben Rich Commissioner, St. Johns Board of County Commissioners 

Richard Rubino Palm Coast resident 

Kelly J. Smith Jacksonville resident 

Frank Usina St. Augustine resident 

Susan Van Hoek St. Augustine resident 

Gordon J. Wilson Superintendent, National Park Service 

D. / Public Meetings, Minutes and Comments 

Four general public meetings and three Management Advisor Group Meetings were held to allow for public comment 

and input into the development of this management plan. All meetings were public and conducted in accordance 

with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law (§286.011, F.S). Draft copies of the plan were also provided to 

all interested parties and were available for downloading from the DEP CAMA website (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

coastal/sites/gtm/plan/ )beginning in August 29, 2007. 

Table / Public meeting dates and locations. 

Public Meeting Schedule 

Meeting Type Date Location F.A.W. 

Management Advisory Group September 13, 2006 Ponte Vedra Beach 32(34) August 25, 2006 

General Public November 1, 2006 Marineland 32(39) September 29, 2006 

General Public November 2, 2006 Ponte Vedra Beach 32(39) September 29, 2006 

Management Advisory Group January 24, 2007 Marineland 32(51) December 22, 2006 

Management Advisory Group May 16, 2007 Ponte Vedra Beach 33(16) April 20, 2007 

General Public September 26, 2007 Marineland 33(33) August 17, 2007 

General Public September 27, 2007 Ponte Vedra Beach 33(33) August 17, 2007 

D. . / First Management Advisory Group Meeting 

Management Advisory Group, September 13, 2006, Ponte Vedra Beach 


Department of Environmental Protection Management Advisory Group 

Meeting Summary / September 13, 2006 

Members Present Members Absent 

Jim Darby, Flagler County Commission Barry Benjamin, Augustine Port Authority 

Jim Darby, Flagler County Commission Mark Crosley, Florida Inland Navigation District 

Justin Ellenberger, Guana River Wildlife Mgmnt. Area Jim Netherton, Town of Marineland 

Pierre Pierce, Friends of the GTMNERR Greg Ihle, Dep. of Agricultural & Consumer Services 

Gordie Wilson, National Park Service Susan Van Hoek, Citizen Appointee 

David Miles, City of St. Augustine Christopher, Citizen Appointee 

Renee Paolini, Recreation and Parks Frank Usina, Citizen Appointee 

Michael Cullum, St. Johns River Water Mgmnt.District 

Ben Rich, St. Johns County Commission 

Karen Taylor, Citizen Appointee 

Richard Rubino, Citizen Appointee 

Kelly Smith, Citizen Appointee 

Anne Wilson, Citizen Appointee 

Barbara Battelle, Citizen Appointee 

Mark Arnold, Citizen Appointee

Others Present 

Ellen O’Brien Kelly Samek 

Brian Paradise Karen Bareford 

Lynne Paradise Stephanie Bailenson 

Tom Cheyne 

Laura Herren 

GTMNERR Staff 

Janet Zimmerman Rick Gleeson 

Carroll Kissam Martin Healey 

Matt Love Forrest Penny 

Item 1: Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 

The meeting of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Advisory Group 

(GTMNERR MAG) was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Chairman Jim Darby. Audience and Board stood for Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

Item 2: Determination of a quorum (7 or more MAG Members). 

GTM Secretary Carroll Kissam took the roll, and then determined there was a quorum as more than the minimum 

number of 7 MAG members was present. 

Item 3: Introduction of MAG Members, others present. 

Introductions were conducted. 

Item 4: Report on MAG Appointments. 

Carroll Kissam gave an update on the two new members of the MAG, Dr. Barbara Battelle and Mr. Mark Arnold. 

There is one more vacant seat to be filled. That vacancy has been submitted to Senator Jim King’s office. There are 

3 members whose terms will end in spring 2007, Anne Wilson, Karen Taylor and Susan Van Hoek. Chairman Darby 

requested that staff contact these members to ask if they would like to continue to serve. 

Item 5: Announcements by Chairman Jim Darby 

No announcements at this time. 

Item 6: Update on Vacant Environmental Administrator (EA) Position 

Stephanie Bailenson announced the resignation of Ken Berk in late August, and Andy Flajole is the Acting Manager 

during the transition. She apologized that individual notice was not sent to the MAG members. She discussed 

the recruitment process, and expects to have an EA soon. She invited input from the MAG members. David Miles 

requested a copy of the EA qualifications. Ben Rich asked about the nature of the resignation, regarding possible 

political pressure. He requested a letter or report from DEP/CAMA regarding this. Stephanie Bailenson assured 

there was none. Chairman Darby asked to establish the agenda for discussion. After discussion among the MAG 

members, a consensus was reached to withdraw the request for a report from DEP to the MAG members. Mike 

Cullum made the motion to send a plaque to Ken Berk in appreciation for his service to the GTMNERR, seconded 

by Mark Arnold. The motion was amended for a framed letter of appreciation. A committee of Mike Cullum and Ben 

Rich was appointed to draft the letter for the MAG group approval. Donations were accepted to pay for the plaque. 

Item 7: Update on Management Planning Process 

Stephanie Bailenson outlined the planning process for the GTMNERR management plan, including input from 

the MAG group, and the general public. Then she introduced staff members Karen Bareford and Kelly Samek. 

Karen Bareford explained the handouts distributed, and then emphasized key dates on the Management Plan 

Development Calendar. There are particular dates that are pertinent to the MAG members. A private firm has been 

contracted to run the public scoping meetings and to facilitate the process. Discussion centered on meeting notice 

and presentations to the local governing bodies, especially Flagler and St. Johns County Commissions. Andy 

Flajole was asked to handle these contacts. Kelly Samek spoke on the legal process regarding the management 

plans, CAMA and aquatic preserves. The management plans should serve as guidance documents for internal 

decision making to manage the resource. Rule making, including penalties and enforcement, is a separate, but 

closely aligned issue. Ellen O’Brien questioned whether this process favored the public or the management. 

Discussion centered on the fact that this new way of doing things that would benefit CAMA and the public within the 

Florida Administrative Code. This public process has very detailed procedures that include workshops and public 

hearings. Stephanie Bailenson noted that the difference between the aquatic preserves and the NERRs is very 

confusing to the public. Dick Rubino inquired if the management plan documents and the rule documents would 

amplify each other. The impacts of the Sunshine Law upon the MAG members were emphasized, discussed, and 

clarified. Then the discussion centered on the management plan, the rule making process, and the relationship 

to the MAG. The procedure for the MAG to take an official position was outlined. The difference between a public

position and a private opinion was discussed. The MAG has a responsibility to the public to oversee various aspects 

of these processes. A means to accommodate public comments at opportune times during MAG meetings was 

discussed. The time length of the various meetings was discussed. There is a need to check on the legislative 

requirements for MAG special meetings or workshops. There was discussion regarding time involved for the various 

meetings. The next MAG meeting was set for January 24, 2007 at 6pm at the Marineland location. 

Item 2A: Approval of Minutes (added) 

Mark Arnold made a motion to add the minutes from the June meeting to the agenda. Ben Rich seconded the 

motion. It was voted on and approved. Dick Rubino made the motion to approve the minutes from June 14, 2006, as 

read. Ben Rich seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. 

Item 6: (continued) Draft Letter for Ken Berk. 

The draft letter was circulated among the members. An amendment to the previous motion was made by Mike 

Cullum to approve the draft letter as presented, seconded by Karen Taylor. Staff was directed to prepare and frame 

the letter. The amendment and main motion carried unanimously. 

Item 8: 259.032(10)(b) Requirements for Land Management Plans 

Marty Healey, GTM Environmental Trainer requested the MAG add a non-voting member for the duration of the 

Management Planning process. Statute requirements include a representative of the Soil and Water Conservation 

District. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, District Conservationist, Tom Cheyne, was introduced. 

He outlined the agency role, the relationship to the planning process, and his background. Ben Rich made the 

motion to include Tom Cheyne as a non-voting member of the MAG, seconded by Karen Taylor. Discussion followed 

on the statutory requirements and temporary status for the duration of the Management Plan development only. 

Justin Ellenberger asked who would represent the local conservation organization. Janet Zimmerman said that 

requirement was met by the Friends of the Reserve group. The motion was carried unanimously. 

Item 9: Reports by MAG agency partners: current projects, issues, needs. 

Justin Ellenberger, Fish and Wildlife Commission, Guana River Wildlife Management Area (GRWMA) - On 

September 30 th there will be the 2 nd Volunteer Workday to coincide with the National Public Lands Day. It also 

coincides with GTMNERR National Estuaries Day. They hope to have an invitation to bid out to begin restoring the 

25 acre MacNeil’s Pond. A 200 acre prescribed burn was conducted this summer, and lightning caused a small fire 

in June. Recreational improvements continue to progress. Hunting season is upcoming. A private citizen donated a 

one acre tract of lakefront property. 

Mike Cullen, SJRWMD – They are doing bacteria sampling, watershed modeling in the Northern Coastal Basin Area, 

salt marsh vegetation coverage, continuing TMDL coordination, shellfish and juvenile fish research and monitoring. 

Renee Paolini, Washington Oaks Gardens State Park, Faver Dykes State Park, Division of Recreation and Parks- 

They are beginning development of Mellon and Jordan Islands by volunteers. This will include signage, nature 

trails, primitive camping, and picnic tables. 

Item 10: MAG citizen member reports on issues, events, or ideas on GTMNERR implementation 

Introduction: 

Ellen O’Brien, Ponte Vedra Riding Club member 

Brian Paradise, Sierra Club 

There were no comments on Item 10. 

Item 11: GTMNERR Activities. 

Janet Zimmerman, Education Coordinator – New staff member, Diana Eissing, Events Planner, to bring in more 

activities to the Center. Community awareness is a constant issue. The Center has become a polling place for 

Elections. Out of 373 voters in the Primary Election, over 100 people visited the Center. School group programs are 

for 4 th , 7 th and High School grades.Volunteer-led programs have been developed for other grades. This doubles 

the number of school groups able to visit the Center. Upcoming activities include an Artist’s reception, for Nancy 

Asbell, Friday September 15 th , hosted by the Friends’Group. September 16 th is the Coastal Cleanup Day, with several 

locations throughout the Reserve beaches, and the beaches of Johns and Flagler counties. National Estuaries Day 

and the one year anniversary of the Center will be celebrated on September 30 th , with similar activities as the Grand 

Opening. 

Marty Healey, Environmental Trainer- Coastal Training Programs (CTP) upcoming include: Dock Workshop with 

NOAA and DEP/NE District, Dock and Pier Workshop for residential docks, and Green Lodging Workshop. There is 

a grant contract with FSU and the Florida Sea Grant program to assess the needs of elected and appointed officials. 

He also has plans to reestablish the CTP Advisory Group. 

Rick Gleeson, Research Coordinator- Reported on the 2 graduate research fellows, one from the University of 

Virginia, studying salt marsh nutrient levels, the other from the University of Massachusetts, studying the overwintering 

patterns of bluefish. At Pellicer Creek the weather station and the water quality site are on satellite 

telemetry. This is part of the NERRS system initiative for nationwide real time access. There were 2 interns this 

summer, Melissa Williams, USF, and Karen Ford, Menendez High School science teacher. Melissa, a Hollings

0 

scholar, presented her project at the NOAA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md. Karen is developing the SWMP data 

into a curriculum for students. Both helped with other activities. Rick Gleeson participated in the Strategic Committee 

for the NERRS program in Silver Spring, reviewing & prioritizing programs for next year’s action plan. The project 

with SJRWMD, studying emergent vegetation in the northern section of the Coastal Basin, is going very well, and 

should wind up by the end of December. The Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association meeting 

was held last week in Jacksonville. Jonathan Brucker, research assistant for 3 years, has left for another position. 

The new research assistant, Katie Petrinec, will start in October. 

Andy Flajole- Facilities/Operations- The EEC will be a polling site for the November Election. Keeping the EEC 

outside areas clean after school group lunches is important 

The largest accomplishment is the on-time, under budget, completion of the dock project. 

It will serve as a Research, Education, Stewardship, and Law Enforcement tool. The project included shoreline 

restoration, and landscaping the surrounding area with native plants. The draft thank you letters for the St. Johns 

County Sheriff’s Office (SJCSO) and the Friends of GTMNERR were presented. The letters were read by Chairman 

Darby. The correction was made for the sheriff’s name. A motion to approve both letters was made by Ben Rich, 

seconded by Gordie Wilson. The motion carried unanimously. 

Forrest Penny – Stewardship- One of the current challenges is dealing with illegal activities on the western 

boundary and marshes of the Reserve. We are working with the SJCSO, and signage will be posted soon. Joe 

Burgess is our new Park Ranger. He has completed the park naturalist program, is a herpetologist, a former DEP 

employee, and brings lots of experience to the program. The Eagle Scouts are working at Shell Bluff Landing 

on a new kiosk and on the boardwalk repair. They will be building panels for the beach walkovers for education 

and interpretation signs. The Australian spotted jellyfish, a new invasive species, was discovered in Guana Lake. 

We are working with the Lighthouse Archaeological Marine Program (LAMP) to conserve the large ship’s rudder 

artifact that washed up last year. 

Item 12: Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (3 minute time limit each speaker) 

Brian Paradise, Sierra Club- He considers Mr. Berk a dedicated public servant; is concerned that he was forced 

to resign, and would like for the MAG to inquire into the circumstances, so that a new administration would not be 

subject to local political pressures. 

Jim Darby – spoke regarding his conversation with Mr. Berk. Mr. Berk made no reference to his resignation other 

than he enjoyed his service, his contribution and his commitment to the Reserve. He enjoyed working with the MAG. 

Ben Rich – concurred with Chairman Darby. He suggested the concerned citizen could contact Mr. Berk directly. 

No other comments at this time. 

Item 13: Adjournment 

The next MAG meeting will be Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 6PM at the Marineland location. 

Motion to adjourn made by Anne Wilson. No objections. 

