PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

1875 Century Boulevard

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

July 2005 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1

Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service......................................................................................................4

National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................4

Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................5

Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................6

Relationship To State Partners.....................................................................................................6

II. THE REFUGE...................................................................................................................................9

Introduction...................................................................................................................................9

Purposes And Designations Of The Refuge.................................................................................9

Ecological Threats And Problems ..............................................................................................10

Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................16

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations.................................................................................16

Habitats .............................................................................................................................18

Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................24

Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................25

Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................25

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................26

Social And Economic Environment ............................................................................................28

Physical Environment .................................................................................................................30

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................33

Overview.....................................................................................................................................33

Public Involvement And Planning Process .................................................................................33

Scoping Of Issues And Concerns...............................................................................................35

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations.................................................................................35

Habitats .............................................................................................................................36

Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................37

Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................37

Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................38

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................38

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................39

Introduction.................................................................................................................................39

Vision..........................................................................................................................................39

Goals, Objectives, And Strategies..............................................................................................39

Goal A: Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations...................................................................40

Goal B: Habitats ...............................................................................................................47

Goal C: Land Protection and Conservation......................................................................54

Goal D: Education and Visitor Services ...........................................................................60

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................73

Background ................................................................................................................................73

Funding Needs ...........................................................................................................................73

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan i
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................80

Partnerships ...............................................................................................................................81

Plan Review And Revisions .......................................................................................................83

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

I. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................85

Introduction ................................................................................................................................85

Purpose And Need.....................................................................................................................85

Decisions To Be Made ...............................................................................................................86

Authorities, Legal Compliance, And Compatibility......................................................................86

Planning Study Area ..................................................................................................................86

Planning Process And Issue Identification .................................................................................86

II. ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................................87

Introduction ................................................................................................................................87

Management Common To All Alternatives.................................................................................87

Compatible Uses........................................................................................................................88

Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Further Analysis................................................88

Description Of Alternatives.........................................................................................................88

Alternative A - Continue Current Management (No Action Alternative)............................89

Alternative B - Minimally Expand Refuge Programs .........................................................91

Alternative C - Moderately Expand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative)..................93

Comparison Of Alternatives .......................................................................................................94

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................113

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................................................................................115

Overview ..................................................................................................................................115

Effects Common To All Alternatives.........................................................................................115

Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................115

Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................116

Climate Change ..............................................................................................................116

Soils ................................................................................................................................116

Water Quality, Wetlands, and Flood Plains ....................................................................116

Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................116

Education and Visitor Services .......................................................................................117

Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................117

Summary Of Effects Of Alternatives.........................................................................................117

Comparison Of Effects From Implementing Alternatives .........................................................123

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION....................................................................................135

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................135

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................................141

ii Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
II. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................149

III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ................................................................................................155

IV. BIOTA..........................................................................................................................................157

V. DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS............................................................................167

VI. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES............181

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Refuge location and acquisition boundary.............................................................................2

Figure 2. Status map (as of October 2003) ..........................................................................................3

Figure 3. South Florida Ecosystem.......................................................................................................7

Figure 4. Conservation lands..............................................................................................................11

Figure 5. Pelican Island proper erosion over time ..............................................................................13

Figure 5. Pelican Island proper erosion over time ..............................................................................13

Figure 6. 2010 and 2020 Pelican Island proper erosion predictions...................................................13

Figure 7. Decline of colonial nesting birds on Pelican Island proper. .................................................15

Figure 8. Land use/land cover of the refuge.......................................................................................20

Figure 9. Current visitor facilities ........................................................................................................27

Figure 10. Land use/land cover of the area........................................................................................29

Figure 11. Aerial view of refuge..........................................................................................................31

Figure 12. Proposed habitats of the refuge ........................................................................................46

Figure 13. Jungle Trail visitor facilities and restoration project...........................................................50

Figure 14. Land acquisition priorities (as of October 2003)................................................................55

Figure 15. Core Kroegel homestead tract...........................................................................................59

Figure 16. Existing and proposed refuge visitor and office facilities ...................................................64

Figure 17. Proposed organizational structure.....................................................................................68

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Number of nesting pairs and types of species found on Pelican Island proper. ...................14

Table 2. Service-owned and managed lands and waters within the refuge’s acquisition boundary (as 

of October 31, 2003).............................................................................................................17

Table 3. Land use/land cover within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. ............................................19

Table 4. Characteristics of the main habitat types of the refuge.........................................................21

Table 5. Proposed land use/land cover within the refuge’s acquisition boundary in 15 years............48

Table 6. Current staff and costs..........................................................................................................74

Table 7. Current unfunded Maintenance Management System projects............................................75

Table 8. Current unfunded Refuge Operating Needs System projects. .............................................76

Table 8. Current unfunded Refuge Operating Needs System projects. .............................................76

Table 9. Proposed additional staff and costs......................................................................................76

Table 10. Prioritized project needs and costs.....................................................................................77

Table 11. New step-down management plans. ..................................................................................81

Table 12. Comparison of management alternatives...........................................................................96

Table 13. Summary of anticipated environmental consequences. ...................................................125

iv Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND 

INTRODUCTION 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Sebastian, Florida, is the birthplace of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Figure 1). What happened on this tiny island that made it so important, that it 

became a catalyst for what is now the world’s largest network of lands and waters managed for fish 

and wildlife–the National Wildlife Refuge System? By the end of the 1800s, plume hunters, egg 

collectors, and vandals had nearly exterminated all the egrets, herons, and spoonbills from Pelican 

Island proper (i.e., the original 5.5-acre rookery island). Paul Kroegel (who was to later become the 

first Refuge Manager) protected the last nesting brown pelicans on the east coast of Florida and 

petitioned ornithologists and naturalists to help him. At the urging of researchers, concerned citizens, 

the Audubon Society, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, President Theodore Roosevelt signed 

an Executive Order that set aside Pelican Island as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds 

on March 14, 1903, thus establishing the first national wildlife refuge (originally 5.5 acres) and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Pelican Island is both the name of the refuge and the name of the original 5.5-acre rookery island. 

While Pelican Island proper (i.e., the original rookery island) eroded by more than half from 5.5 acres 

in 1943 to 2.2 acres in 1996, the refuge has grown to encompass ±5,445 acres (as of September 30, 

2002). Within the ±6,184-acre acquisition boundary (Figure 2), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

owns ±363 acres and leases or otherwise manages the bulk of the refuge (i.e., ±5,062 acres), while 

remaining inholdings total ±409 acres. (This leaves ±330 acres unaccounted. These acres are most 

likely part of the lease with the State of Florida.) 

Located in the Indian River Lagoon on the east coast of Florida, Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuge now supports important bird rookeries, key fish spawning sites, and a globally important 

juvenile sea turtle nursery. Primarily comprised of lagoonal waters, the refuge includes aquatic, 

transitional, and upland habitats supporting a diversity of species, including 14 federally listed 

threatened and endangered species. This complex ecological system also supports hundreds of

species of birds, fish, plants, and mammals. When the refuge was established at the beginning of the 

20th century, as many as 10,000 brown pelicans occupied the tiny 5.5-acre Pelican Island as a last 

stronghold for this species along the east coast of Florida. Today, the number of brown pelicans 

using the Island has dwindled in magnitude to less than 100 nesting pairs. And today at least 16 

different bird species nest on Pelican Island proper, including brown pelicans, wood storks, egrets, 

herons, ibises, anhingas, oystercatchers, and cormorants. Beyond the tiny rookery of Pelican Island 

proper, over 130 species of birds use the refuge as a rookery, roost, feeding ground, and/or loafing 

area. Further, federally protected West Indian manatees and sea turtles inhabit the lagoonal waters 

of the refuge, alongside some 30,000 annual boaters. A growing human population, along with 

ongoing development and other human activities, currently threaten the fragile, but highly productive 

waters of the Indian River Lagoon and the refuge. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Figure 1. Refuge location and acquisition boundary

2 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Figure 2. Status map (as of October 2003) 
Beyond being the birthplace of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge is also designated as 

a National Historic Landmark (1963), one of the smallest units of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (with a 5.5-acre Wilderness Area encompassing Pelican Island proper) (1970), 

and a Wetland of International Importance (1993). The refuge is also listed as a candidate Marine 

Protected Area (2000). Beginning in 2001, facilities have been and are being constructed on the 

eastern side of the refuge on the barrier island through partnerships (e.g., with Indian River County) 

to view the historic Pelican Island rookery and interpret the natural and cultural history of the refuge, 

the area, and the Refuge System. 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was prepared to 

guide future refuge management. A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met 

the goals and objectives of the refuge. Following a public review and comment period on this draft 

plan, a final decision will be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that will guide refuge management 

programs and projects over a 15-year planning period. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation, 

protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although 

the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and 

private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. As part of its mission, the Service 

administers the National Wildlife Refuge System, a national network of lands and waters for the 

management and protection of these resources. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

To date, the Refuge System is comprised of more than 540 national wildlife refuges and over 3,000 

small waterfowl breeding and nesting sites covering more than 95 million acres, the world’s largest 

collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 

77 million acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and 

several island U.S. territories. The mission of the Refuge System is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife come first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy; that the growth of refuges and the Refuge System must be strategic; and that the Refuge 

System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. This broad 

participation includes local, state, and federal government partners; organizations; the local business 

communities; individuals; and volunteers. Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the 

success of the Refuge System and in 1999, some 36,000 of them contributed more than 1.3 million 

hours on refuges nationwide, representing an economic value of more than $20 million. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were 

4 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete 

15-year management plans (i.e., comprehensive conservation plans) for all refuges. These plans, 

which are conducted with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges, 

including providing management direction for natural resources and recreation and education 

programs. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

• fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

• fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the 

Refuge System and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; 

• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, observing 

wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation, 

are legitimate and priority public uses of national wildlife refuges. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System hosts over 35 million annual visitors. Economists found that 

these refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to local economies. In 2001, on 

conservation lands throughout the nation, approximately 37.8 million people participated in wildliferelated activities, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These visitors represented nearly 

40 percent of the country’s adults who spent $108 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 2001, 

according to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census 

Bureau 2002). As visitation continues to grow on conservation lands and waters in general and 

specifically on refuges, adjacent local communities are realizing significant economic benefits. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Management options are guided by a refuge’s establishing authorities; 

Public Law 104, Stat. 2957 (§108, H.R. 3338); and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (see Appendix III for more information on legal and policy guidance for the operation of 

national wildlife refuges).

Key guidance and direction can be found in: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966;

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; 

• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Since refuges must be managed for wildlife first, lands and waters within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System are closed to public uses unless specifically and legally opened under specified conditions 

allowing compatibility with the refuges’ purposes. All programs and uses of a refuge must be 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

including those that: 

• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to refuge purpose(s) and goals;

• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• manage and ensure compatible wildlife-dependent visitor uses as those uses which benefit 

the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the 

public (these uses include hunting, fishing, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and 

participating in environmental education and interpretation); and 

• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purpose(s). 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is part of the South Florida Ecosystem (Figure 3). Comprising 

one of the 52 ecosystems around the country, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s South Florida 

Ecosystem encompasses more than 26,000 square miles, 19 southern Florida counties, and over 7 

million people. The South Florida Ecosystem has undergone numerous human disturbances, 

including alteration of hydroperiod, fire history, and drainage patterns. Developing and dredging the 

canal system and expanding agricultural operations have eliminated and diminished natural systems. 