Meeting was adjourned @ 8:35PM 

Next meeting: January 24, 2007 at the GTM Reserve Marineland office, 9741 Oceanshore Blvd, St Augustine, FL 

32080. Phone 904-461-4054. 

Minutes Approved January 24, 2007 

D. . First Set of General Public Meetings 

General Public, November 1, 2006, Marineland 

General Public, November 2, 2006, Ponte Vedra Beach 

Attendance 

Last First Agency, Organization or Company 1-Nov-06 2-Nov-06 

Abel Christina Times Union, Shorelines x x 

Altman Bonnie x 

Altman J.R. x 

Anderson Carrie x 

Applegate Sandi x 

Baer Crystal x 

Bailey Clark x 

Barnes Bonnie x 

Barry Tom x 

Bass Tracy x


Bentzien Michael x 

Berber Ron x 

Berish Scott FWC x 

Berning Mary x 

Bevan Denise x 

Beville Shelley The Nature Conservancy x 

Brandon Blake x 

Brandvold Steve St. Johns County Horse Council x 

Brockmeyer Ron SJRWMD x 

Browden Carrie x 

Brown Douglas x 

Brown Lynn x 

Cardenas Carlos x 

Cardenas Davron x 

Carter Douglas DEP / Washington Oaks Gardens State Park x 

Carver Margaret x 

Catallo Sandra x 

Coleman Bill x 

Crane D.C. x 

Crawford Paul E. x 

Csencsits Brenda x 

Davis Leile Baruch x 

Day Chuck x 

Deal Cynthia x 

DeSelding E. B. x 

Dodson Tara St. Johns County x 

Doherty- 

Nowaczyk 

Lisa x 

Dunlop Katherine x 

Eastman Scott x 

Ellenberger Justin FWC x 

Essig Dani x 

Fanning Barbara x 

Fitzgerald Kristen x 

Flake Felice x 

Flake Greer x 

Gardner Gayle x 

Gerald Lee x 

Geselbracht Laura The Nature Conservancy x 

Getsinger George NOAA Fisheries x x 

Gleeson Richard DEP / CAMA x 

Godwin David FWC x x 

Green Beverly x 

Gurick Cathy x 

Gyle Maxine x 

Hagenbuch- 

Reese 

Deborah x 

Hamilton Patrick x 

Hankinson Gail x 

Harkens Dotty x 

Harrison Jerry x 

Harrison Linda x 

Harvey Kristina x 

Heckman Cheryl x 

Height Alma x 

Hortman Matthew FWC x


Houbestad Ron x 

Hucks Charles x 

Hucks Margaret 

Jersin M. x 

Kaplan Jennifer x 

Kelley Diana D. x 

Kern Jacqueline x 

Kern Jim x 

Kessler Bob x x 

Larson Tom Sierra Club x 

Lockhart Dan x 

Lockhart Sara x 

Lohman Gordon x 

Lohman JoAnn x 

Mackey Jean x 

Mander Mitchell x 

Maxwell Cliff Florida Park Service x 

McCandless Greg M. x 

McClellan Joanne x 

McDonald Jane x 

McKellop Phillip x 

Militello Elaine x 

Mirabella Kailen x 

Miralia Quilla x 

Miskinis Janet x 

Monty Jamie DEP / CAMA x 

Murphy Pam x 

Netherton Jim Town of Marineland x 

O’Brien Ellen x 

O’Brien Ray x 

O’Brien Ellen Ponte Vedra Riding Club x x 

O’Connor Gil x 

Padgett Triss x 

Palmer Don x 

Paradise Brian x x 

Penny Forrest DEP / CAMA x 

Perreault Terri St. Johns County Horse Council x 

Pierce Pierre Friends of GTMNERR x x 

Pitman Jack x 

Powell Rebecca x 

Reed Diane x 

Rich Andrew NPS x 

Ringeisen Hal x 

Roberts Lindy x 

Robinson Nicole DEP / CAMA x x 

Robinson Carole x 

Rosenstein Traci x 

Royal Cathy x 

Sabol Mark x 

Saffles Charlie x 

Scarlett Victoria x 

Sedlak Kenneth, Jr x 

Sedlak Kenneth, Sr. x 

Segers Beth x 

Sherwood Donna x


Shuler Teddy x 

Simms Judy x 

Slayton A.G. x 

Spires Jennifer x 

Stein Erin x 

Stockton Peyton x 

Sutton Jim Florida Times-Union x 

Szanto Gloria x 

Tancreto Linda x 

Tarbox Lori D. x 

Taylor Karen x 

Taylor Gerri x 

VanMeter Anne CCOW x 

Wainwright Sara x 

Walker Linda x 

Walker Sam x 

Wamser R. x 

Weed Martha V. x 

Wells Mary E x 

Wells Virginia x 

White Susie x 

Whitford Marilyn x 

Wiles David SACA x 

Wilson Gordon National Park Service x 

Wraithmell Julie x 

Zeltvay Paul x 

Formal Public Meetings: 

November 1, 2006, Marineland 

November 2, 2006, Ponte Vedra Beach 

Public Comments: 

Name (optional): Ellen O’Brien 

Date: Nov 1, 2006 

Address: 102 Lands End, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 

Email Address: SANDACREFARM@AOL.COM 

Telephone: 904-273-9325 

1. What do you think are the biggest issues on the Guana River, Pellicer Creek, and GTM Preserves/Reserve? 

Please encourage recreational activities. Please be user-friendly. 

2. How could we best address these issues? 

Employ management that truely feel they are “public servants” 

7. Do you have comments that deal with the recreation, tourism, and public use or access? (PU) 

GTMNER Reserve needs to improve on welcoming various user groups. 

Name (optional): Anonymous 

10. Other comments 

I strongly feel that NERR should increase the existing 40,000 aquatic (submerged lands) + 12,000 acre lands to 

much more. Clearly these numbers are not enough and should be increased to reflect a positive percentage that is 

above the average.


1: What do you think are the biggest issues on the Guana River, Pellicer Creek, and GTM Preserves/Reserve? 

Development pressure is forcing a conflict between recreation and conservation. St. Johns County must use proper 

planning rather than using conservation lands. 


Strengthen your resolve toward preservation and withstand political pressure. 

3. What opportunities should be considered in the new management plans for this aquatic preserve? 

Coordinate research with UF Whitney, SJRWMD and reach out to them. As welll approach local governments at the 

change of administrations. Offer reviews of environmominc impacts. 

4. Do you have comments that deal with the way the natural or cultural resources are being managed? (RM) 

Make environmental integrity first priority if it conflicts with recreation, hold strong! Leave burial mounds alone. Do not 

dig up and study other’s ancestors. Do not encourage over use of the resource. Do not make it a tourist attraction. 

5. Do you have comments that deal with the way the resources are being researched, assessed and 

monitored? (ES) 

Proactively approach polity makers to share research that may guide policy. 

Name (optional): Jack Pitman 

Date: 11/7/06 

Address: 13 Wendy Ln., Palm Coast, FL 32164 

Telephone: 386-446-2511 


Reference principles of management second bullet of handout titled Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. Instead of 

“Encourage sustainable public access” I would recommend “Establish and maintain public access.” This is a much 

stronger commitment to the subject of public access. 


Subject is the Gulf of Mexico: 

Reference Key Responsibilitie’s fifth bullet of interest - out titled Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. Just as 

Massachussetts, New Hampshire and Maine work with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada to preserve the Gulf 

of Maine; it makes sense for the Gulf of Mexico states communicate with Mexico on preservation efforts for the Gulf of 

Mexico - same waters, same gulf. 

Name (optional): Doug Carter 

Date: 11/1/2006 

Address: 6400 N. Oceanshore Blvd., Palm Coast, FL 32137 

Email Address: Douglas.Carter@dep.state.fl.us 

Telephone: 386-446-6780 


CAMA should consider working with Rec + Parks + others to develop a plan for safe boating and appropriate boater 

use of Pellicer Creek. The creek is a State Canoe Trail and heavily used by canoes - speed zones should be considered. 

Input on GTMNERR management - Anonymous 

• 11/2006, from 2 people 

1. Biggest issues on Guana R., Pellicer Ck, & GTM Preserves/Reserve 

Development and recreational use pressures…stormwater runoff & septic tanks, boating, pressure to build or 

supersize marinas, personal docks, rec. fishing, rec. boat landings on undeveloped shorelines, equestrians, 

bicyclists, even hikers. 

Pressure from local government to site facilities or infrastructure on conservation lands. This is entirely inappropriate. 

The public or grants have already paid for this type of land with an understanding and expectation of permanent 

conservation of the natural resource. 


Stick to your subagency’s mission. No rec in that statement. Successfully resist Ballard’s special friends’ pressures. 

Explain what “low impact” really means b/c public obviously unclear on this.

Interpret to user groups what the cost/impact of their use actually is. People are in denial about their recreational 

impacts. From rec fishermen (there’s so many it has an impact) to equestrians calling their activity “low impact” to 

one beach walker allowing his or her dog off leash through a bird colony. 

Develop a rec carrying capacity based on natural resource priorities (not political pressure) . Enforce. Use to 

inform decisions. 


Opportunities for fish and other wildlife to be let alone. It should not be all about human use. GTMNERR’s mission is 

about the natural resources, no? It’s not about pandering to key political supporters or user groups. 

Pressure FWC to support 100% feral hog removal--this destructive, number 1 invasive animal threat to Florida natural 

communities must go. As peninsula of GWMA and uplands portions of GTMNERR are isolated by development, take 

advantage of the upcoming opportunity to exterminate feral hogs in this 10,000 acre natural preserve. You’ll need to 

pressure FWC to support this b/c one of their constituencies, hog hunters, may oppose. 

Reintroduce scrub jays. They were eliminated recently from this site (in the l980s-90s) and the greater Guana 

ecosystem could house a self-supporting population. There’s enough habitat between NERR and WMA to do this. 

This species is on a trajectory to extinction without active intervention. 

6. [sic] Do you have comments that deal with the way natural or cultural resources are managed? (RM) 

Manage for the resource, not for political expediency. 

The natural communities requiring active management (e.g. scrub, marsh, flatwoods) have not been receiving enough. 

Agency leadership needed. Existing site team is under-staffed & under-supported. 

5. [sic] Do you have comments that deal with the way the resources are researched, assessed and monitored? (ES) 

Terrestrial—increase attention. For example, what impacts to natural communities are caused by feral hogs and 

invasive armadillos? (e.g. diseases, nutrient cycling, understory composition/structure, small animal communities.) 

Terrestrial & esturarine & marine--How are you researching or monitoring recreational impacts? If you aren’t, perhaps 

you should. Do not build further rec infrastructure unless you have a solid understanding of the impacts. 

6. [sic] Do you have comments that deal with the way the community is educated and engaged?. (EO) 

Aim for repeat encounters with young children more than high school groups. Inform user groups about their real 

impacts. Work with user group leadership and industry publications to engage user groups about impacts and 

etiquette. 

7. Do you have comments that deal with recreation, tourism, and public use or access? (PU) 

People do not need total access in order to appreciate resources. Hikers, bikers, and equestrians appear agreeable 

to maintaining existing trails w/o expansion, however, recreational use should be secondary to resource preservation. 

Do not develop any more recreational infrastructure. Rec is not the NERR mission. Research into rec impacts could 

improve flexibility here. 

8. Do you have comments that deal with legal, regulatory or authority 

issues? (LR) 

The public’s natural resources are not Bob Ballard’s personal play ground, or treasures to bestow upon his friends or 

political supporters. Career professionals need to stand up to this individual and the system of patronage. Manage for 

the long-term good of the resources, not for political expediency. 

9. Do you have comments that deal with funding or purchases? (capital investments) 

Spend limited financial resources on management, research, and staff to accomplish management and research, 

rather than on infrastructure development. 

10. Other comments. 

Manage for the overall good of the resource, not for any one user group. The recreational user presence at the 

public input meeting could leave an impression that equestrians and bicyclists are a majority. They are actually a 

vocal minority. 

The resource managers must discriminate in favor of the resource, and all impacts of users are NOT equal. The 

notions of “equality” of access and “discrimination” are not appropriate here. 

About horse waste: Science may show that you can eat horse dung and drink horse urine, but I’d rather not. What 

effect do these substances have on a person if introduced via a scratch or a cut? What effect do they have on the 

environment (e.g. nutrient input, weed introduction)? What about tetanus? I don’t want to swim in water with horse 

dung floating in it. 

It is a reasonable expectation not to have to walk in or look at people’s pets’ poop when recreating on a public 

beach or trail.

6 

Comments on behalf of Audubon of Florida: 

1) In addition to water quality research, it is important to us that this and all NERR’s are on the cutting edge of 

research measuring the progress/effects of climate change and sea level rise, and are including this work in their 

education and outreach efforts. 

2) Please maintain a vigilant feral hog eradication program on the NERR and in the AP’s. While the adjacent WMA, 

where hog populations are maintained for sustainable hunts, may make this more challenging, it also increases the 

importance of vigilant exotics management. 

3) Equestrian access to the beach presents concerns for the resource—including threats to beach-nesting 

birds and turtles—as well as a significant user conflict. By allowing horse riding on the beach, you would not 

simply be adding another use to the NERR—you would in fact be allowing beach riding at the expense of other 

beachgoers who would be discouraged by the presence of horse droppings in areas where families swim 

and recreate barefoot. While it is unfortunate that equestrian opportunities are disappearing elsewhere in the 

county, the resource and visitor experience at GTMNERR should not have to bear the burden of absorbing that 

recreational use. 

4) Please continue to aggressively pursue the acquisition of strategic inholdings and connections between 

conservation areas, as identified in the NE Florida Blueways Florida Forever Project 

5) As mentioned by the Friends of GTMNERR at the public meeting on Nov. 3, we would also be interested in seeing 

the quantitative results and resource managers’ evaluation of the pilot study that allowed equestrian access to 

GTMNERR this past year. 

Thank you for considering our suggestions. 

Best wishes, 

Julie 

Julie Brashears Wraithmell 

Audubon of Florida 

2507 Callaway Rds. Suite 103 

Tallahassee, FL 32303 

Ph: 850/224-7546, fax: 850/224.6056 

Comments of Northeast Florida Group of Sierra Club on GTM Management Plan 

The Northeast Florida Sierra Club is a proud supporter of the protection of our coastal resources and the diversity of 

wildlife found on our north Florida coasts. Our membership of 1800 families includes members in St. Johns as well as 

Duval and Clay counties. We would like to present a few comments on the management plan updates as well as user 

issues at GTMNERR (Guana). 

Firstly, the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan is out of date and much work will have to 

be done to bring it up to date. The habitat and wildlife species data is out of date and the information on the 

management areas needs updating. Updating of current county regulations needs to be added. There is also a 

need to be consistent with the NERR management plans. There should be more use of GIS technology to delineate 

areas of environmental sensitivity and wildlife use. A better description of the importance of the Aquatic Preserve/ 

NERR to the economic well being of the region and protection from natural disasters must be made clear. The local 

Friends groups are not given enough guidance and resources to deliver the message of resource protection to the 

community and local leaders. 

Sierra Club’s greatest concerns regarding the management issues are: 

1. The lack of scientific data relating to the effects of human activities on the estuarine processes and: 

2. The effects of actions taken by public officials, regulators, and the general public on Guana. 

We do not understand why the protection of Guana is a matter of greater concern for citizens and environmental 

groups than the designated conservators of Guana. 

During the last decade, this last remaining natural area along our north Florida coastline has seen continuous 

struggles over land use alternations and damage to the Guana’s habitat and biodiversity. How is it that misinformed 

and imprudent groups constantly challenge the protection and ecological integrity of this great area? We expect our 

state and federal resource managers to develop a better appreciation of the importance of Guana to the community 

and to stand up for its protection. Our monetary support as well as political support is for the environmental benefits 

of Guana to be enhanced and not degraded over the decades. 

The latest demand for equestrian use which would impact the upland scrub, dunes and beaches of Guana is another 

in a string of user demands which will strain these resources and cause damage to the Guana. We oppose any 

removal of vegetation to facilitate a new trail for horses or parking for trailers; we oppose the removal of dunes even 

to widen an existing access to facilitate horse crossovers; and we oppose the effects of horse riding on federally and 

state listed wildlife such as nesting shorebirds, sea turtles, Anastasia beach mice and upland species such as gopher 

tortoises all of which are found at Guana and exist there in a protected status.

Sierra Club is concerned about the impacts upon other users such as fishermen, beach swimmers and pedestrians 

of mingling with horse riders. We believe that the impacts of horses on the beaches and beach users will be no 

different than that of ORVs on the beaches. Many other public lands are currently open to horse riders in this area. 

Miles of residential and commercial beach can be available for horse riding. Additional impacts to Guana should 

not be allowed. 