Exotic species such as Old World climbing fern, melaleuca, Australian pine, and Brazilian pepper are 

further contributing to wildlife population and habitat declines. Over the last 50 years, the South 

Florida Ecosystem has undergone dramatic changes, which are largely attributed to various human 

activities and growth. 

Despite the ongoing landscape alteration and rapidly expanding population, the scrub, hardwood 

hammocks, cypress swamps, salt marshes, mangrove islands, coral reefs, and seagrass beds of 

south Florida support one of the most ecologically diverse systems on the planet. The majority of the 

remaining wildlife and habitats of the South Florida Ecosystem are found on national interest lands, 

including sixteen national wildlife refuges, three national parks, one national preserve, and one 

national marine sanctuary. Despite tremendous human development, the South Florida Ecosystem 

supports more than 600 rare or imperiled species, where 68 are federally listed as threatened or 

endangered, including 8 mammals, 13 birds, 10 reptiles, 2 invertebrates, and 35 plants. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE PARTNERS 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to encouraging and maintaining partnerships with 

others to improve the environmental health of ecosystems and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Partnerships are recognized by the Service as vital to fulfill our mission and help share our advocacy 

for fish and wildlife resources. Some of our current partners include federal and state agencies, 

environmental organizations, outdoor sporting groups, industry, local governments, and private 

landowners. 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and subsequent agency 

policy provide that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with

other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and 

managing refuges. For Pelican Island Refuge, state fish and wildlife management is administered by 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (http://www.floridaconservation.org/) and the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/). These state agencies 

are charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds, trust species, and fisheries, 

6 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 3. South Florida Ecosystem 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
as well as with management of natural resources of the state. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection manage state 

lands and waters. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission manages 4.3 million acres 

of public lands and 220,000 acres of private lands for recreation and conservation purposes. The 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection manages 150 state parks covering nearly 600,000 

acres and 57 coastal and aquatic managed areas, totaling over 5 million acres of submerged lands 

and coastal uplands. 

Since the 1960s, the State of Florida has been an important partner with the Service at Pelican Island 

Refuge (by leasing open waters and islands of the state to the Service, comprising the majority of 

property within the refuge). The State of Florida has helped champion the refuge through various 

efforts, including participation in the Pelican Island Working Group, an active working group 

comprised of a variety of public and private partners dedicated to improving the refuge and the 

resources it protects. Various agencies within the state government have also participated in a mix of 

refuge projects, including their planning process to develop a 15-year management plan for the 

refuge. The State of Florida’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive 

conservation planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the 

ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in Florida. An integral part of the comprehensive 

conservation planning process is integrating common mission objectives, where appropriate. 

8 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
II. The Refuge 

INTRODUCTION 

Part of the South Florida Ecosystem, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is located within the 

southern Indian River Lagoon (Figure 1). The Indian River Lagoon is located along a transition zone 

between the warm-temperate climate to the north and a more subtropical climate to the south. The 

area of the Lagoon surrounding the refuge is the focus of the planning study (Figure 1). The 

Lagoon’s location, combined with its large size and other physical characteristics, make it the most 

diverse estuary in North America. 

PURPOSES AND DESIGNATIONS OF THE REFUGE 

Currently over 5,400 acres, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1903 on 5.5

acres “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds” through an unnumbered Executive Order 

and expanded in 1909 by Executive Order 1014. The Pelican Island Refuge “shall be administered 

by him (the Secretary of the Interior) directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements and in 

accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of 

wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon” [16 USC §664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act)]. The refuge shall “conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including those which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species” [16 USC §1534 (Endangered Species Act)]. Further, the 

refuge serves “...the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources... [16 USC §742(f)(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act)] ...for the benefit of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services...” [16 USC §742(f)(b)(1) 

(Fish and Wildlife Act)].

Later, the Refuge Recreation Act was also applied to the refuge “...for (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened species....” [16 USC §460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act)]. The 

existence of the refuge serves the “...conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans....” [16 USC §668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)]. Finally, 

the Pelican Island Wilderness Area “...shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in such manner as will leave them (wilderness areas) unimpaired for future use and 

enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of 

their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use 

and enjoyment as wilderness....” [16 USC 1 1 21 (note) (Wilderness Act)].

On October 23, 1970 under Public Law 91-504, the 5.5-acre Pelican Island became one of the 

smallest wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System. All management 

activities occurring within the original 5.5-acre wilderness boundary must meet the standards and

criteria set forth in the Wilderness Act. Currently, about 3.3 acres of the wilderness area are 

submerged due to the erosion of Pelican Island proper. 

The refuge is also designated as a National Historic Landmark, a Wetland of International 

Importance, and a candidate Marine Protected Area. Because of its status as the first federal area

set aside specifically to protect wildlife, the refuge was designated a National Historic Landmark by 

the Secretary of the Interior in 1963. Thirty years later in 1993, Pelican Island Refuge was 

recognized by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as a Wetland of International Importance for its 

support of endangered species and large assemblages of migratory birds, as well as for its support of 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
species at critical stages in their biological development. In 2000, the refuge was listed as a 

candidate Marine Protected Area for its protection of estuarine waters. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is in a critical location to serve and support biological diversity 

in the Indian River Lagoon and South Florida. Human impacts and underlying causes and threats to 

biological diversity include: 

• the direct loss of habitat due to development and other human activities; 

• the simplification and degradation of remaining habitats, including habitat alteration and 

fragmentation; 

• the loss and decline of species and biological diversity; 

• the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion facilities; 

• the introduction and spread of exotic, nuisance, and invasive species; 

• the lack of environmental regulation and enforcement; and 

• the cumulative effects of land and water resource development projects.

As a result of these causes and threats, many species endemic to the southern Indian River Lagoon 

have become either extinct, endangered, or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The

refuge supports at least 14 federally threatened or endangered species. Further, the refuge also 

supports 45 species listed by the State of Florida as either threatened, endangered, special concern, 

or commercially exploited; 54 species listed by the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered 

Plants and Animals; 54 species, 3 communities, and 2 sites listed by the Florida Natural Areas 

Inventory; and 11 species listed by the Audubon WatchList for Florida. (See Appendix IV for a 

complete listing of these species.) Nationally, 1,262 species are federally listed, with 986 listed as

endangered (388 animals and 598 plants) and 276 listed as threatened (129 animals and 147 plants). 

Further, 257 species are listed as candidates for federal listing. 

Habitats in and around the refuge serve a variety of species and are highly important in this 

developed landscape. A number of biodiversity hotspots are located in and around the refuge. These 

hotspots are areas with a high degree of overlap for 54 kinds of declining wildlife species with known 

occurrences of flora, fauna, and natural communities (Cox, Kautz, Maclaughlin, and Gilbert 1994). 

St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve (including impoundments and wetlands), seagrass beds in 

and around the refuge, and privately owned mangrove islands south of Wabasso bridge are hotspots 

identified as the most critical. Adjacent conservation lands are also critical to many species of wildlife 

that also use the refuge (Figure 4). 

The high productivity and biological diversity of Pelican Island Refuge have been altered by people, 

which, in turn, have altered the way the Indian River Lagoon functions. The refuge faces ongoing

threats from contaminated air, soil, and water; erosion and sedimentation; and cumulative habitat 

impacts from land and water resource development activities. Rapid population growth and 

development have resulted in long-term negative effects to the Pelican Island Refuge. By the year

2010, about one million people will reside in the Indian River Lagoon area. Terrestrial habitats that 

once dominated upland areas include hardwood hammocks, which are very important for mammals 

and migratory birds. Urbanization and agricultural operations (e.g., large citrus groves) now dominate 

land uses in upland areas. Stormwater inputs, saltwater exchange through fortified ocean inlets, 

pollution, habitat destruction, and continual land and water use practices are constant threats to fish 

and wildlife. 

10 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 4. Conservation lands 
The reduction of ecological function and connection is a major problem in areas where the 

modification of inland waterways has caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic resource 

productivity. Beaches, seagrass beds, salt marshes, mangrove islands, and hammocks are subject 

to further loss or elimination. Causeways, the Intracoastal Waterway, beach and shoreline 

development, and fishing activities dominate aquatic uses in transitional and aquatic communities 

and habitats. Causeway construction, canal dredging, and commercial agricultural operations have 

contributed to the long-term loss and elimination of aquatic resources and habitats. Wetlands (former 

salt marshes and mangrove swamps) on the refuge were converted and managed to aid in mosquito 

control. Until recently, these impoundment areas were cut off from the rest of the Lagoon, isolating 

fish and other aquatic organisms from accessing this highly productive area. Reconnecting 

impoundments and restoring natural flow and biological interchange, while maintaining mosquito 

control and migratory bird habitat, are challenges to resource managers. As water quality declines in 

the Lagoon due to sediment and nutrient runoff, seagrasses decline, resulting in declines in fish and 

mollusk production. 

Erosion of Pelican Island proper has increased management concerns of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding the primary impacts from boat wakes and the secondary impacts from channel 

dredging within the Sebastian Inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway. The rapid increase in coastal 

development is also of major concern. With the continual loss of Pelican Island proper, long-term

impacts are experienced by many declining species. Predominantly due to the growth of the human 

population and the associated increases in public use activities and wildlife and habitat impacts and 

disturbance, the land base of Pelican Island proper (i.e., the original 5.5-acre rookery) decreased 

from 1943 to 1996 by more than 50 percent to 2.2 acres (Figure 5). Erosion predictions show grave 

consequences for this rookery island (Dunlevy 1996) (Figure 6). However, current shoreline 

stabilization efforts have increased the size of the Island to 2.8 acres (as of 2004). 

12 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 5. Pelican Island proper erosion over time 

Figure 6. 2010 and 2020 Pelican Island proper erosion predictions 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Habitat conditions on Pelican Island have been changing over the last century. In 1903, when the 

refuge was established, the 5.5-acre Island functioned as a brown pelican rookery with some 10,000 

pelicans counted during the peak nesting season. At that time, Paul Kroegel focused on keeping 

market hunters and egg collectors from decimating the population. One hundred years later, more 

than a dozen species nest on the Island with less than 100 nesting pairs of pelicans on the Island in 

the spring. Table 1 and Figure 7 clearly show a decline for the numbers and types of species nesting 

on Pelican Island proper. From 1910 to 1999, the total number of nesting pairs has decreased nearly 

94 percent. Even from 1995 to 1999, the total number of nesting pairs has decreased by nearly 44

percent. This decline is related to the erosion of the rookery island and the general decline of wildlife 

species in the South Florida Ecosystem. Today, managers focus on limiting disturbance to the 

rookery and restoring and stabilizing the shoreline from further loss. 