The Sierra Club also recommends that the equestrians that use Guana should equip their horses with tail 

bags or diapers to avoid the deposit of horse excrement on beaches, and on paths, which interferes with the 

enjoyment of the beaches and paths by fishermen, hikers, bicyclists, bird watchers, and other persons who wish 

to commune with nature without stepping on, or riding through, or swimming through, or fishing through, horse 

excrement. Surely if we expect, dog owners to pick up and dispose of dog excrement we should expect no less 

of equestrians. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

November 1, 2006 

Brian Paradise on behalf of Conservation Committee of Northeast 

Florida Group of Sierra Club 

Name: Laura Geselbracht, The Nature Conservancy 

Date: November 9, 2006 

Address: 2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., #1 101, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 

Email: Igeselbrachttnc.org 

Telephone: 954-564-6144 

1. What do you think are the biggest issues on the Guana River, Pellicer Creek and GTM Preserves/Reserve? 

I think that some of the biggest issues for the above preserves/reserve are having: 

• A detailed inventory (preferably geospatial) of the resources present and quantitative information on their 

current status (size, condition and connectivity to the larger system); 

• An assessment of threats to site resources (both at the site and coming from surrounding areas) that identifies, 

prioritizes and quantifies these threats; 

• An inventory of actions that will be taken to abate the highest rated threats.; and 

• A monitoring program in place to determine how successful the threat abatement actions have been regarding 

resource protection/restoration. 

Without the above information it would be very difficult to ensure the continued health of natural resources at the 

site and to justify certain management activities that may be required to enable site resources to persist in a healthy 

state. The above noted inventory of site resources should be viewed not only at the site level, but at regional, state 

and national levels in terms of their contribution to the regional, state and national “bank” of these resources. 

Public use activities occurring at the sites may be irreparably harming site resources. Public use activities should be 

managed to ensure the long-term health and integrity of site resources. Public use should not be construed to mean 

that the public may use the resource until it is used up and there is no more left for future generations to enjoy. 


The sites appear to require more funding to accomplish the basics noted above, as well as an appropriate level of 

visitor management. 

For questions 3.5, see my answer to question #1 above. 

6. Do you have comments that deal with the way the community is educated and engaged? Yes, it may be useful to 

provide individuals interested in pursuing activities at the site that are not compatible with the long-term health and 

persistence of site resources with some ideas of how they may accomplish their objectives at more compatible sites. 

For example, perhaps they could work with their local governments to purchase lands suitable for their activities or 

encourage private investment in suitable recreational facilities. 

7. See my comments to question #6 above. 

8. Do you have comments that deal with legal, regulatory or authority issues? Yes, site managers and other 

appropriate officials must have the authority to manage the sites as provided in site management plans, state laws 

and regulations. If for any reason, there are deficiencies in the ability to protect site resources as identified in site 

management plans, adjustments should be made to ensure adequate protection of these resources for the use and 

enjoyment of future generations. 

9. No comments. 

10. No additional comments. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Name: John Mampe 

I would like the water monitoring and expanded to areas adjacent to the various critical preserves, especially those 

that are relatively untouched and potentially candidates for future incorporation into public preservation. High on my 

list would be the Longs Creek area south of Pellicer Creek. It is the buffer between the northern area of Palm Coast 

and the extensive wetlands to the north, and is one of the favorite fishing areas in Palm Coast area. 

Name: Anonymous 

Need more leadership. Existing site team is under staffed + under supported. Spend more $ on management 

research, + staff rather than an infrastructure dev. 

Need to monitor recreational impacts + determine the impacts to resources 

Recreation use should be secondary to reserve preservation. 

Need scientific data relating to the effects of human activities on the diff. habitats at GTMNERR. 

Need to have a detailed inventory of the existing resources + quantitative data on their status. 

Name: Carole A. McCleery 

We live at the Southern end of the NERR, near Pellicer Creek and the 

Pellicer Flats. We are quite concerned about the potential for development along the west side of the waterway and 

the potential for both runoff and dredging of water access. 

The Ginn Corporation owns property on both sides of the Intercoastal and has discussed with their homeowners 

a possible development on the West side that would involve, among other things, a water taxi. Such a taxi could 

only reach their lands if dredging takes place. As well, Flagler County has a history of treating submerged lands as 

tradeable development rights. That is, if one owns 80 acres of land that would presumably support, say, 240 units, 

but 40 acres are submerged and unbuildable, the developer gets to build the 240 units on the remaining 40 acres. 

Clearly, this enables rather dense development that would drain pollutants into the submerged, largely estuarine, 

Pellicer Flats. 

We would really like to see NERR take a more assertive position regarding development around the estuary. 

Name: Maia McGuire 

I have a couple of questions I’d like to see addressed in the management plan: 

1. I understand that a parcel of land within the former Guana River State Park (now part of GTMNERR) was donated 

to the state with the condition that the land be available for use by boy and girl scout troops. I would like to know what 

options there are for scout troops to backpack/primitive camp on this land. 

2. The management plan needs to address the trails use--recently the trails within the GTMNERR (Guana) were 

changed so horses are allowed on weekends (previously they were only allowed on the trails during the week). As a 

mountain biker who has enjoyed cycling on the trails on the weekends, I will not be using the park for this purpose if 

horses will be on the trails at the same time. I’ll go to Hanna Park instead. 

Thanks. 

Name: Thomas Marin, 

Orlando, Fl, 

Attn: Aquatic Preserves: 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER, especially on the 

beach. 

I am a Florida resident. I am a taxpayer and I VOTE! 

Name: VICTORIA BRILL 

FLORIDA RESIDENT 

I AM WRITING IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING OUR BEACHES OPEN TO HORSES. AS A TAXPAYER IN OUR STATE, IT 

SADDENS ME TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THIS. THE HORSES AND RIDERS DO NO HARM TO THE BEACHES IN 

ANY WAY AND ARE DEDICATED IN PRESERVING OUR BEACHES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO BE ABLE TO 

EXPERIENCE THE JOY AND FREEDOM OF RIDING OUR GRAND BEACHES. 

SINCERELY

Name: Denise Sistarelli 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of Horseback riding in the GTMNER, especially on 

the beach. 

If you remember the Sierra Club tried to stop horses in the National Forest and our government said NO to them, 

please be as strong as our other leaders and tell them NO again. 

Thanks 

Name: Dorothy Pawluczyk 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida & registered voter at every election, I totally support the continuation of 

horseback riding in the GTMNER, especially on the beach. There is no reason, neither environmentally nor due to 

any destructive behavior, for this to stop. This is another attempt to stop access to beaches. It seems to me we should 

focus more on the continuous building along our coasts which is the most destructive as proven in the repeated 

attempts to rebuild our shores. Please do not allow this to happen. Thank you, 

Name: Michele Yergin 

Senior Professional Healthcare Consultant 

Pfizer Pharmaceuticals 

(800) 838-1838 Voice Mail 80186 

(904) 887-2154 Cell 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This e-mail is to inform you that we are in favor of horseback riding at Mickler’s Landing and Guana River State Park. 

Also Signed: 

Sam Walker Sr. 333-2585 

Sam Walker Jr 744-2406 

Dr. Bruce Yergin 396-0300 

Cathy Yergin 

Name: Leroy and Priscilla DeChaine 

1035 Front St., Welaka, FL 3219 

(386) 467-3779 

While I respect the integrity of the Sierra Club, I cannot possibly imagine why they would consider riding horses 

on our Florida beaches (or any beaches) can be a potential threat to the environment. Horses are vegetarians, 

and any excrement that may be left on the beach, which would contain grain products, would be consumed by 

the aquatic life. I know we cannot say that about humans, or the occasional dog that may not have been picked 

up after. 

As a native Floridian, and a tax payer, I ask you to consider carefully what you are proposing, educate yourselves, 

and realize that “horse people” care very much for our environment and the healthy status of our beaches. We 

respect the nesting areas of the turtles, and are most willing to lend our expertise in caring for our beaches. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Kathleen Howell & Shado Riders, 

Putnam County, FL 

Please vote for keeping horses on the beaches for all equestrians. It is a privilege we horse enthusiasts enjoy so 

much. Thank you, 

Name: Brett Duncan 

As a taxpayer of the state of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER reserve (THE 

GUANA) Especially the beach Thank you!! 

Name: Penny Wroblewski 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER Reserve (The 

Guana), especially the Beach. Please don’t take away our way of rest and relaxation by enjoying our beautiful state by 

doing what we love the most!

0 

Name: Susan L. Salzman 

(904) 289-7755 


beach. 

When we went riding on the beach at Micklers Landing we received nothing but positive attention. Little kids 

faces lit up while watching us ride by. While walking our horses next to the boardwalk, people asked could 

they pet the horses. We obliged. The looks on their faces were priceless. A couple had just gotten married 

and were having their reception, they took the time to come out and pet the horses and even had a picture 

taken with the groom on one of our horses. Families walking on the beach watched us with a smile and 

complimented our horses. 

We are careful to stay on the outer edge of the crowded area at the end of the boardwalk until we get clear of people 

then move down near the waters edge. We are also extremely careful not to enter the areas where there may 

be turtle eggs. We take time to either remove or cover any “droppings” on the beach. I bet there are a lot of 

dog owners who don’t do this. I cant say EVERY horse owner is this responsible but neither are the sunbathers/ 

beachgoers when it comes to littering. I can say that I havent seen riders leave droppings but I can say that I have 

seen where people have littered. 

We are very sensitive not to interfere with enjoyment of the sunbathers and beachgoers. If anything, I bet most were 

excited to see the elegant beauty of a horse on the beach. And, I bet the kids had exciting stories to tell their family and 

friends when they got home. 

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE AWAY OUR PRIVILEGE OF BEING ABLE TO RIDE ON THE BEACH. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Anna Malone 

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:18 PM 


beach. Please consider this issue closely and preserve our right to ride our horses on the beach. 

Name: Gail Boone 


beach. Thank You 

Name: Jeanne Mahaffey and Clipper (my horse) 


Close Guanna State Park and Mickler’s landing to horseback riding? Please say no to the Sierra Club..no one 

ever tells this group no enough. Horseback riders have been enjoying these locales long before the Sierra Club 

ever existed and the horses do not harm the flora or fauna there. Plenty of other states have horseback riding 

on the beach, so why can’t we? Believe it or not horseback riding is very big in Florida and is a multi-million 

dollar business. Don’t you all want to keep this lucrative business coming? By the way, I don’t remember that the 

Sierra Club produces any business. Nope, can’t think of a thing they do that actually produces money other then 

membership charges. Keep the parks open to all as I can assure you that horses do less damage than boats and 

other personal water craft and dirt bikes. If the Sierra Club wanted to go after someone, why don’t they go after the 

golf courses, one of the major polluters of our aquifers. Oh, that’s right, they are all playing golf. Going after horses, 

well, that is just cowardly. 

Name: Janet Metz 

900 Walking Horse Lane 

Valkaria, FL 32950 

I am a taxpaying citizen of the State of Florida and an equestrian. I strongly support continueing to allow horseback 

riding in GTMNERR. 


I am a horse therapist and own 7 horses. Being able to ride on the beach is theraputic for the horses and people. 

People at the beach like being able to see and sometime touch horses along with it is very relaxing. Please continue 

letting us enjoy riding on the beach and Guana.

Name: Ellen O’Brien 

(904) 710-1215 – cell 

I have some more information for you. I spoke with Ms. Nicole Lamoureux, Chief Operating Officer, The American 

Horse Council, Washington, D.C. (202) 296-4031. 

Some interesting statistics: 

2005 ECONOMIC INDUSTRY STANDARD 

Florida is number three state in the nation (California is 1st and Texas is 2nd) for horse population. At least 500,000 

(one half million) horses live in Florida. 

Approx 440,000 people are directly involved in the horse industry, i.e. owners, breeders, feed supply, industry 

supplies, etc. 

For goods and servies the horse industry generates THREE BILLION DOLLARS annually to an in the State of Florida. 

Thanks, 

Name: Kim S. 

Let the horses stay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They’re not bothering anyone!!! If they are, tell the people who don’t like 

it to go somewhere else...there’s not very many places to take your horse in this area. 

Thanks, 

Name: Janice Walton 

Hello, 

We love visiting the Guana Preserve. I have 2 seven year old children who would enjoy more activities geared toward 

their age. Activities could be after school or on weekends. Hands-on outdoor activities are most enjoyable. Thank you. 

Name: Duffy McCoy 

Hello, 

I am amazed that this question has even come up. This is one activity that draws people to live, work, spend their money 

and pay taxes here. And you want to take this away? I am sorry I don’t see why? What are the horses and people doing 

that is so bad, so damaging? And you can say that the people without horses that leave trash on the beach are better. 

What about dogs on the beach? At least horses are vegetarians and their waste products feed the earth. 

Name: Joan Gordon 

104 Surfview Drive 

#2103 

Palm Coast 32137 

With regard to your planning for the future growth of the GTM Reserve, I have the following observation: 

We very much appreciate receiving periodic emails from the GTM Reserve director. We live near the reserve on A1A 

and we are simply part of the public that benefits from the educational outreach of the GTM director. 

Thank you. 

Name: Greg McCandless 

VP Ribault High School 

Folks, 

As a Florida taxpayer I hope that you will continue to allow horseback riding at the Guana site. We are good 

custodians of our state park and state forest system. I would think that you would want active participants of our park 

system who also care about the health and vitality of the precious flora and fauna systems within the park. 

Thanks 

Name: Jimmi H. Symonds 

(386)328-4416 

Please allow the GTMNER and expecially the beach areas to remain open to horseback riding. Many of us enjoy 

riding these areas and appreciate the beauty that our state specifically offers to equestrians. These previledges are 

even an attraction to out of state riders. 

Thank you for your consideration!

Name: Brian Paradise, 

13 Arbor Club Drive, Unit #315 

Ponte Vedra Beach 

Florida 32082-2615 

Dear Ms. Coulson, 

I have the following comments regarding the revision of the site management plan for the subject site: 

1. The area should remain in its existing geographical and ecological state without any alteration of the routing of AlA, or 

the locating of any non-natural or non-compatible structures such as schools or boy scout camps within the GTMNERR. 

2. The horse manure deposited on beaches and trails by the horses of equestrians using Guana should be analyzed 

to see if it is a health hazard to humans or wildlife. 

3. There should be an education program for the public using GTMNERR as to the impacts of visitors on the wildlife 

and vegetation of the GTMNERR. 

Thanks for your consideration of these comments, 

Name: Sherri Reinschmidt 

I was unable to attend the meeting; however I fully support horses in the Guana and on the beach. 

Name: Pam Arn, MD 

parn@nemours.org 

144 Belmont Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32259 

Please keep horseback riding, hiking and biking available to the public in the Guana preserve. My family has taken 

advantage of this wonderful opportunity on many occasions and I would hate to see it restricted. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Dawn Jennings 

Please include me as supporting the ability to ride horses in the Guana NER. I consider it a privilege that will not be abused. 

Thank you very much. 

Name: Charles Hegener 

You may be familiar with a recent, 11/3 or so, Science article on predictable collapse of the world’s fisheries. 

As a long time Sarasota resident, I support all efforts at coastal preservation/restoration and growth mgmt, AKA 

“sustainability’. 

Thx for your good efforts. 

Name: Lou Meuche 

1500 Bishop Estates Road, 17A 

St. Johns, FL 32259 

As a Florida taxpayer I support the continuation of horse back riding in the GTMNER Reserve, and especially on the beach. 

Name: Gloria Szanto 

Ponte Vedra Beach Fl 

904-285-1403 

I went to the Nov. meeting: 

I am a resident of Ponte Vedra beach who is an equestrian, runner, biker, and hiker, 

I have enjoyed hiking, jogging, biking, and riding my horse on Guana Beach and it’s trails. 