Table 1. Number of nesting pairs and types of species found on Pelican Island proper. 

Number of Nesting Pairs Species

1910 1920 1941 1965 1976 1986 1995 1999 2004

Brown Pelican 5,000 800 500 300 300 200 153 80 47

Wood Stork 200 250 150 220 135 167

Great Blue Heron 100 20 25 15 10 24

Tri-colored Heron 500 50 45 15 3 10

Little Blue Heron 300 50 5 5 1 1

Black-crowned 

Night Heron 

25 25 4 4 10 3 1

Great Egret 25 150 50 48 50 15 10

Snowy Egret 500 200 40 35 20 6

Cattle Egret 10 400 5 5 9

Cormorant 75 125 50 50 40 25

Anhinga 4 20 0 0 3

Reddish Egret 2 4 4 3

American 

Oystercatcher 

1 1 1 0

Green-backed 

Heron 

2 2 1 0 0

Total 5,000 800 1,854 1,160 751 992 564 317 306

14 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 7. Decline of colonial nesting birds on Pelican Island proper. 

Total Number of Nesting Pairs on Pelican Island Proper

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

19101920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

198019902000

Year

N

u

m

b

er of

N

e

stin

g

P

airs

On many of the lagoonal islands and within other refuge habitats, exotic plants have displaced the 

majority of the native species. Problem and invasive exotics such as Brazilian pepper and Australian 

pine cover much of the refuge. Citrus trees for agricultural harvest cover other large areas. 

Commercial and residential development, feral animals and free roaming pets, commercial fishing

and shell fishing, recreational boating and marinas, as well as elevated nutrient loading and pollution 

on the waterways are increasing. 

Continual disturbance of fish spawning areas, nesting birds, and manatees and the reduction of water 

quality from pollutants and watercraft are continual management problems. With a limited number of 

full-time staff (i.e., staff increased from one to four in 2001), a continual challenge is the ability to 

coordinate conservation management with the more than 100 agencies and organizations who share 

responsibility of managing the Indian River Lagoon watershed. Management overlap of refuge lands 

and waters is shared by many agencies. The refuge was set aside for conservation, yet without 

adequate levels of staff to enforce regulations. Today, the lagoonal portion of the refuge is being

utilized primarily for recreation. Lagoonal islands in and around the refuge are overrun with exotic 

plants, trash, and debris, but thanks to the efforts of several private groups and the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, some of the islands of the Indian River Lagoon are being

restored and protected. 

The lack of Service ownership of most of the refuge presents a difficult management challenge (i.e., 

the Service owns ±363 acres and leases the bulk of the over 5,400 acres from the State of Florida). 

Current long-term lease and management agreements between landowners with properties within the 

approved refuge acquisition boundary tend to favor stipulations and mission requirements of the 

owner, making it difficult for the Service to fulfill its mission, the refuge’s purposes, and trust 

responsibilities. For instance, the management agreement between the State of Florida and the 

Service stipulates that many activities, including boating, sun bathing, commercial and sport fishing, 

and shell fishing would continue to be allowed within most of the refuge boundary. These traditional 

activities continue to contribute to a diverse economy and provide recreational opportunities to its 

residents, but at a cost to fish and wildlife resources. To manage in support of fish and wildlife 

conservation (e.g., to regulate activities to protect colonial nesting birds, juvenile fish, and threatened 

and endangered populations), refuge managers need additional authority to protect fish and wildlife 

resources to meet agency mission and legal requirements. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is located along the southeast coast of Florida in the most 

productive estuary in the country--the Indian River Lagoon. The Lagoon has more species of plants 

and animals than any other estuary in North America, including over 2,200 animal species and over 

2,100 plant species. Since it is located where the temperate and tropical zones overlap and located 

within the Indian River Lagoon at the confluence of freshwater and saltwater sources, the refuge is 

uniquely situated to support a wide variety of resident and migratory species. 

Although Pelican Island Refuge was established in 1903, land purchases did not begin until 87 years 

later in 1990. To date, only ±351 acres have been acquired. As of September 30, 2002, the refuge 

manages over 5,400 acres of the ±6,184-acre acquisition boundary. Table 2 summarizes the 

Service-owned and managed lands and waters within the refuge, while Figure 2 delineates these 

areas. 

Management efforts from 1903 until 2002 focused on coordinating with partners controlling exotic and 

invasive species; securing staff to operate the refuge; managing volunteers; and initiating 

conservation programs that benefit migratory birds and federally endangered and threatened species. 

During this planning process, in 2001, the refuge expanded its staff from one to four. Two more 

positions were also added during this planning process in 2002. The now six-person staff addresses 

a variety of refuge projects, including recent conservation management projects such as: 

• recruiting and training staff and volunteers; 

• developing visitor facilities; 

• coordinating shoreline stabilization and restoration of Pelican Island proper; 

• coordinating habitat restoration and facility improvements on the barrier island to showcase 

Refuge System Centennial events (in March 2003) and to provide opportunities for on-site 

wildlife viewing, environmental education, and cultural history interpretation; 

• removing exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; and 

• contributing to the recovery of federally threatened and endangered species (e.g., by posting 

refuge boundary signs and conducting patrols). 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS 

The refuge serves as a critical repository of gene pools, species, and communities that is very 

important to the overall contribution and health of the Indian River Lagoon and the South Florida 

Ecosystem. Named after the original pelican rookery that currently occupies a 2.8-acre lagoonal 

island and that serves as the focal point of the refuge, Pelican Island Refuge provides an important 

ecological niche for fish, wildlife, and plant species. The Service manages refuge resources and 

coordinates with neighboring land managers and agencies to conserve biological diversity in the 

Indian River Lagoon region. 

Pelican Island Refuge serves as an important site for the recovery of federally and state listed 

threatened and endangered species. The refuge’s location and habitat features are significant for the 

future of 14 federally listed threatened and endangered species, as well as for the future of 45 

species listed by the State of Florida (see Appendix IV). Restoration efforts on the refuge, coupled

with a combination of protected and managed public and private lands, could provide the necessary 

conditions for endangered species to live with minimal disturbance, despite the high level of human 

development and use in and around the refuge. Beyond the 14 federally listed species and despite

limited data, the refuge is known to support hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and 

16 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 2. Service-owned and managed lands and waters within the refuge’s acquisition 

boundary (as of October 31, 2003). 

Entity Method Acreage

USFWS ownership 363.493

Bureau of Land Management withdrawal 37.500 

Orchid Island Golf and 

Country Club

easement 127.280

Windsor (27.19 acres total) easement 19.161 

Indian River County Management 

agreement 122.480 

State of Florida (Pelican 

Island NWR lease) lease 4,737.540

State of Florida (Archie Carr 

NWR leases) leases 37.210

Total Acreage under Pelican Island NWR 

Management (as of October 31, 2003) 5,444.664 

amphibians, invertebrates, fish, and plants, with many more species suspected to occur on the 

refuge. 

Avian species are highly important wildlife resources identified on the refuge with more than 140 

species of birds using the refuge as a nesting, roosting, feeding, or loafing area. At least 16 different 

species of birds nest on Pelican Island proper. And at least 39 bird species using the refuge are 

listed by federal or state governments, Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and 

Animals, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, or Audubon WatchList. (Refer to Appendix IV for a listing of 

these birds.) The federally endangered wood stork is of special interest to Service managers. Wood 

stork populations have declined sharply in Florida, from 60,000 in the 1930s to 5,000 pairs today. 

Wood storks have been nesting on Pelican Island proper since 1950. The Pelican Island colony has 

been one of the most consistently active rookeries in the State of Florida (Rogers, Wenner, and 

Schwikert 1987). Currently, between 90 and 150 pairs of wood storks nest on Pelican Island proper 

each year. 

At least 18 mammals are known to occur on the refuge: short-tailed shrew, least shrew, nine-banded 

armadillo, opossum, bobcat, river otter, eastern wood rat, cotton mouse, southeastern beach mouse, 

raccoon, black rat, gray squirrel, hispid cotton rat, spotted skunk, marsh rabbit, eastern cottontail, 

West Indian manatee, and bottlenose dolphin. The Lagoon is used extensively by Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins and West Indian manatees and both are commonly seen on the refuge. 

And 27 reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on the refuge: eight snakes, eight frogs and 

toads, five sea turtles, and three lizards, as well as the gopher tortoise, diamondback terrapin, and 

American alligator. As a juvenile sea turtle nursery, the lagoonal waters of the refuge serve critical 

needs for threatened and endangered sea turtles. 

A wide variety of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial invertebrates are found within the refuge’s 

boundary. For example, the mangrove crab is found on the refuge and is listed by the Florida 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. Some of the more common invertebrates 

include conchs, snails, oysters, land crabs, dragonflies, butterflies, and cicadas. 

In addition to invertebrates, a variety of fish species utilize the refuge. One hundred and six different 

fish species were identified in 1897 during the first fisheries survey ever conducted in the Lagoon 

(Evermann and Bean). Surveys conducted in 1994 (Gilmore 1995) listed 782 fish species for east

central Florida, with at least half of this amount occurring at some point of their life history in the 

Indian River Lagoon. Over 200 fish species are known to occur on the refuge. In addition, the refuge 

supports 10 fish species listed by the State of Florida, Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered 

Plants and Animals, or Florida Natural Areas Inventory, including sturgeon, pipefish, goby, rivulus, 

and snook. Other fish using the refuge include tarpon, spotted sea trout, flounder, black mullet, red 

and black drum, ladyfish, mackerel, and bluefish. Fish species within the refuge are important not 

only to commercial and recreational interests, but also to the ecology of the area. Important fish 

habitat such as fish spawning and fish settlement sites in the refuge must be protected to ensure

healthy, sustainable fish populations. 

Beyond wildlife species, the refuge supports an estimated 300 plant species, including 18 species 

listed by the federal government, State of Florida, Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants 

and Animals, and/or Florida Natural Areas Inventory: giant leather fern, Curtiss’ milkweed, hand fern, 

Christmas berry, butterfly orchid, beach creeper, Johnson’s seagrass, crested coralroot, pineland 

lantana, Simpson stopper, shell mound prickly pear cactus, cinnamon fern, pepper, inkberry, inflated 

wild pine, giant wild pine, coastal vervain, and Tampa vervain.

HABITATS 

The primary habitats of the refuge fall into three categories: aquatic communities, transitional 

communities, and upland communities. Lagoonal waters, including estuarine waters, seagrasses, 

drift algae, and exposed bottoms, cover over 75 percent of the refuge (see Lucode = 5400 in Table 

3). The remaining habitats of the refuge include agriculture (i.e., citrus groves), hardwood forest, 

Australian pine, lakes, mangrove swamps, forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, non-vegetated 

wetlands, rural land in transition (e.g., former citrus groves that are currently in early successional 

stages), spoil areas, and roadways. Existing land uses within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, but 

not currently part of the refuge, include residential, commercial, and agricultural uses, as well as

roadways. See Table 3 and Figure 8 for a breakdown of the land use/land cover types within the 

refuge’s acquisition boundary. (The land use/land cover types were obtained from the St. Johns 

River Water Management District and represent 1995 conditions. Habitat surveys on the refuge may 

yield slightly different results.) See Table 4 for the characteristics of the main habitat types of the 

refuge. 