I feel lucky to have such a beautiful park so close to my residence and want to help keep it open to the public as a 

multi-use park. 

I am a fulltime ICU RN at St. Lukes Hospital. My job can be VERY stressful: as I care for dying and critical patients and 

try to console families on a daily basis. 

Riding my horse on the beautiful trails and beach of Guana help invigorate me and get me ready to face my job again!

I hope I can continue to use Guano beach and trails for riding, hiking, jogging, and biking. it is such a peaceful and 

beautiful park! 

Thanks so much! 

Enjoyed the meeting and look forward to learning more about Guana! 

Name: Diana D. Kelley 

972 Ponte Vedra Blvd 

Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 

Dear Sir, 

Please accept my comments on the forthcoming management plan for the Guana River Park in St. John’s County. 

For the past 10 years, every few years, the equestrian community has had to defend our privilege to ride on the Ponte 

Vedra Beaches. 

We have signatures on a petition from almost every single. beach front home owner in Ponte Vedra from Sawgrass 

South of Mickler’s agreeing with keeping the horse community able to use our beaches. 

We have agreed and continued to ride within hours of low tide so not to disturb dunes or turtle nests. 

We have agreed and continued to stay away from the beaches when overcrowded during holidays. . 

I live on Ponte Vedra Boulevard between Mickler’s and Sawgrass. 

I drive by Mickler’s public access almost every day. 

I see that our equestrian community is in keeping with the current recreation department legislation. 

I would respectfully ask that the Guana River Park include the equestrian community access to the trails and the 

beaches in the management plan. 

The ability to ride horses on this beach is one of the benefits of living in Ponte Vedra Beach. Our beach is one of the 

only beaches in Florida that allows riding on the beach, and we would ask that we continue this privilege. 

Thank You, 

Name: KD Huff 

4560 Zambito Ave 


Good morning, 

I am an equestrian and taxpayer who lives in Duval County. My friends and I trailer our horses to the many wonderful 

places afforded us here in Northeast and Central Florida. 

Although I have yet to ride the beach at Guana, I have enjoyed beach access in Fernandina and in Crescent Beach. 

I would just like to add my voice to the many who hope that the beach at Guana will remain open for responsible 

equestrian use. 

Regards, 

Name: Amanda Brennan 

I am emailing in support of the horses in Guana! 

Thanks, 

Name: Sandy Mooney 

I support horses in the Guana and ask that equestrians continue to ride there. 

Thanks so much, 

GTM North Meeting: 

Name: Don Palmer 

14524 Luth Drive S. 


COMMENTS PRESENTED ON NOVEMBER 2, 2006, SCOPING MEETING WITH REFERENCE TO GTM RR 

MANAGEMENT PLAN BY: 

The plan should clearly articulate goals and strategies for the management of the uplands, wetlands (both tidal 

and nontidal) and the 4.2 miles of undeveloped beach, including the extensive primary and secondary dunes and

interdunal swales, that make GTM NERR one of the most significant natural resources in northeast Florida. The 

primary goal for the reserve should be to enhance and restore, where required, the varied and complex ecosystems; 

thus creating an environment that will both uplift and nurture people that will explore the reserve, and provide an 

educational opportunity and outdoor experience. A very worthwhile objective is to reverse a very troubling trend in 

this country, that is, to provide an alternative experience to help in the cure of “nature deficit disorder”. To assist in the 

accomplishment of this selected goal, I provide the following suggestions, by no means is this list inclusive. 

1) The plan should clearly outline a prescribed fire regime for each of the ecosystems found within the reserve. 

Frequency of fire and timing (season) will vary depending on the ecosystem in question. The objective is to mimic 

a natural fire regime that will promote the growth of native vegetation; thereby, benefiting wildlife, and reduce the 

occurrence and growth of invasive plant species. 

2) The plan should have a component to address invasive plant species, including a monitoring program to detect the 

presence or spread of invasive plants, and a plan to control such growth if it should occur. 

3) The plan should address the control of non-native wildlife species, primarily hogs and armadillos. Hogs cause 

significant soil disturbance that more than likely adversely affects native plant communities, and both species 

disturb and alter the soil invertebrate communities through their respective feeding behaviors. In addition to these 

two species, it is also important to address the feral cat issue as well. Currently, there are feral cats found in at least 

one of the parking lots along AlA, and these animals are predators on small mammals and birds. It is possible they 

may be having a direct affect on the Federally endangered Anastasia beach mouse which resides in the primary and 

secondary dunes along the 4.2 miles of undeveloped beach. The plan should also address predation on turtle nests 

by canids or possibly by raccoons or foxes. 

4) The plan should discuss hydrologic issues and corrective actions necessary to restore the natural flow of water in 

the reserve. Through past land management practices, prior to the state acquiring the property, the natural hydrology 

(timing and duration) was altered. It is very important to restore hydrology to the interedunal swales; thereby insuring 

that the nontidal wetlands will remain viable and not convert to uplands. It is critical that the land managers be able 

to manipulate water in the reserve without affecting or being affected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission that manages the wildlife management area to the north. The problem requires a solution, and as a 

component of this solution, I suggest the plan discuss corrective measures that could be instituted that may also 

be helpful in identifying future mitigation projects for off-site wetland impacts. Regulatory agencies, both state and 

federal, could use the plan to direct prospective applicants to fund corrective measures to satisfy their respective 

mitigation requirements for wetland impacts elsewhere. 

An important component of the management plan should be a discussion involving the human use of the reserve. 

Towards this end, I believe a passive form of low impact recreation, such as; hiking, bicycling, boating, fishing, 

equestrian use (under controlled circumstances), etc. should be the goal. The reserve should not be managed for. 

camping or other pursuits that would require the removal of native vegetation thus exposing the affected ecosystems 

to stress. 

I want take the opportunity at this time to discuss a situation that currently requires a statement of concern and should 

be carefully evaluated within the scope of the management plan and not through political channels. it is in response 

to a recent news article in the October 18, 2006, Beaches Leader, with reference to the request by the Ponte Vedra 

Riding Club to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to permit equestrian access to Guana beach 

north. The reason being provided to DEP is that riders must “traverse three miles of county beach before reaching the 

beautiful Guana beach.” I find this request most disturbing and it should be denied without further discussion for the 

following reasons. 

First, the parking lot at north beach will not accommodate vehicles with horse trailers. There will undoubtedly be 

conflicts with horses being unloaded from the trailers and other vehicles attempting to maneuver around them. This is 

very much a safety issue, both for humans and horses. Also, there is the issue of space available to accommodate all 

vehicles that want to use the parking lot. This will more than likely necessitate enlarging the existing parking lot, which 

will further encroach on the coastal oak-scrub plant community, which is a diminishing resource in northeast Florida. 

Second, currently there is no existing trail through the dunes that would permit horses to gain access to the beach. 

Just north of the existing boardwalk, there is an old footpath through the dunes that is revegetating naturally. I am 

sure this is the trail the club would want to open up. To use this trail would reverse the healing process that is currently 

occurring and lead to severe erosion of the dunal system adjacent to the trail. In short, currently there is no available 

trail from AlA to the beach from the north beach parking lot except for the boardwalk. The only way to gain access is 

to create a new trail through the primary and secondary dunes. The boardwalk was the least damaging alternative 

to permit people to access the beach. Encouraging people to access the beach using another trail, other than the 

existing boardwalk, will only exacerbate an erosion problem and severely damage one of the last remaining natural 

dunal systems in Florida. The secondary dunes at Guana are among the tallest secondary dunes in Florida. That in 

itself; is just one of many unique attributes found at Guana. 

Third, there are several Federally threatened and endangered species that may be negatively impacted by this 

proposal. They are the Anastasia beach mouse, an endangered species; loggerhead sea turtle, a threatened species; 

green sea turtle, an endangered species; and leatherback sea turtle, an endangered species. The beach mouse lives 

in the primary and secondary dunes and is found at Guana. The trail will eliminate some of this species’ habitat, and 

there is the potential that horses moving along the trail may actually step on and kill an animal. Insofar as the turtles

are concerned, it is possible that horses, while traveling above mean high water to access the beach below mean 

low water, may step on a turtle nest which may lead to broken eggs or dead hatchlings. There is a turtle nest survey 

program in place on Guana, but turtle nests are missed from time to time. (These species are also state listed as 

threatened and endangered.) 

The potential for the incidental take (harming or killing) of these Federally listed species will more than likely require 

the DEP to apply for an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with Section 10 

of the Federally Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This is a regulatory process and will require much 

documentation and public review. 

This proposal is just one more attempt to encroach upon GTM NERR. First, there was the attempt to carve out a parcel for 

a new high school, and now, a special interest group wants to carve out a small piece for their own recreational pursuits. 

Most importantly the club currently has access to Guana beach either from Micklers Landing to the north or the Gate 

station to the south. They are not being deprived of the use of Guana beach! The club’s only reason for this request is 

that they do not want to travel on horseback the additional six miles (round trip) to access “...the beautiful Guana beach.” 

They do not need this additional access point to enjoy Guana beach! The plan should clearly stipulate those recreational 

opportunities that comply with the goals and objectives of effectively managing the resources on the reserve. 


My name is Ellen O’Brien, I live in Ponte Vedra Beach and as a taxpayer of the State of Florida I am here tonight to 

endorse and encourage CAMA to continue the passive recreation of horseback riding in the GTMNER Reserve. I also 

endorse the continuation of hiking and biking on all of the Guana trails. 

Over one year ago I requested that horseback riding be permitted on the wooded trails at the Dam Site during 

weekends and holidays. When I spoke with Mr. Bob Ballard, Deputy Secretary of DEP in Spetember, 2005, after 

some discussion, he initiated a one year ‘pilot program’ which would monitor horse activities on the wooded trails 

and the beach. The program at the wooded trails has ended without event, as far as I know. Equestrians continue to 

peacefully co-exist with multi-user groups. 

While we members of the PVRC had three requests of the DEP at that time, we decided to wait until the end of the 

‘pilot program’, and then present our additional requests to DEP for evaulation and consideration. 

In a telephone conversation 1 had with Mr. Ballard some months ago, I expresssed some feelings of our members of the 

PVRC. I indicated tà Mr. Ballard “we (equestrians) don’t want to be treated specially, we just ask to be treated equally”. 

The letter I wrote to Mr. Ballard, dated September 13, garnered a lot of publicity, and sadly, a lot of misinformation and 

inflamatory remarks. I made three REQUESTS, I. did not make three DEMANDS. 

The picnic table request was granted Our second request for an equestrian trailhead on the grass seemed 

reasonable to us, given the fact that the visitors to the Education Center have there own parking area, the fishermen 

have their own parking area, and the hikers and bikers have there own parking area. DEP has informed us that this 

request must be denied, as there are environmental concerns; and we accept this decision. 

My third and final request was for direct access to the Guana Beach. This request is still under environmental 

consideration. We are aware that all other user-groups have direct access to the Beach, and we equestrians just ask 

to the treated equally. 

There has been much speculation about this last request.. Let me clarify to everyone here, that at no time did I 

suggest anyone ‘bulldoze’ the dunes for access. The beach parking lots are almost always empty and need no 

modification to accomodate horse trailers. 

I’d like to say a few words about Mr. Ballard. I have had several conversations with him throughtout this ‘pilot 

program’s’ year. He has listened to my concerns, thoughts on the issues and to my requests; while we don’t always 

get what we asked for, he listens to me. I have come to realize that Mr. Ballard has an ‘open door’ policy with the 

taxpayers of the State of Florida. Any number of times I have said ‘thank you’ for listening to me; his reply is always 

the same “no thanks necessary Mrs. O’Brien, I am a public servent, that’s my job.” 

Name: Michael M. Bentzien 

4161 Seabreeze Drive 

Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 

November 2, 2006 

Re: Comments on GTM National Estuarine Reserve Management Plan 

I have the following comments regarding issues and opportunities for management of the Guana-Matanzas-Tolomato 

National Estuarine Reserve. My experience includes 20 years as a Federal wildlife biologist dealing with endangered 

species and wetland issues, and 2 years as a volunteer at the Guana Reserve. My comments are primarily directed to 

management of the uplands, dunes, and wetlands on this Reserve. 

The purchase of the Guana Reserve was an opportunity to save a portion of a complete north Florida coastal 

ecosystem, including undeveloped beach, dunes, coastal scrub, and maritime hardwood hammocks. This reserve

6 

must, to the extent possible, be managed to minimize loss of these habitats which are disappearing along most of 

the northeast Florida coast. Therefore, management of the reserve should strive to minimize further development and 

encourage nondestructive, passive human use. 

As a Federal Reserve, management is legally required to meet the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (Act). Two major requirements of the Act are to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on actions 

likely to affect listed species, and to utilize Federal agency authority to assist in the conservation (i.e., recovery) of 

listed species. The Reserve supports a number of federally and State-listed endangered, threatened, and species of 

special concern. The Reserve staff is aware of the presence of these species, and has worked hard to maintain them 

as well as to educate the public. 

Management opportunities to conserve listed species include maintaining dune habitat for the endangered Anastasia 

Beach mouse, which was reintroduced to Guana several years ago and is found elsewhere only on Anastasia Island. 

The Guana beach mouse population has very limited dune habitat available to sustain itself; since Highway AlA cuts 

off the western side of the dunes. Maintaining dune habitat requires occasional prescribed burning to replicate natural 

lightning- caused fires Public access should be restricted to existing crossovers and access points. Opening or reopening 

sand trails over the dunes should be avoided. Such trails result in loss of vegetation and erosion through 

blowouts from the prevailing southwesterly winds, thus breaching the dune system.. The beach dunes are also 

important habitat for hundreds of migrating peregrine falcons, which feed and rest on the dunes. 

West of Highway AlA, the coastal scrub vegetation supports several listed species, including the eastern indigo 

snake, the gopher tortoise, and the Florida mouse. This scrub is also the northernmost known locality in Florida for 

the giant vinegaroon, an unusual arachnid. These species are relicts derived from the fauna of the Southwest or. 

Latin America. They are of special biological interest, and their scrub habitat requires periodic burns to maintain its 

integrity.. The. staff of the Reserve is aware of the necessity of prescribed burns of this habitat, and of the problems 

inherent in burning close to human dwellings. 

The hardwood hammocks, scrub, and pinelands of the interior support a large number of small mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians, as well as dozens of species of migratory birds. The hardwood hammocks are a climax vegetation 

type, but the scrub and pinelands are a subclimax vegetation types and require burning. This will benefit the resident 

gopher tortoise population, which is currently most abundant on the edges of hammocks, pinelands and scrub, 

and in grassy areas near the dam. Control of feral hogs and armadillos should be carried out to benefit both the 

understory vegetation and the small amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates that are not adapted to predation from 

these two disruptive species. Invasive plants are not currently a serious threat, but management planning should 

provide for monitoring and suitable control activities should this problem arise. 

The freshwater marshes in Guana have been altered by mosquito ditching and by water control structures in the 

adjacent Wildlife Management Area. They provide essential habitat for diverse wading birds and amphibians, notably 

the rare striped newt and mole salamander. Restoration of more natural hydrology should be continued - current 

hydrological conditions keep the marshes dry. The filling of old mosquito ditches has improved the situation, but 

the marshes need to be protected from excessive drawdowns so that they do not succeed to old-field vegetation. 

Hopefully, a way can be found to provide sufficient water, and to prevent drawdowns for the Wildife Management Area 

from affecting these marshes adversely. 