Aquatic communities of the refuge are in a mix of habitats, including lagoonal waters (e.g., exposed 

bottoms, drift algae, seagrasses, and open estuarine waters) and the open water portion of the 

impoundments. Exposed bottoms and oyster bars provide cover for invertebrates and small fish, 

providing a forage base for a variety of wildlife along the food chain (this habitat supports key species 

such as segmented worms, brittle stars, clams, oysters, stingrays, and flounders). Drift algae is free 

drifting algae that collects in response to wind, water currents, and bottom topography and which 

contributes to the primary productivity, and overall complexity of the Lagoon ecosystem (this habitat 

supports key species such as juvenile green sea turtles). With seven species found in this area, 

seagrasses are a key habitat of the Lagoon system, playing a prominent role as a nursery (key 

species supported in this habitat include manatees, red drum, spotted sea trout, sea horses, blue

crabs, clams, shrimp, sea urchins, and wading and diving birds). In seagrass meadows, 214 fish 

species have been identified, with 87 percent of the species in a juvenile stage. Providing a transition 

18 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 3. Land use/land cover within the refuge’s acquisition boundary.

Primary 

Land Use/ 

Cover 

Code 

(Lucode) 

Secondary 

Land Use/ 

Cover 

Code 

(Lucode2) 

Land Use/Land Cover Code Description Estimated 

Acreage 

1100 0 Residential, low density, <2 dwelling units per acre 55.7

1200 0 Residential, medium density, 2-5 dwelling units per acre 2.2

1300 0 Residential, high density, >5 dwelling units per acre 8.1

1400 0 Commercial and services 6.8

1850 0 Parks and zoos 3.8

1900 0 Open land 6.2

2210 4370 Agriculture, citrus groves, Australian pine 380.4

2430 0 Agriculture, ornamentals 4.3

3300 0 Mixed rangeland (old field, cabbage palm) 5.7

4200 0 Upland hardwood forest 6.3

4250 4220 Temperate/tropical hardwood (maritime hammock), 

Brazilian pepper 69.1

4370 4220 Australian pine, Brazilian pepper 106.7

5100 0 Streams and waterways 0.9

5200 0 Lakes 31.8

5340 0 Reservoirs <10 acres 8.1

5400 0 Bays and estuaries 3,697.5

5400 6450 Bays and estuaries, submerged aquatic vegetation 879.1

6120 4370 Mangrove swamps, Australian pine 2.5

6120 6420 Mangrove swamps, saltwater marshes 737.3

6120 6500 Mangrove swamps, Non-vegetated wetland 3.3

6300 0 Wetland forested mixed 18.1

6410 0 Freshwater marsh 1.1

6420 0 Saltwater marsh 56.6

6460 0 Mixed scrub-shrub wetland (predominantly willow and 

wax myrtle) 65.5

6500 0 Non-vegetated wetland 16.0

7430 0 Spoil areas 4.7

8140 0 Roads and highways 6.2

Total acreage within the refuge’s acquisition boundary 6,184.0

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 8. Land use/land cover of the refuge 

20 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 4. Characteristics of the main habitat types of the refuge.

Community Habitat Type Characteristics Key Species

Exposed 

Bottoms 

Exposed bottoms lack rooted plants, 

yet support algae communities. 

Oyster bars are another important 

component of this community. Both

areas provide cover for 

invertebrates and small fish (which 

provide a forage base for a variety 

of wildlife along the food chain). 

Segmented Worms, 

Brittle Stars, Clams, 

Oysters, Conch, 

Stingrays, and 

Flounders 

Drift Algae Drifting red, green, and brown algae 

collect in response to wind, water 

currents, and bottom topography 

and contribute to the primary 

productivity and overall complexity 

of the Lagoon ecosystem. 

Juvenile Green Sea 

Turtles 

Seagrasses Seagrasses are flowering plants that

live underwater (submerged aquatic 

vegetation). The depth in which 

these plants can grow is limited by 

water clarity and sunlight

penetration. Seven species of 

seagrasses are found in this area, 

each occupying a different 

ecological niche. Seagrasses play a 

prominent role as a nursery and are 

a key habitat of the Lagoon system. 

In grass meadows, 214 fish species 

have been identified. Of these, 87 

percent (i.e., 187) is juveniles. 

Manatees, Redfish, 

Spotted Seatrout, 

Sea Horses, Blue 

Crabs, Clams, 

Conch, Shrimp, Sea 

Urchins, and Wading 

and Diving Birds 

Aquatic 

Open 

Estuarine 

Waters 

The refuge is part of the Indian River 

Lagoon system, which is fed by 

several freshwater rivers, creeks, 

and canals. The transition from 

freshwater to saltwater provides the 

basis for the diversity of wildlife 

found in this area. 

Manatees, Bald 

Eagles, Sea Turtles, 

Ospreys, Dolphins, 

Pelicans, 

Cormorants,

Waterfowl, Black 

Skimmers, Terns, 

and a Variety of Fish 

Transitional High Salt

Marsh 

Bordering the Lagoon between the 

mean daily high tide and the annual 

high tide line, salt marshes are 

areas of salt tolerant wetland 

vegetation. Salt marshes often 

contain ponds, natural depressions, 

and creeks that are utilized by fish, 

crab, and shrimp. 

Diamondback 

Terrapins, Fiddler 

Crabs, Marsh 

Rabbits, Atlantic Salt 

Marsh Snakes, 

Clapper Rails, 

Roseate Spoonbills, 

and Wood Storks 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Community Habitat Type Characteristics Key Species

Mangrove 

Swamps 

Mangrove swamps are found below 

the mean high tide line. A 

mangrove fringe is found along the 

developed shorelines of the Lagoon. 

Mangrove detritus is a critical source 

of estuarine productivity. Further, 

mangroves trap and collect 

sediment to help stabilize 

shorelines, as well as reduce flood 

damage. Over 100 fish species and

shellfish are dependent upon 

mangroves.

Mangrove Water 

Snakes, River Otters, 

Mangrove Crabs, 

Snook, Pelicans, 

Wood Storks, 

Herons, Egrets, 

Periwinkle Snails, 

and Juvenile and 

Predatory Fish 

Impoundments During the 1950s and 1960s, 

impoundments were created by 

constructing a low earthen dike 

around a salt marsh. This allowed 

for the regulation of water levels for 

the control of mosquitoes. 

Herons, Egrets, 

Shorebirds, 

Waterfowl, Reptiles, 

River Otters, Wood 

Storks, Ibises, 

Peregrine Falcons, 

and Bald Eagles 

Islands Lagoonal islands provide significant 

environmental, recreational, and 

aesthetical qualities. Natural islands 

are typically low in elevation and are 

colonized by mangroves. Spoil 

islands are higher and include more 

upland plants, including exotics such

as the Australian pine. 

Wood Storks, Ibises, 

Egrets, Herons, 

Ospreys, Brown 

Pelicans, and 

Shorebirds 

Hammocks Coastal hammocks occur on the 

barrier islands where the air 

temperatures are moderated by the 

surrounding waters. Hammocks are 

dominated by live oaks and cabbage 

palms, but include an understory 

with a diverse assemblage of 

tropical and temperate plants. 

Neotropical Migratory 

Birds, Woodrats, 

Eastern Indigo 

Snakes, Land Crabs, 

and Bobcats 

Uplands 

Citrus Groves Existing and former citrus groves of 

the refuge serve as habitat for a 

variety of species. These are 

characterized by sandy soils, 

herbaceous cover, and early 

successional vegetation. 

Ground Doves, 

Marsh Rabbits, 

Painted Buntings, 

Indigo Buntings, 

Loggerhead Shrikes, 

and Hawks 

from fresh water to salt water, the open estuarine water of the Lagoon provides the basis for the 

diversity of wildlife found on the refuge (this habitat supports key species such as manatees, bald 

eagles, sea turtles, ospreys, dolphins, pelicans, cormorants, waterfowl, black skimmers, terns, and a 

variety of fish). 

22 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Aquatic communities adjoin a variety of transitional communities on the refuge, including high salt 

marsh, mangrove swamp, mud flat, perennial and ephemeral freshwater wetlands, and impounded 

wetlands. Salt marshes are areas of salt tolerant wetland vegetation, often containing ponds, natural 

depressions, and creeks that are utilized by fish, crabs, and shrimp. Other key species in salt

marshes include diamondback terrapins, fiddler crabs, marsh rabbits, Atlantic salt marsh snakes, 

clapper rails, and wood storks. In mangrove swamps and fringes, mangroves trap and collect

sediment to help stabilize shorelines and reduce flood damage. Over 100 fish species and shellfish 

are dependent on mangroves. Key animal species found in this habitat include mangrove water 

snakes, river otters, raccoons, mangrove crabs, snook, pelicans, wood storks, herons, egrets, 

shorebirds, periwinkle snails, and juvenile and predatory fish. Freshwater wetlands created with 

water control structures that ultimately connect to the Lagoon could allow for anadromous fish 

migration, benefiting pipefish, snook, and gobies. This could result in the recruitment of 10 fish 

species unique to this area. Seasonally fluctuating ponds would benefit frogs, salamanders, crayfish, 

land crabs, rivulus, red-bellied sliders, mud turtles and snapping turtles. The created freshwater 

wetlands would provide foraging grounds for nesting and wintering birds. Restoration is planned on 

the barrier island near Jungle Trail to mimic the natural conditions once found in this area. Beyond

these natural and restored aquatic habitats, the refuge also manages impounded wetlands. Under a 

management agreement, Bird’s and Pete’s impoundments are actively managed for mosquito control 

by the Indian River Mosquito Control District. In addition, the refuge currently coordinates with the 

Indian River Mosquito Control District to regulate the water levels in Pete’s and Bird’s impoundments 

on an alternative rotation schedule for wading bird feeding. The North and South Deerfield 

impoundments are breached and therefore function according to the natural rhythms of the Indian

River Lagoon. Key species supported by these impoundments include herons, egrets, shorebirds, 

waterfowl, reptiles, river otters, wood storks, ibises, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles. 

Finally, transitional communities give way to upland communities on the refuge, including lagoonal 

islands, spoil islands, coastal hammock, citrus groves, refugia habitat, and developed and 

interpretative lands. 