The current biological and ranger staff at the Guana Reserve collectively has a great deal of knowledge and 

experience with these issues, and can be depended upon to provide informed recommendation on these issues. 

In concert with other expert and public input, I am confident a excellent management plan can be developed and 

implemented to protect this rare and priceless example of Florida’s biodiversity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Respectfully, 

Name: Thomas A. Barry 

137 Beachside Drive / S. Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 

904-825-0713 / TOMUSNA65@AOL.COM 

26 October, 2006 

To: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (DEP) 

Subject: Public input to Guana River Aquatic Preserve Management Plan 

Enclosures: 

(1) Guana River & GTM NERR Management Plans 

(2) Restoration of ICW at Shell Bluff/Minorcan well 

(3) Improved public recreational use of the Preserve 

Dear Sir: 

I already submitted an initial input to your contractor, Tetra Tech on 20 October regarding my perceived shortfalls in 

your existing management plan process based on my review of your existing plans, the 15 year old Guana River & the 

8 year old GTM NERR. However, I want to submit all of my issues for the record at the 2 November public meeting.

In addition to the management plan issue, I am submitting two other issues that should also be addressed: Habitat 

restoration of the ICW bank at Shell Bluff/Minorcan well (A goal in the 1991 plan) and improved public recreational 

use of the entire Preserve. 

Sincerely, 


Guana Aquatic Preserve Issue 

Issue: To improve public recreational use of the Preserve 

Background/Facts: 

The existing plans (Aquatic & GTM NERR) indicate use of the Preserve for public recreation including hiking, biking, 

nature study in the 2400 acre “old Guana State Park” area and hunting, biking & photo/nature study in the 10,000 

acre Wildlife Management Area(WMA). 

The old State Park area still has the existing marked trails & the GTM staff is doing a good job on educating the public 

& doing some minor improvements on the trails (New trailhead facility w/restrooms, updated trail markers and a few 

benches. and a cultural kiosk out on the trails). The trails are very good for biking & biking. The Guana River estuary 

area is an excellent fishing & kayaking area. 

Beach access is provided by 3 parking areas on the west side of A-1-A with dune walk-over to the beach & 1 at the 

Gate store. 

The WMA has no marked trails for hiking/biking and the main road (Hammock Road) is so chewed-up that it is 

unaccessible for biking. Basically, the WMA is not available for general use unless you have a 4 wheel drive vehicle. 

It is an excellent huntIng, fishing and horseback riding area and 6 mile landing in Lake Ponte Vedra is an excellent 

kayak launching area. 

Discussion: 

Assuming that public recreational use is a priority goal for the entire Preserve then several public uses need to be 

addressed: 

1. Implementation of an accessible & marked trail system in the WMA. 

2. Improvement of all trail systems to include readily available maps with markers of interest for public self-guide. 

Interest items include habitat and cultural items. (There is a rich European history in the Preserve.) 

3. Implement a marked kayak trail in the Guana River & Lake Ponte Vedra areas. 

4. Where should horseback riding occur in the Preserve & on the Beach? 

5. The need for more beach access. St Johns County is growing in leaps & bounds & beach access is & will 

continue to be a hot topic. 

Recommendations: If you do not address public access & use of the Preserve, then you may lose it! 

Habitat Restoration Issue 

Issue: Restoration of Intra-Coastal Waterway lCW) bank at Shell Bluff near the 200 year old Minorcan well. 

Background/Facts: A priority goal in the current Guana Aquatic Management Plan (Goal A.3) 

Discussion: 

There has been little or no progress in accomplishing this goal of restoring the ICW bank. As a matter of fact the 

bank has suffered from significant erosion at it won’t be long before the Minorcan well is damaged. See the attached 

photos from 10/24/2006. 

Because there is no accountability and status reporting in the existing Management Plan process there is no record of 

why restoration has not been accomplished to save a 200 year old cultural landmark. 

Is it DEP mismanagement of resources or the legislature not appropriating resources? 

Recommendations: This issue needs to be a priority ASAP! 

Public Input to Guana River & GTM NERR Management Plans 

Issue: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(CAMA) is conducting a review & requested public input to the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (Guana River) & 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) management plans. 

Background/Facts: The state agency, CAMA, is responsible for management of the Guana River & GTM NERR. The 

current Guana River 10 year plan was dated 1991 & the first 5 year GTM NERR plan was dated 1998. 

Both plans include a significant amount of background (Ie. “boiler plate” about the land, the agencies involved, 

mission statements & purpose, ...etc.). The Guana River plan has general goals & actions but no specifics on who, 

what, when and with what resources. The more recent GTM plan has some of the same “boiler plate”, but it has more 

specific action plans that are obviously oriented to the start-up of the new GTM facility. Still missing are specifics on

who, what, when & with what resources for most of the action items. Neither plan addresses local public/community 

issues: GTM access fees not included in state park annual pass; adequacy of beach access & parking; horseback 

riding on walking trails & beach; improving trails in GTM; investigating, protecting & educating about cultural history 

of the Guana River area (Spanish & British periods, Minorcans, Civil War,...); etc. 

The Guana River area includes the WMA, not controlled/resourced by CAMA, and it’s not clear how that area is 

managed & resourced to provide for general public use (Marking trails & providing access, not just hunting), & how it 

coordinates these uses with the GTM or the Guana River plans. 

There does not appear to be any way for the public to track the status of the management plans implementation of 

goals & actions. For example: what items were completed & if not completed, why (le. Not enough resources, change 

in priorities, . . . etc). 

Discussion: 

It appears that the plans have not been used as resource management tools to set specific goals, priorities & plans of 

action that are linked to specific resources (manpower & money) that can be dynamically monitored & utilized during 

the annual legislative budget cycles. Public involvement in plan of action status has been minimal. The public can be 

a support asset with the legislature & a deterrent to land “grabs” of unused uplands. 

It appears that potentially there could be 3 independent plans covering the ‘Guana River area: The Guana River 

Aquatic Reserve plan, the GTM NERR plan & the WMA plan. It’s also not clear who is developing the Guana River 

& WMA plans and how they will be integrated into one plan that incorporates the resource management issue 

mentioned above. Plan development has the potential to be a big waste of time & resources. 

Recommendations: 

1. Follow the “KISS” principle & develop 1 management plan for Guana River Aquatic Preserve. Keep most of the 

“boiler plate” in the Guana River plan & put the specifics and POA&M in a GTM & a WMA annex. 

2. The plan & action items must include current public/community issues (If it is too hard, then state the policy/ 

impacts. Don’t ignore it or it will bite you.) 

3. Develop a plan that has specific prioritized plans of action (POA&M) linked to/with the resources required to 

implement them. 

4. Provide, as a minimum, an annual status of prioritized POA&M for the plan. The public should be involved in the 

status of the POA&M. The action plan should be readily available at the GTM. 

Name (optional): Pierre Pierce 

Date: 2 Nov 06 

Address: 104 Falcon Rd, St. Aug. FL 32086 

Email Address: PIERREART@ATT.NET 

Telephone: 904-794-1522 


Encroachment of development. No horse / public mix on trails + beach areas. No give away of any part of the reserve 


Increased biological studies to document + advise public + policy makers. Until such studies are completed, do not 

allow piecemeal changes to occur to placate small but vocal groups. More SWMP stations 


Informing public of our goals. Work with local clubs + organizations. Closer contact with media. Bring them into all 

meetings - local fishing clubs to help. 


Do not allow fishing or crabing by commercial fisherman. More law enforcement at dam area. Require biological 

studies re: health inviromental, + safty studies befor any changes in existing rules + regs. Specificly, dunes, parking 

lots, land give aways, horse + human interactions. 



Need more contact with local fisherman + fishing clubs - a great resource to help + and add hands + eyes on the 

water (inland + offshore) 

6. Do you have comments that deal with the way the community is educated and engaged? (EO) 

We must increase efforts in this area. Most locals still think this is state park. 


Bring more groups to GTM. Work with St. Aug. City Tourist Board - Contact people like AAA, airlines + tour group 

organizers


Dont let the fact that a whole (horse) club took up most of the comment time. As a board member of The Friends I 

could have invited 100 or so to come + speak! 

Name (optional): Kenneth Sedlek Sr. 

Date: 

Address: P.O. Box 706 St. Aug. Fla 32085 

Email Address: leanertp@yahoo.com 

Telephone: 904-669-3520 


- Law Enforcement - 


Paying Overtime For D.E.P. Officers 


I would like to see the Park stay open at night for fishing. I would like to see the gate stay the way it is (closed at 11 pm 

to 4 am) But anyone that is in the park can remain 

8. Do you have comments that deal with legal, regulatory, or authority issues? (LR) 

I would like to see the rules enforced. Fish limits + quantitys. I would like to see the people that run the gate get tickets 

Name (optional): Brenda Csencsits 

Date: 11/4/06 

Address: 620 Palencia Club Drive, Unit 203, St. Augustine, FL 32095 

Email Address: brendacsencsits@aol.com 

Telephone: 904-808-8789 


If horseback riding is allowed on the beach, post signs with info + educate riders on what to do in the area of sea turtle 

nests (whatever the biologists deem important) so that the hatchlings don’t get trampled or stuck in horse hoof prints. 


Keep education programs for children strong. 

Increase education opportunities for adults / families. 

For families - make GTMNERR a “must do/see” on weekends. 

Need more articles published in Florida Times-Union (not obscure little announcement 

Name (optional): Lisa Doherty 

Date: 11/2/06 

Address: 6824 Ave. D. ST. Aug. FL 32080 

Telephone: 904-471-0648 


sharing 


meetings / discussions 


When horses + bikers are in contact w/ each other the horse should be given the right of way + the biker should 

dismount + lay the bike down 


Like riding on beach in our county 


Date: 11/2/06 


Balancing competing uses without damaging the resource

00 


Err on the side of protection of the resource 


The goal of use without damage 


Try not to be too infuenced by the rich or powerful groups or individuals but protect the resources 



Strive for sound science 


Great education programs are happening at GTM NERR - Keep it up. 


It is wonderful to allow recreation and public use, to the extent it does not damage the resources. 


More resources ($) need to go toward enforcement. 

9. Do you have comments that deal with funding or purchasing (Capital Investments)? 

I would support tax increases to go to more preservation & protection 


In the southern reach - south of Matanza’s Inlet north of Marine Land the county is filling the water with sand / dirt / 

road base from trying to maintain the Old A1A strip. This constant blow over & overwash from the effort to maintain 

the road access for those homes is destroying the estuary. Please take enforcement action to stop this destruction of 

the estuary. 

Name (optional): Diane Reed 

Date: Nov. 2, 2006 

Address: 110 Ocean Hollow Lane #201 St. Augustine, FL 32084 

Email Address: dreadster@aol.com 

Telephone: 904-829-9854 


I think we need to work on the trails and that the access groups need to work together. 


Continued public issues & discussion. 


I feel that the trails will not be managed properly with the horseback riders. 


The trails need to be kept cleaner and more clearly marked. 



I have a serious issue with horses on the beach and would like to know if there are studies relative to horse manuare 

in the oceans and the impact on swimmers. Is there a health hazzard? 


I have cleaned turtle nests on the beach that contained horse manuer on the top of the nest. 


The trails are not wide enough for the horse riders and the walkers. 


I would like to see the “scientific surveys” that have been performed regarding the pollutants in the ocean. 


Everyone speaks of the bikers + horse riders, but no one speaks of the walkers and birdwatchers. 

10. Other comments

The horse community should have access to different areas of Guana. 

Diane Reed 

Sea Turtle Patrol 

1190 - 2004 Permit 

Vilano Beach 

Name (optional): Peter Difatto 

Date: 11/02/06 

Address: 2381 S. Ponte Vedra Blvd. 

Email Address: OldestCity@Comcast.net 

Telephone: 904-685-2300 


Actually preserving it 


More public education and getting the support of local city, county + state governing bodies. (commissioners, etc.) to 

make them understand the need to preserve it. 


I would like to see an ongoing speaker program with pertinent, interesting topics that is well advertised. 


No. Consider opening up an additonal like or walking trail off A1A in the Northern section (possibly along the Guana 

River (East of it) and other trails in other areas (if they meet the goals of the preserve. For instance connecting 

the parking lots. Also, I think with the danger of people crossing A1A to get to the beach from the parking areas, 

********************** should be considered. 



No 


No. See above. 


Re: horses on trail or beach 

Large animals and small children on the trails are not a good mix and could result in accidents and personal liability. 

(continue below) 


No 


On the beach, the large droppings are offensive especially when one considers that most people are barefoot. It could also 

be a problem with any animal to human pathogen that could exist. Maybe separate trails for horses could be added. 

Name (optional): Bill Coleman 

Date: 11/2/06 

Address: 3423 Lands End Drive, St. Augustine 

Email Address: 

Telephone: 904-824-8880 


Encrochment on reserve Lands 


Do not allow it. 


Use by equestrians must be carefully studied to be certain that there are no negative affects on the reserve. Water 

should be tested in use areas. Trails should be inspected to determine extent of damage. 


According to other noninterested horse people, crossing a 55 mph+ highway isa major saftey and liability exposure 

that should be avoided completely. 

0

0 


Implement accessible + marked trail system. 

Improve all trail systems to include maps w/ markers of interest for public self-guide. Interest items include habitat + 

cultural items Including Kayak trails in the Guana River + lake Ponte Vedra areas. 

Research directed at indirect impacts to Water Quality. 

Name (optional): Mark Sabol 

Date: 11/1/06 

Telephone: 827-0911 


OVER 


Is there any way the fishing access at the dam could be open 24/7? It used to be and now the hours have 

restricted our access. 

Name (optional): George Gotsinger 

Date: 11/2/06 

Address: 202 Hormosa Street, St. Augustine FL 32080 

Email Address: THE_GOTSINGERS@BELLSOUTH.NET 

Telephone: 904-819-5362 


Water Quality, Enforcement 


Provide comments to resource agency responsible for regulating water quality. Enfroce wetland & buffer policy / 

laws. Provide science based research demonstrating changes in water quality, use this data to enforce regulation / 

reenforce resource agency 


Research directed at indirect impacts to water quality 


Establish sensitive / no access areas based on uniqueness of flora/fauna and importance to over all ecosystem 



Research should be directed toward demonstrating how changing land-use patterns in the GTMs’ watersheds are 

effecting water quality. 


- More programs on impt. of wetlands 

- Work w/ coastal restoration groups in restoration activies (oyster bars) 


Limit access to sensitive areas 


Management plan should allow & encourage mitigation activities from state and federal resources agency. Regional 

offsite mitigation area (ROMA) & in-lieu *** program. 

Establish and enforce no wake zone throughout reserve and especially in Intracoastal Waterway 

Name (optional): Mary Berning 

Date: 11/3/06 

Address: 2951 Thunder Road, Middleburg, FL 32068-7172 

Email Address: horse-master@juno.com 

Telephone: 904-282-0938 


Public awareness for others’ than those in the immediate area of the sites.


Dissemination of flyers in expanded areas. Newspapers other than site locals. 


Horseback access to the beach that is acceptable for all parties. Beach parking is all on the East side. Crossing A1A 

is a safety factor for all especially as more people move into the areas being developed. 


This meeting was my first introduction to CAMA. I’ve never seen any announcement present or in the past. If it wasn’t 

for a friend who was going to attend I would have had no awareness of having the option for input on site issues. 


I would like to see the continued use of GTMNERR by horse back riders, bikers, and hikers with opportunities for 

enhancements in accommodations for increased use and access for the public. 


For environmental protection I would like to see partnerships with environmental organizations such as Fish and 

Wildlife 


If there are opportunities to purchase additional adjoining uplands, I am in favor of such purchases as development is 

encroaching upon the lands and will affect the lands in holding now as they push on the fringe. 


Your meeting was informative and well presented. 

Name (optional): Carol Nechvatal 

Date: 11-4-06 

Address: 632 Tara Farms Dr Middleburg FL 32068 

Email Address: NA 

Telephone: 904-272-6090 


Keep horses, bikers, + hikers in the Guana. I come from Middleburg, Fla to ride your trails in the Guana, please 

keep them (the trails) available to all of us the above. As to the Sierra Club spokesman - his concern for the horses 

being killed on A1A is noble esp. since he had none for the lowly pedestrian. For those of us who travel far, the picnic 

benches are much appreciated. 

Name (optional): Peyton Stockton 

Date: 11-2-06 


Yes, I would strongly encourage horseback riding to continue at the Guana. 

Name (optional): Carole Robinson 

Date: 11-02-06 


Yes, biking hicking & horse back riding be continued at the Guana National Reserve. Horses do no damage to park lands. 

Name (optional): Bonnie Barnes 

Date: 11/2/06 

Address: P.O. Box 146, St. Augustine, FL 32085 

Email Address: barnes@stjohnsvision.com 

Telephone: 904-463-0513 



I’m hearing that PV residents would like better access from the North end of GTM. Open up Wildlife Mgt. Area. 


Would like community-type meetings to be at no charge - rather than $100 use fee 

0

0 

Name: Chuck Day 

Special Assignments Writer 

Ponte Vedra Recorder 

President 

Search Write Inc. 

136 Ocean’s Edge Drive 


904-543-0785 voice 

chuckday@bellsouth.net 

904-543-1261 fax 

My comments, for what it’s worth: 

Plan needs to address inevitable jump in northern county population from now until 2030. Rate of increase will be 

hard to gauge, and will depend on how fast housing can be absorbed. The SJC School District central office tracks 

housing. Its current numbers project 81,000 more homes between years 1995-2030, including those already in the 

ground and occupied; Nicole Cubbage is the district point person, and is a former county planner. 

Horse manure on beach is nowhere near the problem some fear, as you noted. My wife and I walk almost daily near 

Mickler Landing. That’s approx. 4 miles north of GTM northern boundary, but I think experiences would mirror what 

you could expect, especially since commercial stables use Mickler beach access point. The real challenge is doggie 

do, which is far more visible near swimming points; we use the beach constantly during swimming season. 

Coordinating GTM Plan with existing St John County Beach Management Plan is a must. County has identified 170some 

access points, many of which are not open or obstructed. Dave Williams is the county director of aquatics and 

plan author; a good man in my view who is spurring efforts to open access points -- as law requires. 

I think it’s nice to have horses on the beach, but at what cost? A land bridge at $3 million (Ballard’s #) is pretty pricey, 

unless you can find private dollars to fund. Maybe the horsey set, which often has the wherewithal, should be asked 

to ... pony up? 

Again, my compliments for a well-done meeting. 


member, Ponte Vedra Riding Club 

102 Lands End 


cell phone (904) 710-1215 

I am writing to CAMA to discuss what I hope to see included in the revised management plan for the GTMNER 

Reserve (The Guana). 

I would like CAMA to continue the passive recreation of horseback riding. This would include riding on the existing 

wooded trails at the Dam Site, and the 4.2 miles stretch of Atlantic Coast Beach. There is an histortical tradition of 

horses and their riders traversing these trails since the Guana was purchased by the State of Florida. In fact, the 

tradition dates back to when Palm Valley was founded, 1908! 

I am happy that the ‘pilot program’ is over (October 15, 2006) at the wooded trails at the Dam Site. I have kept a daily 

log of usage and have seen a pattern established. 

- The trails at the Dam Site and the Beach are virtually deserted during WEEK DAYS throughout the year. 

- During the six months of Summer the trails get very sparce activity at the Dam Site on weekends. I see approx 4- 

6 hikers/bikers on Saturday and 5-8 people on Sunday. 

- During the six months of Winter there is some activiity at the Dam Site. see approx 25-35 hikers/bikers on 

Saturday and 30-50 people on Sunday. 

- On the Beach during Summer on weekends there are usually appprox 25 people at the North Parking Lot, with 

an occasional max of 75-80 people. The Middle lot gets almost no activity year round. The Beach is deserted on 

weekdays. 

- The Beach is deserted all winter long, except for a few horse riders and the rare fisherman. 

NOTE: During this pilot program, the equestrian community has had restrictions put on them: I would like to see ALL 

RESTRICTIONS REMOVED, E X C E P T FOR HORSES STAYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH-TIDE LINE. I don’t want 

to ‘call in’ any more, when I ride on the Beach. (This pilot program is over on Thanksgiving Day 2006). 

I would like to urge CAMA to be specific as to the ‘designated horse trails’ in the GTMNER Reserve. I want to see 

something like “all existing trails in the Guana wooded trails are open to horseback riding and that the 4.2 of Beach is 

a designated trail for horseback riding. Please be specific. 

I would like to see incorporated within the management plan, safeguards for protecting the multi-user groups from 

arbitrary rulings by an individual manager. Whilie I understand that CAMA would want the Manager of the GTMNERR 

to have some discretion in his/her managerial style of the Reserve, we want assurances (in writing) that a Manager

cannot pick ‘cafeteria style’ with regard to which user groups he/she may want to see in the Reserve, or which 

groups he /she may want out. We hope that these safeguards for the taxpaying public, ESPECIALLY FOR THE 

LOCAL RESIDENTS, are clearly stated in the mgt plan and the FAC. I want to know, that if I, as a taxpayer, request a 

copy of the existing management plan of any public land, if, udner recreational activities, it says “hiking, biking and 

horseback riding”, then he/she (the manager) cannot keep us out. Please note in the current management plan, 

clearly stated under recreational activities ‘RECREATION CONTRIBUTES TO THE SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF THE L O 

C A L RESIDENTS AND VISITORS AND ALSO TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH TOURISM.’ Please keep this 

statement in the mgt plan. Please remember that the public lands, geographically, are of the greatest benefit to the 

LOCAL RESIDENTS. 

Last, but not least, please urge your new Manager of GTMNER Reserve to the USER-FRIENDLY. 

Thank you very much for reading this long email, I hope I didn’t ramble on too much. 

Good luck in your endeavor! 

Name: Michael M Bentzien, Ph.D 

I have additional comments on the GTM Management Plan (Plan), following my written comments submitted at the 

November 2, 2006 scoping meeting at the Environmental Education Center. Specifically, some issues raised at that 

scoping meeting deserve additional consideration. 

My understanding is that Mrs. Ellen O’Brien, aparently as a representative of the Ponte Vedra Riding Club, has 

previously asked DEP in Tallahassee for changes in equestrian access including weekend riding, dune access to the 

northern portion of the Guana beaches, and horse trailer parking on the road west of the Guana dam. 

The weekend riding issue was apparently conditional on a pilot study to determine suitability of the increased use, but 

I am unaware of such a study being carried out. It appears that this change may have been de facto approved without 

review or public input. 

While the voices of the equestrian community stressed the loss of the ability to ride in the Guana Reserve as their 

primary concern, that appeared to be a non-substantive issue that diverts attention from issues now at hand, namely, 

additional dune access and increased parking for horse trailers. Mr. Ballard stated at that meeting that there would be 

“. . .no bulldozers in the dunes at Guana. .”. 

That is not really the issue concerning beach access. Dunes can be damaged by human access in a number of ways 

short of heavy equipment use. One the sites proposed for access is the old trail north of the north parking lot and 

crossover. This trail is in essential habitat for the endangered Anastasia beach mouse and vegetation is recovering 

because of the cable preventing easy human access. It should be left to recover. Development for equestrian access 

will result in loss of vegetation and potential erosion form blowout of sand. Equestrians currently have four access 

points to Guana with trailer parking: the north entrance to the Wildlife Management Area, Mickler’s Landing, the Gate 

station, and the Guana dam. As equestrians can rapidly move and down the beaches, 1 see no need to develop 

another access point simply for convenience. Horse crossings of A1A would also seem to be a serious safety issue. 

Mrs. O’Brien has also asked for additional parking on the grassy roadside west of the dam. This area has one of the 

densest gopher tortoise populations on the Reserve. It would be totally inappropriate to park trailers here, as they 

would crush burrows and tortoises (as would paving the area) . There is easy equestrian access from the parking lot 

at the dam. I see no justification for dedicated horse trailer parking in environmentally sensitive areas west of the dam. 

The equestrian community has asserted that they wish to protect all the assets of Guana, and only want to maintain 

their ability to ride there. The latter two specific requests discussed above, however, show a disregard for the natural 

resources of the Reserve. Recreational activities on National Estuarine Reserves cannot be allowed to supersede the 

Reserves’ primary purposes of research, environmental monitoring, education, and coastal stewardship. 

Additionally, development and modification of the Plan should be carried out “in the sunshine”, with public notice 

and input into significant changes. I am not comfortable with the way the above changes have been proposed and 

addressed, and suggest that consistent administrative procedures be followed in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity for additional comment. 

Respectfully, 

Name: Patti Peeples Gustafson 

449 S. Mill View Way 


904.838.1782 Phone 

904.212.2922 FAX 

patti@hostage.org 

Dear Management Staff 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment for the development of the Management plan for the GTM 

Reserve. I would first like to start with congratulations to all involved in the GTM NERR Environmental Education 

0

06 

Center. The Center has brought much needed focus to the rich environmental resources in the areas of North Florida 

, and the staff has worked incredibly hard at spreading the word on resource management, ecosystem science, 

education and outreach. They have done an extraordinary job. 

As a frequent user of the Guana Wildlife Management area, I have a few suggestions for consideration as you draft 

your Management Plan: 

* Public Use: the access routes to the Guana Wildlife Preserve on South Roscoe Extension and County Road 210 

in Ponte Vedra Beach are not well-known nor are they well-marked. This particular track of land has been the target 

of numerous development attempts (a new High School, 210 road widening, etc.). I believe that if these entrances 

were more well-known for public use, then a greater proportion of the public would be interested in pursuing its 

protection. There is no parking available at the 210 entrance and many do not know about the South Roscoe 

Extension parking area. 

* Education & Outreach: Related to the above tract of land on South Roscoe Extension and County Road 210 in 

Ponte Vedra, the access routes could benefit from new signs on the wildlife that lives is and is protected within 

these environs, The existing sign on South Roscoe Extension is in disrepair, and there is no sign located at the 210 

entrance. Additionally, the benefit of this area in terms of its contribution to the Guana Tolamata Reserve would be 

beneficial. Perhaps various educational signs and a large map showing the various trails can be placed throughout 

this Preserve area, including the occasional bench for users. This would encourage use by families who are less 

used to hiking and as a result, increase their awareness and appreciation. 

* Ecosystem Science: Again, related to the constant quest to “take a piece of the Turpentine Farm that is Guana”, 

I think that there needs to be greater use of this tract of land around Ponte Vedra for scientific research (including 

publication of these findings) , and focused on the utility of this land in terms of its contribution to the entire North 

Florida ecosystem. 

In summary, I am astounded at the low use of these lands for hiking, bird watching, etc. although — to Educational 

Coordinator Janet Zimmerman’s credit — the GTM NERR Environmental Center has vastly increased school 

children’s awareness level. The parents around Ponte Vedra are a large untapped market for raising awareness of the 

value of these beautiful lands and speaking to them in the terms of the things they seem to care most about (property 

values). Unfortunately, it is the adults who are not “nature lovers” who are the predominant population and who often 

are more than willing to support the “chipping off” of Guana. I suggest that education efforts be specifically targeted 

toward these groups of people. Raising awareness, encouraging use, presenting information in terms that they value 

(again, property values) will help preserve this property. 

Thank you very much, and I consider the Guana the true jewel of our area. 

Name: Mrs .Marilyn Whitford 

10710 Clydesdale Drive West 

Jacksonville, Florida 32257 

904-268-3398 

Dear Sir, 

I have lived in Jacksonville for 52 years. I have seenmuch change and through all those years, including my 

childhood of riding onthe beach, I have been an active and loyal citizen. I have raised three children here in 

Jacksonville and plan for them to be able to share my joy of horses and Jacksonvillefor years to come. Riding on the 

beach is a memory of enjoying a God-given resource and is always good for the soul. The freedom to ride on the 

beach is just one of many freedoms that we Americans hold dear.... 

Yours truly, 

Name: Sherry B. Tornwall 

MGF 1106 Coordinator 

Math Department 

Preview Advisor 

University of Florida 

P.O. Box 118105 

Gainesville, FL 32611-8105 

352-392-0281 x 233. 

tornwall@math.ufl.edu 

To Whom It May Concern, 

As a Florida resident I have ridden horses and bikes at Guano River State Park. I sincerely hope that I will continue to 

be given the right to ride horses there and at the beach.

Name: Claire Kenyon 

1533 Southshore Dr. 

Orange Park, FL 32003 

To whom it may concern: 

My name is Claire Kenyon and I am a member of the SHADO riders. I am emailing my wish for continued beach 

access for horses. My address is 1533 Southshore Dr, Orange Park Fl 32003. 

Thank you 

Name: Traci Rosenstein 

I live in Ponte Vedra Beach, and it is a privilege to ride my horse on the beach. I ride with friends at Micklers Landing, 

and I speak for all of us all that we are respectful of the other beach lovers who enjoy that beautiful place as well. 

Horse owners strive to protect nature and animals too, and we do everything to help preserve and respect the 

beaches and all nature trails. We also pick up our horse droppings. 

Why don’t we all work together whether it be on foot of horseback to preserve our beautiful Ponte Vedra Beach!!! 

Name: Carolyn Shook 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER Reserve ( The 

Guana), especially the beach. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Dale and Nina Baer 

Palm Valley, Florida 

As taxpayers of the state of florida, We support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER reserve, 

especially the beach. 

thanks, 

Name: Jeanie Mackey 

1655 Marshside Drive 

Jax Bch 32250 

728-8777 

This is in regards to the management plan for the GTMNERR — Guana River. 

I attended the scoping meeting on November 2. I thought the meeting was a great way to get input and thought it 

was very well run. 

I wanted to give my input I views on allowing horses on the trails and on the beach. 

I am in favor of horses being allowed access just as bikers and walkers are. 

Certainly on the wooded trails I do not see where horses are in anyway detrimental to the habitat if they stay on 

designated trails and areas. As far as safety to other users on the trails, I believe that if horses are at a walk of trot 

— that this is much safer for other users of the trails than the bicycles I have encountered speeding around turns. I 

believe that most riders are content to walk or trot on the trails and this could be a courtesy rule for them. 

I would like to suggest that horse trailers are allowed to park somewhere else besides the boat trailer parking areas, 

such as the trailhead area, only to appease the other users of the parking lot who may not want horses close to them: 

As far as concerns about horses being on the beach, I think most of the people opposed to horses on the beach were 

against horse trailers taking up parking spaces. I don’t think there are that many horse trailers in the parking lot at the 

same time for this to be a real concern. 

There were also comments about it being too dangerous for the horses to cross A IA. It is no more dangerous that 

people crossing. Horse riders would not take their horses to an environment that the horse was not capable of being 

calm in — they don’t want to endanger themselves or the horse. 