The refuge manages three spoil islands and 23 natural islands and islets. While both the natural and 

spoil islands have natural and exotic vegetation, the spoil islands tend to be dominated by exotic 

plants. Many of the spoil islands off the refuge are used for recreational activities such as day use 

and overnight camping and these uses tend to spill over onto the spoil islands managed by the 

refuge, which are managed under the lease agreement with the State of Florida and which are open 

to the traditional public uses specified in the lease agreement. The most well known natural island of 

the refuge is Pelican Island proper. From 1943 to 1996, Pelican Island proper eroded to less than

half its original size (i.e., from 5.5 acres to about 2.2 acres) (see Figure 5). However, recent shoreline 

stabilization efforts have restored the Island to 2.8 acres in 2004. The total number of nesting pairs of 

birds on this historic rookery has declined nearly 94 percent since 1910 (Figure 7). In an effort to

combat these losses, shoreline stabilization efforts began as a multi-partner effort in 2000 to protect 

Pelican Island proper from eroding and losing its functionality as a rookery. Depending on the 

success of the shoreline stabilization efforts, additional actions to limit erosion may or may not be 

necessary to protect this historic rookery. These efforts are expected to reduce the loss of lands from 

erosion, aid in the accretion of sediment, and help in the revegetation of the original 5.5 acres. This 

loss of land and habitat has led to decreased populations of nesting birds on the Island, including

brown pelicans, wood storks, herons, and egrets. The mangroves which provide prime nesting 

substrate are also declining. 

To provide a buffer to the historic rookery, the refuge is acquiring lands within the acquisition 

boundary on the barrier island, including citrus groves. Dependent upon available Service, partner, 

and grant funds, the refuge plans to restore existing and acquired citrus groves to mimic natural 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
conditions and hydrology. Coastal hammocks represent much of the native habitats that previously 

existed on the barrier island. Coastal hammocks are dominated by live oaks and cabbage palms, 

and include an understory with a diverse assemblage of tropical and temperate plants. Key wildlife 

species in coastal hammocks of the refuge are neotropical migratory birds, woodrats, eastern indigo 

snakes, land crabs, and bobcats. In general, and especially within the Indian River Lagoon, tropical 

hardwood hammocks have been greatly reduced by conversion to other land uses (from historically 

agricultural uses to predominantly urban and suburban uses), fragmentation, and increased distance 

between forest patches, resulting in the decline of breeding birds. Tropical hardwood hammocks are 

severely threatened by invasions of non-indigenous animal species (Snyder, Herndon, and 

Robertson 1990). Established non-indigenous animal species in tropical hardwood hammocks 

include 7 mammals, 30 birds, 4 amphibians, and 25 reptiles (Snyder, Herndon, and Robertson 

1990).As a remnant of former agricultural operations, an old field habitat exists on the refuge. 

Although not a native habitat, this old field habitat is managed and maintained by the refuge as 

refugia habitat for the federally listed southeastern beach mouse. This old field habitat occupies

small parts of upland areas and is also valuable for grassland guild migrants such as bobolinks and 

loggerhead shrikes. By increasing management, this old field habitat will better support southeastern 

beach mice, ground doves, gopher tortoises, and migrants such as bobolinks and loggerhead 

shrikes. The refuge contributes to recovery efforts for the southeastern beach mouse by protecting 

this old field habitat and coordinating with researchers to conduct baseline surveys on the refuge. 

Also, non-native habitats, developed, and interpretative lands do occur on the refuge. The refuge is 

currently involved in habitat restoration and facility development in the Jungle Trail area. Refuge 

facilities in this area include dike trails, a boardwalk, and observation tower, serviced by county-built 

and maintained parking areas, a restroom facility, and the Jungle Trail roadway. Proposed, but 

unfunded facilities include a wildlife drive, additional boardwalks and trails, informational kiosks, a 

hummingbird/butterfly garden, and other interpretative lands, as well as a visitor center (where four 

potential sites exist for this facility). 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The Service is involved in a variety of land protection and conservation activities at Pelican Island 

Refuge, including a lease agreement with the State of Florida, management agreements, 

conservation easements, partnership land acquisition efforts, and Service land acquisition efforts. 

The refuge leases the majority of the lands and waters of the refuge from the State of Florida. So it is 

important that the refuge and the State of Florida coordinate management to minimize injury, 

mortality, and disturbance of the West Indian manatee and trust species, as well as native wildlife and 

habitat in general. Under the current lease agreement, public uses including traditional navigation,

boating, bathing, shell fishing, and commercial and sport fishing are not restricted with the exception 

of a 410(-)foot buffer zone surrounding Pelican Island proper. (This buffer zone is measured from the 

mean high water line.) The current lease agreement does not specify control of using personal 

watercraft and camping on spoil islands, which are currently uncontrolled on the refuge. Beyond this 

lease agreement, the Service has other agreements addressing refuge management, including 

agreements with Indian River Mosquito Control District for the impoundments and with Indian River 

County for 122.5 acres. And a conservation easement with Orchid Island Properties allows the 

refuge to manage an additional 127 acres. 

Beyond existing agreements, the Service is pursuing new agreements and acquisitions, especially for 

the buffer properties located on the barrier island. Given the ongoing and growing development 

pressures experienced in this area, acquisition of the buffer for the Pelican Island rookery is already a 

priority. Without acquisition of these barrier island properties by the refuge and/or its partners and 

24 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
given the growth pressures of the area and current development activities, it is likely that these 

properties will be developed privately in the near future. 

To the west, on the mainland, the Service is working with Indian River County and other partners to

pursue acquisition and management of the Kroegel Homestead, since it is an integral piece of the 

history of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the local community. Ongoing negotiations are 

underway with the Kroegel family. 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Consistent with the provisions outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the 

Service can provide high quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation programs. At Pelican 

Island Refuge these include fishing, observing and photographing wildlife, and participating in 

environmental education and interpretation (see Figure 9). These priority public uses provide the 

public with an opportunity to learn about, enjoy, and appreciate natural resources, but not at the 

expense of the natural environment. Any allowed use of the refuge, including these priority public 

uses, must be determined to be compatible with the refuge’s purposes and with the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (see Appendix V for the draft compatibility determinations). 

Fundamental and supreme to the provision of these uses is the provision of viable and diverse fish 

and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend. Those uses that do not support 

the purposes of the refuge, that threaten or disturb fish and wildlife populations, or that are not 

compatible public uses will be phased out on the refuge. 

Priority public use activities currently occurring on the refuge include fishing and observing and 

photographing wildlife (see Figure 9 for current facilities and facilities under construction). Fishing is 

permitted in the open water areas of the Indian River Lagoon under the lease agreement with the 

State of Florida and opportunities exist for catching a variety of sport fish, including redfish, snook, 

seatrout, mangrove snapper, and Jack Crevalle. State fishing regulations apply. Bank fishing 

currently occurs in the Indian River Lagoon. However, the locations of these activities are not 

managed by the Service because of the lack of staff and the conditions of the lease agreement, 

resulting in wildlife loss and disturbance (e.g., bank fishing can flush nesting birds, leaving the nest 

and any eggs or young subject to predation and direct sunlight for prolonged periods). Wildlife 

observation and photography are highly popular activities, with visitors attracted to the area on a 

year-round basis. Facility development and improvements are underway, including a boardwalk and 

observation tower off Jungle Trail. Environmental education programs are not offered on the refuge, 

however, the staff does conduct occasional on-site interpretive programs and off-site outreach 

activities. The refuge also offers a web site and several brochures describing refuge program 

activities. 

Under the existing lease agreement with the State of Florida, fishing and boating are not restricted by 

the refuge, except for a narrow buffer area around the 2.2- acre Pelican Island. Current uses include 

those which are negatively impacting wildlife and habitats (e.g., using personal watercraft and 

camping on the spoil islands). Also, current boating, personal watercraft use, and camping activities

are negatively impacting key bird nesting sites (e.g., these activities flush birds from nests, resulting in 

nest abandonment and nest predation). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Historically, the refuge was managed by one staff member, a single boat, and a shotgun, or less. For 

nearly 100 years, the refuge was sustained by the partners, including state and local government 

agencies and conservation organizations such as the Audubon of Florida, Indian River Area 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Preservation League, Pelican Island Audubon Society, and the Indian River County Historical 

Society. Most recently, the refuge has been aided by the efforts of the Pelican Island Preservation 

Society. The Pelican Island Preservation Society has been instrumental in providing volunteers to 

increase public awareness and to increase support from local, state, and federal agencies regarding 

pressing issues. Preservation Society volunteers also provide support for other refuge management 

activities (e.g., exotic plant control activities). Supplementing the efforts of the volunteers and the

partners, refuge staff has grown to six full-time employees. 

Numerous research activities by a variety of entities currently occur on the refuge. However, due to 

the lack of staff, the refuge has historically not managed nor has the refuge been aware of all the

research conducted within its boundary, the data collected, or the wildlife and habitat impacts from

conducting this research. As a result of this planning process, the refuge began issuing special use 

permits for research activities in May 2002; however, research activities continue to occur without

refuge permits. 

Adopted in 1986, the Wilderness Management Plan outlines existing objectives and management 

actions for the Wilderness Area located on Pelican Island proper. Predominantly utilized by colonial 

nesting birds, the 2.2-acre Pelican Island Wilderness Area includes an estimated cover of 50 percent 

red and black mangroves interspersed with smooth cord grass, salt grass, sea oxeye daisy, prickly 

pear cactus, and Christmas berry. The shallow waters surrounding the Wilderness Area contain beds 

of widgeon and shoal grasses. The Wilderness Area is closed year-round to the public to protect the 

variety of colonial nesting birds. Although public use is prohibited within this small wilderness area, 

wildlife viewing just outside the wilderness boundary is popular.

A survey for soil contaminants was conducted June 15-17, 1999, near the vicinity of the Jungle Trail 

(on the Kennedy, Surman, and Pryor tracts). Materials such as fertilizers and low levels of copper in 

localized areas were removed from the soil. The refuge also removed debris and paint cans. As new 

citrus groves are acquired, the Service will conduct additional contaminant surveys. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Although the refuge is 100 years old, its history is a bit older. Florida’s terrestrial vertebrate life dates 

back 25 million years (Myers and Ewel 1990); human inhabitation of the Indian River Lagoon region 

extends back at least 12,000 years; and Indian shell middens throughout the area date from 1,000 

BC to 1,000 AD. Since the refuge includes several archaeological sites and since these sites are 

fairly accessible to disruption, vandalism, and theft, several archaeological surveys have been 

conducted on the refuge since 1981. The refuge and Indian River County are currently working 

together to list midden sites in the Florida Master Site File. Some of these sites are eligible for listing 

in the National Register. In the event that a previously undetected archaeological site is uncovered, 

activity must stop and the refuge must coordinate with the Service’s Regional Archaeologist and 

Florida’s State Historic Preservation Office. 

Recognized for its historic significance as the first refuge and the birthplace of the National Wildlife

Refuge System, Pelican Island Refuge was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1963. The 

Kroegel Homestead is locally and nationally historically significant as the home of the first Refuge

Manager. Yet, the historic Kroegel Homestead is facing mounting development pressures. The 

Kroegel Homestead was settled in 1881 and is located directly across the Indian River Lagoon from 

Pelican Island proper and the rest of the refuge. The refuge and the Kroegel Homestead are integral 

elements of the local community. Descendants of the Kroegel family are still active in the local 

community and continue to live on what remains of the original Homestead. 

26 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 9. Current visitor facilities 
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The refuge is located along the Indian River Lagoon region, which was generally unaffected by 

human activities until the early 1800s. Early activities included growing citrus, harvesting palmetto 

berries, and growing pineapple. By the late 1800s, commercial fisheries opened up the Lagoon’s 

resources. With repeated freezes devastating agricultural crops, cattle grazing increased in the 

region. Various military facilities were developed in the region during World War II. By the 1960s, 

NASA’s space program instigated considerable growth in the area. The modern economy of the 

Indian River Lagoon is based on tourism and agriculture, as well as on fishing, manufacturing, real 

estate, services, and government. Today, citrus is a $2.1 billion industry in the Lagoon region (Indian 

River Lagoon National Estuary Program 1996). 

The Indian River Lagoon is renowned for its recreational and ecotourism opportunities. The marsh 

beds act as nursery grounds that support an $800 million dollar industry to the local economy. 

Commercial and sport fishing, tourism, and real estate development are the mainstay in this area. In 

1995, residents and tourists valued the Indian River Lagoon at more than $733 million, including

spending on recreational activities (e.g., rental of fishing boats), commercial fish landings (e.g., 

seafood sales), and Lagoon-front property (e.g., home purchases) (Apogee 1996). [Of this $733 

million, access to the resources, valued at $200 million, is not reflected in market transactions 

(Apogee 1996).] An estimated $54 million was spent on recreational fishing in the Lagoon in 1990 

with an anticipated escalation to $87 million by 2010 (Milon and Thunberg 1993). The Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission estimates that non-consumptive bird use (e.g., observing, 

photographing, drawing, and painting) annually generates $477 million in retail sales in Florida 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000). The Indian River Lagoon region figures 

prominently in the Great Florida Birding Trail with over 40 sites throughout the Lagoon region and a

main gateway at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Over 15 percent of Florida’s restaurants and 

hotels are located within the Indian River Lagoon region (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary 

Program 1996). 

In 1990, the Indian River Lagoon region supported a population of about 750,000. By 2010, this 

population is anticipated to reach 1 million (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program 1996). 

Although a smaller county in the region, Indian River County’s population increased by over 25 

percent over the last 10 years from 90,208 in 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau 1991) to 112,947 in 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). During this same time period, the city of Sebastian grew at a rate of 

58.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). Median household income for Indian River County in 

1997 was approximately $35,895 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d). While this value is above the 

national average, it is estimated that approximately 11.2 percent of the population of Indian River 

County live at or below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d). Further, in October 2000, the 

unemployment rate for Indian River County was more than double (i.e., 7.5 percent) either the Florida 

or the U.S. unemployment rate (i.e., 3.7 percent for Florida and 3.6 percent for the U.S.) (Florida

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2000). The county’s population continues to be 

predominantly white and older, with considerable increases in the Hispanic and Asian race 

categories. The county’s median age rose in the 1990s to 47 years of age (Eljera 2001b). The 

adjacent counties are generally larger than Indian River County: to the north, Brevard County’s 2000 

population was 476,230; to the south, St. Lucie County’s 2000 population was 192,695; and to the 

west, Osceola County’s 2000 population was 172,493 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). By 2015, Indian 

River County’s population is forecasted to reach 144,000 (Lenze 2002). 

Natural and agricultural lands of the area are increasingly being converted to urban and suburban

uses. This rapid growth and its associated impacts dramatically affect the refuge and its resources. 

This growth even extends to the borders of the refuge. See Figure 10 to view the land use/land cover 

28 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Figure 10. Land use/land cover of the area 
classifications in and around the refuge (St. Johns River Water Management District 1995). See 

Figure 11 for an aerial view showing the development surrounding the refuge–image taken in 1999 

with 1 meter resolution (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1999c). To the west of the 

refuge, across the Indian River Lagoon and the highly utilized Intracoastal Waterway is the City of 

Sebastian. Development west of the refuge includes residential uses (e.g., single-family homes,

condos, and mobile home parks), the City of Sebastian’s Riverview Park, commercial uses (e.g., gas 

stations, restaurants, automobile and boat dealers, and small businesses), minor undeveloped lands 

(e.g., Duck Point), citrus groves, plant nurseries, and sand mining operations. To the north of the 

refuge are residential uses, Sebastian Inlet, and the highly utilized Sebastian Inlet State Recreation 

Area (the annual visitation to the Recreation Area is approximately 750,000). The County Road 510 

Bridge (i.e., Wabasso Causeway), the Environmental Learning Center, Disney’s Vero Beach Resort, 

and commercial uses are to the south of the refuge. Residential developments (e.g., towns of Orchid 

and Windsor), residential lots (up to 3 units per acre), active agricultural operations (i.e., citrus 

groves), Indian River County beach front parks (e.g., Treasure Shores), and Archie Carr Refuge line 

the eastern border of the refuge. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The climate, topography, geology, air quality, soils, and waterways form the foundation of the 

physical environment of the refuge. 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge’s climate is subtropical and temperate. The average 

temperature is 67 degrees Fahrenheit with long, warm, humid summers and mild winters. Tropical 

storms impact the area, especially from May through mid-November. Generally, the area averages 

between 55 to 60 inches of rain annually, mostly in the summer and early fall. 

On the refuge, elevation rises east to west sharply from sea level to 15 feet, and then drops more 

gradually back to below sea level in the Indian River Lagoon. Generally, the elevation of the area 

between the Lagoon and St. Sebastian River is 20 feet. West of that, the ancient dune elevation 

rises from 20 to 30 feet.

The surface formations of the Pelican Island Refuge area are of Pleistocene (Glacial) and Holocene 

(Recent) origin. Previously submerged lands were exposed during the late Pleistocene period, 

providing for the spread of flora and fauna from the peninsula. Wetlands, salt marshes, mangroves, 

and other swampy formations lined the margins between uplands and submerged lands. The tropical 

hammocks and coastal shrubs of the area were most likely nourished by the prevailing West Indies

with substantial influences on the flora, birds, and insects from Cuba and the Bahamas (summarized 

from Myers and Ewel 1990). 

The air pollutants of major concern in Florida are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 

particulate matter and sulfur dioxide (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1999a). The 

primary sources of these pollutants are vehicle emissions, power plants, and industrial activities. In 

1999, all areas of Florida were air quality attainment areas (Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 1999a). The Indian River Lagoon area is considered to have good air quality. However, 

occasional temperature inversions, lasting up to 48 hours, can temporarily degrade local air quality 

below acceptable levels. 

The general soils of the refuge include Canaveral-Captiva-Palm Beach, which is characterized by

gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained sandy soils with shell fragments, 

and McKee-Quartzipsamments-St. Augustine, which is characterized by level, somewhat poorly 

drained soils mixed with sand and shell fragments (Wettstein, Nobel, and Slabaugh 1987). Specific 

30 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 11. Aerial view of refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
soils found on the refuge include: Canaveral Fine Sand, 0-5 percent Slopes; Quartzipsamments, 0-5 

percent Slopes; Captiva Fine Sand; McKee Mucky Clay Loam; and Kesson Muck (Wettstein, Noble, 

and Slabaugh 1987). 

With numerous small rivers, creeks, and canals flowing into it, the narrow estuarine Indian River 

Lagoon stretches from Ponce de Leon south of Daytona Beach to Jupiter Inlet near West Palm 

Beach–about 155 miles. The Intracoastal Waterway is the deepest part of the Lagoon. Near the 

refuge the St. Sebastian River and Turkey Creek contribute fresh water to the brackish Lagoon. The 

Fellsmere Farms and Sebastian River water control districts feed water through the St. Sebastian 

River to the Lagoon. The St. Sebastian River flows into the Lagoon nearly opposite of Sebastian Inlet 

along the northern edge of the refuge. The Lagoon has several identified water quality parameters of 

concern: cadmium, lead, mercury, nutrients, selenium, thallium, and dissolve oxygen (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2000b). Water circulation within the Lagoon is affected by the 

Intracoastal Waterway (e.g., navigation channel maintenance and boat usage), winds, inlets, and 

causeways. The water quality within the refuge boundary is generally better quality (with Class II 

water) than nearby portions of the Lagoon. 

32 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW

It began at Pelican Island with one man, Paul Kroegel, and a small group of concerned citizens and 

scientists. From their efforts rose the largest collection of lands and waters for managed wildlife, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Although the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation planning effort

officially began in 2000, the planning process was preceded by nearly a decade of preplanning 

activities. In 1993, the first management plan was developed for the refuge. This first plan was 19

pages and outlined limited refuge management actions. In 1996, a public meeting was held to 

determine the refuge management activities and facilities desired by the public. Subsequent to this

meeting, the Pelican Island Planning Group was created to prepare a plan for refuge facilities. A draft 

plan was completed in 1997. In 1998, building on the success of the Pelican Island Planning Group, 

the Pelican Island Working Group formed as a subcommittee of the South Florida Ecosystem Team 

and focused on pressing refuge management issues (e.g., erosion of Pelican Island proper) and on 

the Centennial of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Following a series of meetings, the vision document, “Pelican Island: Honoring a Legacy,” was written 

by existing and former Fish and Wildlife Service employees, with the cooperation of a variety of 

partners and the public, and published in November 1999. This vision document set the foundation 

for the comprehensive conservation plan and clearly outlined the steps needed to protect this refuge. 

The refuge has been and will continue to be sustained by the public and its partners. Recently, the 

public has been involved in an array of refuge activities ranging from shoreline stabilization efforts for 

the historic Pelican Island rookery to preparing for the 100th anniversary of the refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

As it has over the past 100 years, the public will continue to play an integral role in the refuge over 

the next 100 years, including being involved in the development of this comprehensive conservation 

plan. The planning process provides for public involvement in developing a plan for the future 

management of a refuge. Plans are revised every 15 years, or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation 

determine that changes are needed to achieve refuge purposes, vision, goals, and/or objectives. The 

basic steps of the planning process involve gathering information, scoping public input, developing 

the draft plan, gathering and reviewing public input on the draft plan, developing the final plan, and 

implementing and monitoring the proposed actions identified in the final plan. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS 

January 2000 officially began the planning process with preplanning activities such as gathering data 

and information, meeting with Pelican Island Refuge staff and Merritt Island Refuge Complex staff 

since the refuge was managed as part of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex until 

2002, meeting with intergovernmental partners, visioning, and preparing for the public scoping phase 

of the planning process. To include the governmental partners in the planning process, an 

Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team was formed (see Section B, Chapter V for a list of the 

agencies and staff involved in this team). Team meetings were conducted on January 20, 2000; 

February 18, 2000; March 16, 2000; April 12, 2000; and May 4, 2000. The Intergovernmental 

Coordination Planning Team identified items such as existing and needed data, refuge resources, 

issues, concerns, affected members of the public, vision ideas, and public participation issues. As a 

group, this Intergovernmental Team prioritized its top issues to be addressed by the refuge over the 

15-year life of the plan. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
A Service Core Planning Team was assembled and held a series of meetings in preparation for 

conducting the planning effort and in advance of public scoping. Public scoping commenced on 

April 24, 2000, including notices in the Federal Register (on April 24, 2000 and May 12, 2000) and in 

local newspapers (on April 28-30, 2000 and May 19-20, 2000). Additional information about the 

planning process and public scoping was provided through informational flyers, planning updates, 

several articles in the local newspapers, and postings on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Internet web 

sites (http://merrittisland.fws.gov and http://pelicanisland.fws.gov). Given the proximity of the two 

refuges, several shared issues, and many overlapping interested parties, joint public meetings were 

held for Pelican Island and Archie Carr refuges.