Another comment about beach riding was the hazard to sea turtles. I have been a volunteer with the sea turtle 

patrol in Duval County and have seen deeper and larger ruts in the sand from trucks and other vehicles that are 

used in the sea turtle patrolling. 

The horse hoof ruts are not that deep and not spaced closely together. 

0

0 

The riders would look out for nests. Horse people love animals of all kinds and would not do anything to harm them. I 

think horses could be an asset for patrolling for nest because horses go farther down the beach and could notify the 

turtle patrol group of nests. 

Lastly, the issue about horse manure. Most people don’t realize that horse manure is all vegetable matter, very 

biodegradable and breaks up and dissolves quickly. It the woods, birds such as crows clean it up very quickly and 

the ocean dissolves it quickly. Horse manure is so much cleaner than dogs or humans remains. 

Please allow horses in GTMERR 7 days a week. We promise to be good stewards of the reserve. 

Thank you — 

Name: Phyllis Randall 

248 Belmont Dr. 


Dear Sirs: 

I am an avid user of Guana park, and hike, kayak and ride my horses there. 

I would like to see horseback riding, hiking and biking kept in the management plan for the GTM. 

I think that stewardship of our limited public lands should support and enable the tax payers to enjoy a variety 

of activities. 

Thank you, 

Name: Jackie Woloscheck 

355 Ranch Rd 

Ponte Vedra, FL 32081 (The new Ponte Vedra, courtesy of Nocatee!) 

First, I want to thank you for having the meeting in regards to public input/Guana. 

I spoke, but needed to let you know the following. I cannot hike or bike, but put me up on my horse and I can ride the 

trails at Guana. My horse is my legs, enabling me to enjoy the outdoors that I dearly love. Keep the trails and beach 

open to horse riding. “The countryside looks lovelier from the back of a horse”. 

“On the back of a horse we borrow freedom”. 

Thank you again, 

Name: John Wooten 

Dear Sir or Ma’am, 

I’m writing to you as a Florida tax payer and avid equestrian on the issue of equestrian access to Guana State Park 

and Mickler’s Landing beach access. First, I’d like to state that I ride one or both of these areas at least once every 

other month, the beach access more often in the summer, and I have never experienced any complaints about my 

horse’s presence either on the park’s trails or on the beach. On nearly every visit, children and their parents ask to 

come up and pet the horses and on many occasions have pictures taken with them. When entering the beach, I 

always stay near the dunes until I am well away from sunbathers,. at which point I ride close to the water so that any 

manure I leave behind will be flushed out with the tide. I’ve even been out riding with friends where we ran across 

a wedding party and we obliged the bride and groom a picture witht he groom riding on of our mounts. I’ve had 

many similar experiences in Guana State Park, where everyone I meet is friendly and willing to share the trails with 

equestrians. I often dismount to pick up litter, especially near the beach closest to the parking area a Mickler’s to set 

an example for others. 

I’ve recently become aware that there may be some confusion on the reason for the meeting this evening. It’s come o 

my attention that some equestrian groups are proposing a new trail to be cut through the dunes for beach access at a 

different point. While I only have limited information on this issue, I do not at this time support any new trails to be cut 

for beach access. I believe the dune area is already suseptible to erosion and beach access at this time is sufficient. I 

believe the continuation of the status quo at both Guana State Park and Mickler’s Landing completely suits the needs 

of all users and keeps a good balance between the needs of the environment and recreational users of all kinds. I 

would also like to thank you, the management personel of these two areas for your diligent work in maintaining both 

Guana and Mickler’s. The trails are kept clear of downed trees and the beach is in my opinion the most beautiful in 

Florida. I’ve not visited any other beach anywhere that has as close to virgin beach as you can find today. 

As I am on a business trip to Savannah, GA this week I cannot make the meeting this evening. I hope that this letter 

has made my position known that I support the continued use of the beach as well as Guana River State Park by 

equestrians, but do not now support any new trails to be cut through the dunes at the beach. The equestrian access 

to both areas is currently sufficient in my opinion. Thank you for your time.

Name: Cathy Dennison 

8710 Longshore Way 

Jacksonville, Fl 32226 

904-751-2110 

As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER, especially on 

the beach. 

When we went riding on the beach at Micklers Landing we received nothing but positive attention. Little kids faces 

lit up while watching us ride by. While walking our horses next to the boardwalk, people asked could they pet the 

horses. We obliged. The looks on their faces were priceless. A couple had just gotten married and were having their 

reception, they took the time to come out and pet the horses and even had a picture taken with the groom on one of 

our horses. Families walking on the beach watched us with a smile and complimented our horses. 

We are careful to stay on the outer edge of the crowded area at the end of the boardwalk until we get clear of people 

then move down near the waters edge. 

We are also extremely careful not to enter the areas where there may be turtle eggs. We take time to either remove 

or cover any “droppings” on the beach. I bet there are a lot of dog owners who don’t do this. I cant say EVERY horse 

owner is this responsible but neither are the sunbathers/beach goer when it comes to littering. I can’t say that I 

haven’t seen riders leave droppings but I can say that I have seen where people have littered and defecated.Horse 

poo is safe, people poo isn’t. 

We are very sensitive not to interfere with enjoyment of the sunbathers and beach-goers. If anything, I bet mot were 

excited to see the elegant beauty of a horse on the beach. And, I bet the kids had exciting stories to tell their family 

and friends when they got home. 

Besides who the hell made the Sierra Club, King of the Universe? 

Hors people and their horse’s contribute quite a lot to Florida’s economy and environment and it is getting harder and 

harder to find a place to ride. 

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE AWAY OUR PRIVILEGE OF BEING ABLE TO RIDE ON THE BEACH! 

Name: Clara Capps 

President of Florida Trail Blazer 

An equine club that is dedicated to the Creation and Preservation of Equestrian Trails 


As a taxpayer and fourth generation resident of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in 

the GTMNER, especially on the beach. 

Why should one club have the say on what many enjoy all year long. We as horseback riders are very conscious 

of the environment and love to be one with nature. In fact, in my years of riding the woods, forests, beaches, and 

shorelines of our beautiful state, find that horse people are always picking up and cleaning up other folks trash and 

leftovers. 

Thank you .for your consideration, 

Name: Karen Holmes 

5458 SKylark Ct. 

Jacksonville, Fl. 32257 

To whom it may Concern, 

I strongly request that our right to ride our horses on the beach is not reduced in any way. This is a wonderful activity 

that helps to build strong families. Please do not cancel it. Thanks. 

Name: Peter Difatta (citizen of St. Johns County) 

Tel: 904 685-2300 

2381 S Ponte Vedra Blvd 


I’ve submitted comments on a sheet at the recent scoping meeting at the GTM NERR education center. Here are 

some additional thoughts I hope will be considered concerning horses on the trail at the GTM NERR. 

If horses are allowed to continue being on the trails, then the idea of allowing them to park on the West side of A1A 

and cross over is simply not workable. It would be too dangerous for traffic as well as the equestrians. Besides, the 

equestrians now have three safe areas to park and get access to the beach with horses and they are all East of A1A. 

(1. Mickler, 2. across from the Gate Station, and 3. Vilano beach access). I believe the ramp at the Reef restaurant 

may still be open too. This should be adequate. 

0

0 

If horses are allowed on the beach the following items should be considered. Are these large animals doing damage 

which could affect turtle nesting? If these animals are allowed, how can you justify banning automobiles, motorcycles, 

and ATVs? Some of these, since they weigh a lot less, probably have less of an environmental impact. 

Animals have a mind of their own. How do you monitor a horse’s psychological state? Some are very placid, others 

not. Horses have been known to bolt at the site of small moving animals such as mice, crabs and snakes (easily 

possible on the interior trails) . People could be killed because of this. How do you control the speed of the horse? 

Most equestrians control their horse at a slow pace, but I’ve seen horses on the beach at a moderate gallop. Small 

animals are required to be restrained with a leash. Large animals may not be able to be. Is this fair? This, of course, 

is all for protection of the public. How do you get the equestrians to pick up the droppings from the parking lot, the 

crossover and the beach? 

Many parks have separate trails for equestrians and for ATVs because of these reasons. 

Thank you for letting me express my thoughts. 

Name: Al Howland 

I enjoy your comments about the activity there. The environmental things are very interesting. I am way past it now but if I were 

a young person just starting out I would be tempted to pursue study and a career in environmental cares for the planet. 

Sincerely 

Name: Muriel and Arthur Fields 

We want to thank you for a wonderful walk last saturday. Though the birds were scarce we learned much from our 

leaders. we now know how to determine if it is a male turtle or a female turtle. We have lived here for 12 years and this 

was the first time that we walked the trails. It is fantastic and we hope to return often. Thanks again. 

Name: Henry C. Warner 

Supervisor Group 3 

St. Johns County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Please accept of following comment for your consideration. 

St. Johns County has a “model” fertilizer ordinance that encompasses the GTM Reserve area. This ordinance might 

have potential for application for impacting other parts of St. Johns County. It would be important to know what 

impact this ordinance has had upon the Reserve area. 

Within your planning action what criteria might be used to determine how effective this ordinance has been and how it 

might be improved in implementation, compliance and impact. Both commercial and private parties would require co 

operating efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Pam Johns 

I would like to see horseback riding still be a part of the GTM management plan. Please don’t exclude horseback riding. 

Sincerely, 

Name: Barbara O’Toole 

2708 Arundel Lane 

St. Augustine, Fl 32092 

904-230-8228 

My name is Barbara O’Toole and I am a taxpayer in St. Johns county and I love riding my horse on the beach. It is 

one of the reasons we moved to this area is so I could ride my horse on the beach. ( they did not have any beaches in 

Chicago where we moved from) 

Thank You, 

Name: Leslie Miedema 

208 Belmont Drive 

(904)230-1036 

I have so enjoyed riding my horse on week days at the state park. We moved here 5 years ago and were so excited 

that this was such a horse friendly community. My family would like to see horse back riding , hiking and biking 

continued at the park. Please add muy comments to the up coming meeting and vote. 

Sincerely,

Name: Devona Bell Sherwood 

213 Boating Club Road 


As a taxpayer of the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER Reserve. The trails 

are for multiple use, and horseback riding is one of the uses. The riders are incredibly respectful to others (I am a 

hiker in the park) and to the natural environment. It would be unjust to exclude them from the trails. The horses help to 

keep the trails in tact. 

Thank you, 

Name: Carol Thomerson 

Ponte Vedra Beach 

As a taxpayer in the State of Florida I support the continuation of horseback riding in the GTMNER Reserve (The 

Guana), especially the beach. 

Name: Liz Ferguson 

54038 Charles St. 

Callahan,FL 

(904)879-6673 

I have recently heard of plans to close Guana River State Park, and Mickler’s Landing to horse back riders. I don’t 

understand. As a tax payer I believe we should have the right to utilize our beautiful natural resource, such as these 

two parks.I am not sure I will be able to attend the meeting on the 2nd of November, as this has just been brought to 

my attention. So I am e-mailing to voice my oppinion on this matter. 

I hope this has not fallen on deaf ears, and will be considered as a vote to keep Mickler’s and Guana open to 

equestrians! 

Thank you for your hopeful cooperation and consideration- 

Sincerely 

Response to Public Comments (November 1 and November 2, 2006). 

The majority of the public comments received at these two meetings were from people for or against equestrian 

use of the Guana River Aquatic Preserve trails and beaches. Other comments focused on the need for expanded 

habitat monitoring and establishing baseline conditions, support for an expansion of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s education program to focus on adults in the watershed affecting the Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve, 

and concerns for impacts by invasive species. These comments have been used to guide and prioritize the 

goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the GTM Research Reserve Management Plan. 

Public Use: Encouraging public use that is compatible with natural and cultural resource protection is a priority 

of the GTM Research Reserve. The natural and cultural resources of the GTM Research Reserve provide 

a unique user experience unavailable elsewhere. Consistent with public expectations and the GTM Research 

Reserve’s mission, sustainability will be used as a guiding principle for decisions affecting natural and cultural 

resources. 

The changing demographics of coastal Florida challenge the sustainability of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

natural resources. The GTM Research Reserve plans to work cooperatively with all stakeholders to ensure 

information regarding the condition of the resources is known and that this information is used proactively to 

support compatible public use. Public users of the GTM Research Reserve are considered key stakeholders 

and primary stewards of its resources. Existing levels of use will be maintained unless research clearly 

identifies resource damage. More intensive or novel activities will be limited to those activities that have a 

carrying capacity established using scientifically valid methods and to those that can be demonstrated not to 

conflict with existing user experiences. 

GTM Research Reserve staff recently concluded a pilot project for expanded equestrian opportunities. Based on 

the lack of evidence of bacteriological contamination, horseback riding on the beach will be allowed to continue. 

Horseback riding on the beach is allowed with the following conditions: horses are allowed only below mean 

high tide, within 3 hours of daily low tide. These restrictions are necessary for resource protection. The trail 

system will also remain open for equestrian user groups seven days per week. Additional restrictions may be 

necessary but only if scientifically-based monitoring results indicate natural resource damage. 

Monitoring and Establishing Baseline Habitat Information: This Management Plan identifies an immediate 

need to evaluate existing ecosystem science information to establish baseline conditions in order to evaluate 

and prioritize future management activities. It also outlines the process by which species and habitat data is 

collected and analyzed using standardized methods that are well documented and allows for more rigorous 

methods of change detection.

Long-term standardized monitoring is necessary to assess trends in the condition of the GTM Research 

Reserve’s water quality and biological resources. The initiation of the NERR System-wide Monitoring Program 

(SWMP) represents a significant accomplishment toward this goal however trends in important indicators 

(e.g., duration of hypoxia, salinity change, turbidity) requires additional data analyses and interpretation on an 

annual cycle. In order to fully characterize the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources and fulfill its mission 

expanded monitoring and modeling capabilities. These activities will be linked to biological indicators of habitat 

condition. The GTM Research Reserve research staff will strive to use and expand existing datasets for analyzing 

trends and to guide future monitoring locations and protocols. 

Adult Education Opportunities to focus on Watershed Scale Issues: This Management Plan integrates 

education strategies with resource management and ecosystem science to ensure up-to-date information is 

incorporated into the GTM Research Reserve’s Education Program. The primary goal of this approach is to 

reduce the impact of watershed landuse on coastal resources by identifying priority pollutants and encouraging 

best management practices. 

Increasing coastal populations will require novel approaches to managing watershed landscapes and finding 

solutions for reducing pollutant loadings necessary to sustain or improve coastal water quality. The GTM 

Research Reserve plans to actively encourage, coordinate or facilitate projects that reduce watershed-scale 

pesticide and fertilizer use, conserve water, encourage renewable energy technologies, promote native 

landscaping, and preserve land buffering wetlands, watershed flow-ways and shorelines. The GTM Research 

Reserve will also strive to serve as a demonstration site and a clearinghouse for innovative science-based 

technologies and methods that support these objectives. 

Invasive Species: All invasive exotic species are a threat to the integrity of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

natural communities and are in direct conflict with its mission to encourage sustainable conservation of natural 

biodiversity. The degree of threat posed by these species differs within managed areas comprising the GTM 

Research Reserve. Therefore, the policy of the GTM Research Reserve and its partners is to remove exotic 

species incompatible with each location’s management goals. 

The GTM Research Reserve’s location makes it particularly vulnerable to invasion by species established in 

south Florida. Several invasive exotic species, such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian 

pine (Casuarina sp.), are already found in surrounding landscapes but not yet established in the GTM Research 

Reserve. Prevention is the best strategy to protect the GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources from damage 

by new invasive exotic species. Many of these species will be introduced to the GTM Research Reserve by well 

intentioned individuals, as escaped pets, or will be carried on boats or in ballast water. The threats caused by 

exotic species and prevention strategies must be continually included in educational materials to emphasize 

the severity of this issue and to promote voluntary action. In addition, stewardship and research strategies are 

needed to quickly identify new invasions and assess the impact to native flora and fauna. Climate change and 

its impact on range extension of exotic species from south Florida is an increasing topic of concern for the GTM 


A majority of the past focus of the GTM Research Reserve has been on terrestrial exotic species; however, 

estuarine, oceanic and freshwater invasive species are equally damaging. GTM Research Reserve’s education, 

research, and stewardship program will take an integrated approach to effectively control and, if possible, to 

eradicate Exotic Pest Plant Control Council (EPPC) category I and category II invasive exotic species within 

CAMA managed lands. 

These Integrated Strategies will include: Monitoring changes in natural biodiversity in sensitive habitats and 

proactively responding to new exotic species invasions, controlling existing invasive species consistent with 

state and federal protocol to minimize non-target damage, interpreting the GTM Research Reserve’s invasive 

species control program through displays, fact-sheets, posters, K-12 programming, and public outreach 

activities. The effectiveness of these strategies will be evaluated by determining the area or number of nonnative 

species removed, by documenting a decreasing trend of ecological impact from non-native species as 

measured by loss of sentinel native species, and by examining the condition of the GTM Research Reserve’s 

CAMA managed habitats versus adjacent unmanaged landscapes. 

Recent invasions by Asian green mussels (Perna viridis) and titan acorn barnacles (Megabalanus coccopoma) 

have been documented in the GTM Research Reserve. A comprehensive management strategy to quickly detect 

estuarine invasive species is needed. Details of the GTM Research Reserve invasive and nuisance species 

management issues and strategies can be found in Appendix A 7.

D. . / Second Management Advisory Group Meeting 

Management Advisory Group, January 24, 2007, Marineland 


Department of Environmental Protection 

Management Advisory Group 

Meeting Summary / January 24, 2007 

Members Present Members Absent 

Jim Darby, Flagler County Commission Barry Benjamin, St. Augustine Port Authority 

Justin Ellenberger, Guana River Wildlife Mgmnt. Area Mark Crosley, Florida Inland Navigation District 

Pierre Pierce, Friends of the GTMNERR Gordie Wilson, National Park Service 

Doug Carter, Recreation and Parks Kelly Smith, Citizen Appointee 

Michael Cullum, St. Johns River Water Mgmnt. District Mark Arnold, Citizen Appointee 

Ben Rich, St. Johns County Commission David Miles, City of St. Augustine 

Karen Taylor, Citizen Appointee 

Richard Rubino, Citizen Appointee 

Anne, Citizen Appointee 

Barbara, Citizen Appointee 

Jim Netherton, Town of Marineland 

Frank Usina, Citizen Appointee 

Susan Van Hoek, Citizen Appointee 

Mike Kuypers, Dept. of Agricultural & Consumer Services 

Christopher Benjamin, Citizen Appointee 

Others Present 

Brian Paradise Karen Bareford 

Jack Pittman Stephanie Bailenson 

GTMNERR Staff 

Dr. Mike Shirley Forrest Penny 

Janet Zimmerman Suzanne Dixon 

Item 1: Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 

The meeting of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Advisory Group 

(GTMNERR MAG) was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Darby. Audience and Board stood for Pledge 

of Allegiance. 

Item 2: Determination of a quorum (7 or more MAG Members). 

GTM Secretary Suzanne Dixon took the roll, and then determined there was a quorum as more than the minimum 

number of 7 MAG members was present. 

Item 3: Introductions. 

Introduction of MAG members was dismissed in lieu of the nameplates. 

Introductions of the staff were conducted. Members of the public were introduced and welcomed. 

Item 4: Introduction of Dr. Michael Shirley, Environmental Administrator for GTMNERR. 

Dr. Shirley gave a brief history of his experience, education and research. His philosophy is to be a lifelong student. 

Chairman Darby gave a brief history of the formation of the GTMNERR and the early public meetings, with praise for 

the MAG members, many of whom are original appointments. 

Item 5: Approval of Meeting Summary from September 13, 2006. 

The motion to approve the meeting summary from 9/13/06 was made by Karen Taylor and seconded by Mike 

McCullum. It was voted on and approved. 

Item 6: Report on MAG Appointments. 

Dr. Mike Shirley reported that the MAG is in need of two citizen appointments from Flagler County, and one from 

St. Johns County. The MAG is also in need of an agency representing the USDA or from the Soil and Water 

Conservation District. Staff was directed to solicit suggestions for appointments. Discussion ensued regarding the 

agency representative. Chris Benjamin offered to assist in this contact.

Item 7: Announcements by Chairman Jim Darby 

No announcements at this time. 

Item 8: Reports by MAG agency partners: current projects, issues, needs. 

Pierre Pierce, Friends of the GTMNERR – The Friends committee has been approached for Eagle Scout projects. 

One is to build an informational kiosk @ the GTM trailhead, another is to do a habitat restoration and a handicapped 

guardrail @ the North parking lot, and the 3 rd was regarding a whale program. 

Matanzas State Forrest – draft management plan in Tallahassee for review. Citizen review committee will be put 

together 

Timber fitting going on for hunting season, pending projects such as camping and parking area for equestrians. 

Doug Carter – Dept of State has approved the application of Washington Oaks Garden State Park to be placed on 

the national register of historic places. 

Justin Ellenberger, Fish and Wildlife Commission, Guana River Wildlife Management Area (GRWMA) – Maintenance 

on fire breaks and channels in Ponte Vedra Lake being done in anticipation of prescribed burn maintenance. Lowest 

duck harvest found but highest deer harvest. Installation of recreational improvements, signage, interpretative 

kiosks, participating in First Coast Nature Festival, and participated in radio sports show at the EEC. 

Mike Cullum, SJRWMD – Finishing watershed models from northern portion of GTM and working on southern 

portion. A hydrodynamic model being completed on grid which revealed a net of different cells, flows and water 

quality through the estuarine system. Completed GIS coverage on vegetation in the estuarine grid and copies are 

available. Study showed very healthy seagrasses, mangroves and a lot of good vegetation within the system. There 

was other discussion of the vegetation with regard to shellfish beds and harvesting and research of fecal coliform 

within the NERR boundaries. There was a consensus that GTM would take this on as a topic and report back to MAG 

as appropriate. 

Item 9: Reports by MAG citizen members on issues, events, or ideas on GTMNERR implementation. 

Two members, Anne Wilson and Karen Taylor reported that this meeting would be their last meeting, as they were 

not seeking reappointment to clear the way for new members to serve in the future. The MAG thanked them for their 

service. 

Chris Benjamin mentioned a special thanks to the NERR staff, Forrest Penny and Janet Zimmerman for participation 

in beach clean up 5000 pounds of material off of NERR property. Mr. Benjamin also commended GTMNERR as an 

outstanding venue for meetings. The staff and facility is outstanding. 

Mr. Darby also thanked Janet Zimmerman and GTMNERR staff for participation in the Scenic A1A dedication event 

by providing information on natural habitat along A1A and the touch tank with some species found in the estuaries 

along the scenic A1A corridor. 

Item 10: Update on GTMNERR Management Plan 

Mike Shirley – The structure for the GTMNERR Management Plan will be an issue based outline. We will be linking 

NERR activities with issues and challenges in our area. Currently GTMNERR staff is participating in brainstorming 

sessions to identify topic areas and explore issues within boundary such as public use, habitat, coastal resources, 

and outside boundary issues such as things happening in our watershed. Other issues included may be global 

issues such as sea level rise and atmospheric issues. A preliminary draft should be ready in April. 

Item 11: GTMNERR Activities. 

Janet Zimmerman, Education Coordinator – At the last MAG meeting, you drafted a letter of appreciation for Ken 

Berk. Staff prepared the letter, had it framed and presented it to Ken. Ken asked that I express on his behalf his great 

appreciation for that and he enjoyed working with all of you immensely. The education staff has completed their fall 

session of school trips and will be preparing for the spring session of school trips. We are currently working on 4 th , 

7 th , and high school programs with some additional days filled by 2 nd 3 rd and 5 th graders. We have quadrupled the 

number of groups taken from last year by using our volunteers. The volunteers have been trained and assist staff 

tremendously in these programs. Adult education programs will be offered in the Southern section (Marineland 

facility). Adult Day Camp in March 2007 in cooperation with Maia McGuire of Florida Sea Grant. 

Marty Healey, Environmental Trainer- Coastal Training Programs (CTP) – Met with citizens to discuss coastal erosion 

home and beach nourishment. Reserve offered to gather experts for exploring possible solutions. Summerhaven 

residents are concerned with silting in off Summerhaven river – decline in oysters from washover and inlet. Florida 

Inland Navigation District is having a meeting to study Matanzas Inlet hydrology and biology. Green lodging 

workshop was held with 20 attendees. Future workshops will be Clean Marina through DEP programs. Dock 

workshop – for dock construction industry. City of St. Augustine asked Reserve to pull together information. Many 

different activities upcoming in partnership with Whitney Marine Lab, St. Johns County environmental educators 

group. Other upcoming events were mentioned for the Spring Summer at the education center. 

Forrest Penny – Stewardship- No prescribed fires being done due to drought. There was a burn done in November/ 

December on the FWC marsh on the peninsula. It is now greening up and revegetating. Fence projects are being 

sent out to bid for fencing around Indian burial grounds.

Item 12: Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (3 minute time limit each speaker) 

No comments at this time. 

Item 13. Adjournment 

The next MAG meeting will be Wednesday May 16, 2007 at 6PM at the Ponte Vedra location. Motion to adjourn 

made by Ben Rich and seconded by Karen Taylor. No objections. Meeting was adjourned @ 7:20 PM 

Minutes Approved May 16, 2007 

D. . / Second Set of General Public Meetings 

General Public, September 26, 2007, Marineland 

General Public, September 27, 2007, Ponte Vedra Beach 

Attendance 

Name Agency, Organization or Company Meeting attended 

Jack Pitman Self 26-Sep-07 

Gorde Wilson National Park Service 26-Sep-07 

Scott McCorkle 27-Sep-07 

Ellen O’Brien Ponte Vedra Riding Club 27-Sep-07 

Kathy Shirley Self 27-Sep-07 

Public Comments 

Recommend that an attempt be made to communicate with Marineland (the attraction) as to the GTMNERR activities 

that are in progress all around the facility in the community of Marineland. There may be Opportunities for relationship 

that is not immediately evident. Comment provided by Jack Pitman 

The subject is a tidal chart, which is prepared for public information and activities (fishing). Many charts merely give 

you the times of the tide, low and high tides. These charts should also state where the readings are taken but more 

important, they should state the average heights of low and high tides. This will make the subject more “visible” to the 

public. Comment provided by Anonymous 

Written comments submitted during comment period 

These are written comments received within the comment period, which ended on October 4 th , 2007 

Andrew S. Kaufman 

2537 South Ponte Vedra Blvd. 


(904) 825-1723 

September 27 th , 2007 

To: Management Staff, Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Re: Management Plan 

Please accept this letter as if I had presented this request in person at your public scoping meeting today. 

The management plan should include a set of requirements and restrictions on the St. 

Augustine airport. Currently the airport’s flight traffic interrupts the migration path of birds as well as wildlife that use 

the NERR as a nesting and feeding ground. Whenever aircraft cross the NERR there is a risk that toxic fluids will leak 

from the aircraft falling into the water. There also is a risk of a spill of petroleum products at the airport running into the 

estuary. Even a small amount of oil dripping onto the runway and then running into the water will disturb the aquatic 

life. The noise from the aircraft disturbs all the birds and animals, as well as human visitors to the education center 

and recreation areas. 

You need to make as part of your plan: 

• No aircraft will fly over the NERR. 

• The airport must submit a toxic spill disaster plan that includes the steps they have taken to mitigate any type of 

spill before it affects the NERR. 

• The airport must submit their hurricane disaster plan which includes the steps they have taken to keep any 

dangerous chemicals from spilling and entering the NERR. This plan must also include Tornadoes.

6 

The second issue that I feel is important is the problem of garbage collection on A1A. Currently the garbage is 

picked up on Thursday. A few years ago this was changed from the longstanding tradition of pickup on Monday. The 

collection day should be changed back to Monday because this area is filled with weekend renters as well as owners 

who only come on the weekend. When they leave on Sunday they place their garbage out on the road for pick up. 

Because the garbage sits on the curb for 4 days it attracts animals, who normally would not leave the Guana. Many 

of these animals get hit by cars, others just dig through and dump the trash all over the road. The spilled trash then 

blows into the reserve or onto the beach and in the case of plastic bags (and other refuse) they become hazardous 

to animals in the reserve and affect water quality. You need to add to your plan contacting the St. Johns County 

Commission and requesting that they require their garbage collection contractor (Seaboard Waste Systems) to 

change the collection day for A1A back to Monday as soon as possible. 

I am sorry that I could not attend, but I appreciate your attention to these matters of great concern to me and many 

other residents of this area. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew Kaufman 

PONTE VEDRA RIDING CLUB LANDS END 

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082 

TEL: (904) 710-1215 

FAX: (904) 273-6845 

Dr. Mike Shirley 

Manager 

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve 



Dear Dr. Shirley: 

This letter’s purpose is to make an official comment on the GTMNER Reserve’s DRAFT Management Plan, July 2007. 

We members of the PVRC are very happy to realize that you and your staff, including CAMA and DEP in Tallahassee, 

will continue the historic tradition of horseback riding in the GTM Reserve, including horseback riding on the 4.2 mile 

stretch of Guana Beach. 

We are also very glad to see that hiking and biking on all of the multi-use trails will continue. Equestrians look forward 

to sharing the trail system with these other groups. 

We have notice the recent upgrades for a more user-friendly environment at the Reserve, such as picnic tables, 

benches, water access to hose off horses, kayaks, bicycles, etc., and we commend you for your positive attitude 

and outreach to the public who frequent the GTM Reserve. I noticed very recently the placement of benches at the 

water’s edge at the Dam Site for fishermen. What a wonderful amenity this is! 

We equestrians look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming years to keep the Guana the beautiful, 

pristine place it is now and for future generations to come. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ellen O’Brien 

Cc: Ms. Karen Bareford, CAMA 

Response to Public Comments (September 26 and September 27, 2007). 

The science-based approach of the draft plan appears to have alleviated the controversy regarding public access. 

The focus of the GTM Research reserve on sustainability has generated widespread acceptance as demonstrated by 

the absence of controversial comments. 

The establishment of baseline conditions including pollutant concentrations should address Mr. Kaufman’s concern 

regarding potential release of hazardous chemicals from the airport. Bird monitoring (especially of nesting and 

roosting activity) will be useful to ascertain the impact of airplanes on the GTM Research reserve’s natural Resources. 

The equestrian users, including Ms. O’Brien, are considered important stewards and advocates for sustaining the 

GTM Research Reserve’s natural resources.






Environmental Education Center 



(904) 823-4500 • Fax (904) 825-6829 

Marineland Office 

9741 Ocean Shore Blvd 


(904) 461-4054 • Fax (904) 461-4056 



3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS #235 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 • FloridaCoasts.org

GTM Research Reserve Office - Florida Department of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?