Utilizing existing public mailing lists of the refuge, as well as public mailing lists from various 

governmental partners, more than 1,200 informational flyers were initially mailed. This first flyer 

invited participation in the planning process through a variety of means, including public meetings, 

letters, faxes, telephone calls, e-mail messages, and personal visits. The flyer also announced the

times and locations of the public meetings, provided other information, and described the purposes of 

the two refuges. Afterwards, three neighborhood meetings were conducted on May 3, May 25, and 

June 1, 2000. Outlining the planning process and highlighting the issues and concerns raised to

date, a June 2, 2000 Planning Update was mailed out to over 2,800 interested parties. Following this 

Planning Update, two summary, countywide meetings were held on June 14 and June 15, 2000, in 

Sebastian (Indian River County) and Melbourne (Brevard County). 

The public meetings were attended by a total of 90 individuals representing a variety of interests and 

organizations. Approximately 117 individuals, organizations, and governmental entities submitted 

comments regarding the plans for Pelican Island and Archie Carr refuges. Letters, faxes, email 

messages, and phone calls were received from across the country. Comments from the public were 

submitted by a variety of entities, ranging from a local middle school student to a coalition of six 

organizations representing more than 700,000 members. 

Members of the Service’s Core Planning Team met periodically to review public comments, data, and 

information collected to write the plan. Professional reviews of the refuge were conducted to 

determine the status, trends, and conditions of refuge resources and facilities. Experts from the 

Service, State of Florida (including Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of 

Environmental Protection, and St. Johns River Water Management District), Indian River Mosquito 

Control District, University of Central Florida, and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center/Dynamac 

participated in a 3-day wildlife and habitat management review of the refuge. The information 

garnered from this review helped the planning team analyze and develop recommendations for this 

draft plan and environmental assessment. A wilderness review was conducted on August 15, 2000, 

by Service staff. In review of the federally owned lands within the legislatively defined boundary of 

the refuge, no additional lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness at this time. A 

public use review was conducted on November 7-9, 2000, involving Service public use specialists 

and outdoor recreation planners. This review focused on existing activities and provided specific 

recommended actions to improve program development and facilities for sport fishing, wildlife 

viewing, environmental education and interpretation. 

The Service is seeking comments regarding this draft plan as the next stage of public involvement. 

Adjustments will be made to the draft plan accordingly, in preparation for the final plan. 

34 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
SCOPING OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS

During the preplanning and public scoping phases of plan development, a myriad of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities were raised by the public, the Service, and other public agencies. Issue 

identification is a major factor in determining future management goals and objectives, as well as 

future projects. In addition to the general public scoping meetings, a series of meetings were 

conducted with federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Coordination with the governmental 

partners and the public is essential to ensure support for the plan and identified projects. While some 

of the issues and concerns raised during scoping are significant to the future of the refuge, many are 

not within the Service’s management jurisdiction or authority, and some are completely outside of its 

control. Several opportunities raised during scoping are addressed by the Service in this draft plan. 

A Service planning team evaluated the long list of issues raised, identified the most significant issues 

to be addressed over the next 15 years, evaluated steps to rectify these issues and resource needs, 

and measured the impact of plan implementation. The Core Team then developed a list of goals,

objectives, and strategies to shape the management of the refuge for the 15-year life of the plan. 

The significant issues are divided into six categories: fish, wildlife, and plant populations; habitats; 

land protection and conservation; education and visitor services; refuge administration; and cultural 

resources. 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS 

Many wildlife using the refuge are declining, including threatened and endangered species, 

neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, and native wildlife in general. The decline and loss of wildlife 

and habitats; the fragmentation of habitats; the increase in disturbance to wildlife and habitat; and the 

spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species are negatively impacting the wildlife resources of 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Wildlife utilizing the rookery on Pelican Island proper are negatively impacted by a variety of factors, 

including erosion of the Island, loss and decline of the nesting substrate, and ongoing disturbance

from public use activities (due to the constraints of the lease agreement and due to a lack of sufficient 

staff for patrol and enforcement activities). Figure 5 shows the loss of half of Pelican Island proper 

since 1943. Figure 6 shows the predicted continued loss of Pelican Island proper without 

intervention. The erosion of the Island is due in large part to wave energy from increased boat traffic 

in the Intracoastal Waterway. The resultant increased wave energy from Sebastian Inlet may also 

play a role in the erosion of the Island. In other words, these impacts were man-made. The figures 

and data portrayed in Figures 5 and 6 spurred the refuge to act. Shoreline stabilization efforts began 

in February 1996 with the planting of 100 mangrove propagules encased in cut bamboo stalks. The 

mangroves did not survive a subsequent freeze. A follow-up replanting in August was also 

unsuccessful due to birds perching on the bamboo stalks. A study by Florida Tech and a partnership 

with Lewis Environmental Services produced a different strategy for protecting Pelican Island’s 

shoreline. In February 2000, 165 feet of clam and oyster shell, bagged in burlap, were placed by 

hand on the northeast shoreline of Pelican Island. Operation Save Pelican Island, in February 2001, 

not only added shell and vegetation to further the shoreline stabilization efforts, but also helped 

broadcast on a national scale the threats facing this refuge and other refuges around the country. 

Monitoring must be conducted to ensure that these efforts continue their initial successes at 

stabilizing and rebuilding the Island. Evaluation of additional activities is also required (e.g., the 

§1135 alternative for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to scrape down and restore specific spoil 

islands and use that material to raise the bay bottom in a targeted area offshore of Pelican Island 

proper). 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
The ongoing increases in human population translate to ongoing increases in human activities and 

use in and around the refuge. Lethal and sub-lethal impacts to wildlife stem from commercial, 

residential, and recreational use of the waterway, natural and spoil islands, barrier island, and 

mainland. Ongoing development of the landscape is consuming and fragmenting remaining offrefuge habitats which are also used by many refuge wildlife (e.g., for feeding, migrating, and 

dispersing). This development further pollutes area waterways, including on the refuge and 

increases public use of the refuge, further impacting and disturbing wildlife (e.g., island rookeries are 

disturbed by shell collecting and picnicking activities). Development also fuels the spread of exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance species, further impacting wildlife resources (e.g., free roaming pets and feral 

cats prey on refuge wildlife). If these activities are not controlled, refuge and area wildlife and 

habitats are in imminent danger of harm. 

HABITATS 

Refuge habitats are facing increased recreational pressures; negative impacts from disturbance; and 

the spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species. Pelican Island proper has been eroding, which 

could result in the loss of this historic rookery. The Indian River Lagoon system lost 18% or 12,400 

acres of seagrass from 1943 to 1992, resulting in an estimated negative economic impact of $120

million per year (St. Johns River Water Management District 1999). The refuge has a mix of stable 

seagrass, increased seagrass, and lost seagrass, while Indian River County experienced an overall 

61% gain and southern Brevard County experienced an overall 73% loss from 1943 to 1992 (St. 

Johns River Water Management District 1999). 

The majority of the refuge is leased from the State of Florida and is not governed by refuge 

regulations. High public use of the waterway portion of the refuge is governed by this lease, highly

constraining or eliminating the refuge’s ability to ensure compatibility of these uses. Consequently, 

wildlife and habitat impacts and disturbances are occurring. Outstanding shellfish leases still exist 

within the refuge. This planning process identified the need to investigate and develop methods to 

ensure better protection of the resources associated with the lands and waters leased from the State 

of Florida, to investigate strengthening and expanding the lease, and to monitor impacts of 

aquaculture activities to ensure no adverse impacts are experienced by significant resources of the 

refuge. 

Encompassing more than just native habitats, the refuge also includes exotic species and disturbed 

sites, such as the citrus groves that once covered much of this area of Florida. Of immediate concern 

are two exotic plant species: Australian pine and Brazilian pepper. Australian pine and Brazilian 

pepper cover many of the refuge’s natural and spoil lagoonal islands and are found throughout the 

barrier island portion of the refuge. These exotics have direct negative impacts to wildlife by 

aggressively out-competing native vegetation and growing uncontrollably. Beyond exotic species,

citrus groves cover large portions of the refuge. To better serve resident and migratory wildlife, the 

refuge must remove exotics and must restore native habitats. Current habitat management activities 

plan for the restoration and creation of mangrove forests, tidal marsh, freshwater wetlands, palm 

prairies, hydric hammocks, and maritime hammocks. To do this, the water table and topography 

should be restored to mimic historic, natural conditions. 

Through this planning process, management recognized the need to better coordinate with a variety 

of partners at various landscape scales to address long-term habitat management and restoration. 

Through this planning process, the refuge delineated the need to restore and manage habitats to 

benefit native species (e.g., remove exotics and replant with native vegetation; manage 

impoundments for specific wildlife benefits, especially for wood storks; and restore citrus groves to 

freshwater marsh and maritime hammock); restore and manage habitats to aid in the recovery of

36 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
threatened and endangered species; develop and implement data gathering and monitoring 

programs; restore and manage shorebird nesting habitat; and protect important foraging, loafing, and 

fish spawning sites. 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge exists in a highly developed landscape with properties within the acquisition boundary of 

the refuge under serious threat of development, with existing habitat fragmentation, and with limited 

ocean to river connectivity. Further, the existing lease agreement with the State of Florida restricts 

refuge management and prevents opportunities for controlling wildlife disturbance and negative 

habitat impacts. 

Urban and suburban developments continue to sprawl across Florida, degrading and destroying 

wildlife, habitats, and the natural functions of ecosystems. Indian River County grew over 25 percent 

between 1990 and 2000 to 112,947 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). The City of Sebastian grew at a 

rate of 58.6 percent between 1990 and 2000 to 16,181 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). This growth

extends to the borders of the refuge and properties within the acquisition boundary (that are not 

currently part of the refuge) face tremendous development pressures. If the buffer needed to protect 

Pelican Island proper is not purchased, it is very likely that these lands will be developed. This 

planning process crystallized the need to acquire the remaining inholding tracts of lands over the next 

3-5 years as a buffer for the historic rookery that would secure a needed connection between Pelican 

Island and Archie Carr refuges, providing habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other native wildlife. 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

The refuge is facing a variety of negative impacts from public use activities that stem from increased 

boat traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway and elevated fishing pressure. Further, limited 

opportunities exist for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. Although environmental 

education activities are conducted in the area by refuge partners, education efforts do not sufficiently 

address wildlife. These factors hinder the ability of the Service to increase awareness and 

understanding of wildlife and habitats. 

This CCP planning process identified the importance of addressing the increasing impacts from 

human activities and use (e.g., lethal and sub-lethal impacts from boating activities; personal 

watercraft use; collisions; wildlife disturbances; decreased water quality; erosion; development; and 

increased pollution, runoff, trash, and illegal access). The refuge must work with its partners to 

develop solutions such as designating and enforcing waterway speed limits and zones, increasing the 

presence of law enforcement personnel, and posting signs for the refuge. Further, this CCP planning 

process identified that the refuge should provide education, outreach, and public use opportunities; 

create visitor facilities to provide these services to the community and visitors (e.g., visitor center, 

trails, and observation tower); and showcase the birthplace and tell the story of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Only through education will people change their behaviors. During the public 

scoping process, the need for environmental education surfaced repeatedly as one of the top 

concerns of the public, especially for the local schools. Support for the resources and for the refuge 

will be found through educational programs, outreach efforts, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Few staff, funds, facilities, and equipment are available to address the myriad of issues facing refuge 

management. Further, uncontrolled or unknown research activities on the refuge have the potential 

for negative wildlife and habitat impacts. Since 1903, this globally and historically significant refuge

has operated with a staff of either one or none. Only in 2001 did the refuge move beyond a single 

staff member, predominantly due to the upcoming Centennial in 2003, the vision document, and the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. Funding for this refuge has historically been minimal 

or nonexistent. Since the 1960s, funds have been diverted from the Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex and the South Florida Ecosystem Team to cover needed management projects and 

more recently to cover the salary of the Refuge Manager. Hence, this refuge has been sustained by 

the public and the partners. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The refuge has not only been an integral part of the local community, but it has been and continues to 

be a source of pride and a city symbol. Given the long history of the refuge in the community and 

given the development pressures of the area, the historical and archaeological resources protected 

by the refuge are important. Issues to be addressed involving the refuge’s historical and 

archaeological resources include high development pressure facing the historically significant Kroegel 

Homestead, the home of the first Refuge Manager and the high potential for disturbance, vandalism, 

and theft from archaeological and cultural sites on the refuge. 

38 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. However, first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge 

management. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. A refuge is a vital link in the overall 

function of an ecosystem. Refuges in the South Florida Ecosystem include imperiled coastal areas 

and lagoonal islands, like those protected at Pelican Island Refuge. To offset the historic and 

continued loss of habitats within the ecosystem, the Pelican Island Refuge and other public lands 

and waters provide a biological safety net for native species, trust resources, and state and federally 

listed species. 

VISION 

Pelican Island. This is the place where it all started. It began in 1903 with a President named 

Theodore Roosevelt in a swampland called Florida at a rookery known as Pelican Island. It was at 

this small island that a promise was made to the American people to preserve wildlife and wild places 

for their own intrinsic values. Over 100 years later, we are indebted to this President for fulfilling his 

promise to allow future generations the opportunity to enjoy our wildlife heritage. 

The 1999 vision document, “Pelican Island: Honoring a Legacy,” sets forth the future for Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999b). This future is a haven for 

pelicans, egrets, herons, wood storks, and other colonial waterbirds; a restored, healthy, and 

stabilized Pelican Island; a place where manatees and dolphins thrive and where threatened and

endangered species are protected; clean lagoonal waters, abundant seagrass beds, open mud flats, 

thick mangrove islands, sandy shores, freshwater wetlands, managed salt marshes, and lush 

maritime hammock; a nursery for juvenile sea turtles; a persistent stopover for migratory wildlife; a 

highly biologically diverse estuary and fishery; a protected and secure wilderness area; and a place 

for appropriate and compatible research, wildlife-dependent recreation, and environmental education. 

Pelican Island is the birthplace and showcase of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the first refuge, 

the original rookery, the impetus for national wildlife protection. Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuge reminds us of our past and the national legacy originating at this rookery and inspires us to

honor that legacy by reaching out to partners for the conservation, protection, and enhancement of 

wildlife and wild places for current and future generations. 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge continues to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and 

restored, providing high quality, functional habitats managed to help sustain abundant populations of 

native species and to help recover threatened and endangered species. As the landscape continues 

to be developed, the importance of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge increases through time, as 

part of an interconnected system, linking the Indian River Lagoon to the Atlantic Ocean through the 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, and linking other public lands, significant habitats, refuges, and 

nations for global species protection.

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES

The goals, objectives, and strategies delineated are the Service’s response to the resource problems, 

issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the Service, the public, and the governmental partners. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
They reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the purposes and vision of Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the mandates of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The implementation of all goals, objectives, and strategies outlined will 

follow the refuge’s best management practices and will pursue avoidance and minimization of 

impacts to federally threatened and endangered species, to the extent possible and practicable (see 

Appendix VI for more information regarding avoidance and minimization). Dependent upon the 

availability of funds and staff, the Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and 

strategies over the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

GOAL A: FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS 

Continue working with the partners to maintain viable populations of those wildlife species endemic to 

the sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal system of the refuge, especially sea turtles, West Indian 

manatee, eastern indigo snake, Atlantic salt marsh snake, wood stork, and other migratory and 

resident birds. 

Discussion: Since the refuge lacks data regarding almost all refuge fish, wildlife, and plant 

populations, inventory and monitor activities dominate refuge management actions during the 15-year 

life of the comprehensive conservation plan. Satisfying these data needs will require considerable 

coordination within the Service and with refuge partners.

Objective A.1: Sea Turtles 

Throughout the 15-year life of the plan, contribute to the efforts of the Service’s South Florida 

Ecological Services Office to protect sea turtles and foraging areas through management, 

enforcement, and scientific research in the lagoonal waters of the refuge. Within 5 years of plan 

approval, develop baseline data for sea turtles in the lagoonal waters of the refuge. 

Discussion: The refuge is a globally important juvenile sea turtle nursery with high catch per unit

efforts by researchers. With the addition of staff, the refuge can take a more active role in the 

recovery of these species. In the past, Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill sea turtles have been rare visitors 

to the protected lagoonal waters of the refuge. Refuge staff will work with the South Florida 

Ecosystem Team and South Florida Ecological Services Field Office to determine the need for action 

and to potentially develop and implement recovery plans for these species, if warranted. The refuge 

will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to management activities regarding federally 

protected sea turtles. For additional information about the recovery plans for these species, see the 

South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999c). 

Disease (fibropapillomatosis) is affecting more than half of the juvenile green sea turtle population

(Ehrhart and Redfoot 1995). Sea turtles are also impacted by boat strikes and propellers, discarded 

nets, discarded monofilament fishing line, plastic bags, balloons, and other litter. 

Strategies:

• Continue to gather and encourage research into species and population biology of these sea 

turtle species. 

• Encourage continued and expanded research into the fibropapilloma disease occurring in sea 

turtles in this area. 

• Encourage the investigation of the role of contaminants in disease in juvenile green sea 

turtles. 

40 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
• Continue working with the University of Central Florida to research the foraging needs and to 

study genetic diversity and movement of juvenile green sea turtles on the refuge. 

• Document the occurrence and distribution of the Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill sea turtles on 

the refuge and coordinate with area researchers for this documentation, including the

University of Central Florida, Florida Institute of Technology, Marine Resources Council, and 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. 

• Coordinate management with the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office and the 

environmental education partners to increase public awareness and education for sea turtles. 

Objective A.2: West Indian Manatee 

Within one year of plan approval, increase coordination activities with the State of Florida and the 

Service’s South Florida Ecological Services Office to reduce manatee injury, mortality, and 

disturbance and to increase public awareness of manatees. Within 15 years of plan approval, 

develop baseline data for manatees in the lagoonal waters of the refuge. 

Discussion: With the addition of staff, the refuge can take a more active role in the recovery efforts 

for the West Indian manatee identified in the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1999c). The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to 

management activities regarding the federally protected manatee. 

Given the small size of the refuge, the developed character of the surrounding landscape, and the 

broad boating access to refuge lands and waters in the Indian River Lagoon, the refuge experiences 

considerable impacts and faces numerous threats from human activities on and around the refuge. 

Boat strikes and propellers especially impact manatees. Discarded monofilament fishing line, 

discarded nets, and other litter also impact manatees. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate management within the Service, including implementing rules and regulations, law 

enforcement training (e.g., salvage and necropsy program), and new technologies; installing 

signs; and improving reporting and investigations. 

• Encourage research into the physiology, life history, and ecology of the manatee, as well as 

research into habitat components. 

• Coordinate management with the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office and the 

environmental education partners to increase public awareness and education for the 

manatee. 

• Evaluate the quality of manatee habitat in the refuge. 

• Develop approaches to implement research, identify potential threats, and collect scientific 

data. 

• Develop approaches to limit or eliminate the threats and impacts to manatees (e.g., patrol and 

enforcement activities). 

• Work with the Indian River Lagoon partners to address water quality impacts to manatees. 

Objective A.3: Eastern Indigo and Atlantic Salt Marsh Snakes

Within five years of plan approval, contribute to federal recovery efforts for eastern indigo snake and 

Atlantic salt marsh snake populations by encouraging and conducting research, population surveys, 

and monitoring on the refuge and by conducting environmental education on the refuge and in the 

local community. Within 10 years of plan approval, develop baseline data for eastern indigo and salt 

marsh snakes on the refuge. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Discussion: Eastern indigo snakes have been found on the refuge. The Atlantic salt marsh snake 

has been surveyed near the refuge and intergrades have been sighted on the refuge. With the 

addition of staff, the refuge will contribute to recovery efforts identified in the South Florida Multispecies Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999c), as appropriate. The refuge will 

continue to acquire all applicable permits related to management activities regarding federally 

protected indigo and salt marsh snakes. 

Strategies: 

• Identify, evaluate, and protect against the threats to these species. 

• Encourage and manage research on the biology and ecology of the eastern indigo snake. 

• Work with the partners to increase awareness of and improve behavior towards the eastern 

indigo snake. 

• Provide informational brochures and lectures regarding both of these species. 

• Coordinate with others (e.g., adjacent landowners and Indian River County) to discourage the 

use of rat poison in and around the refuge. 

• Coordinate monitoring and survey protocols with researchers and governmental partners. 

Design and conduct surveys to determine the presence and relative abundance of these two 

species on the refuge. Document and monitor the occurrence of these two species.

• If appropriate, direct research into the biology of the Atlantic salt marsh snake and coordinate 

studies to measure contaminants with partners. 

Objective A.4: Wood Stork

Within five years of plan approval, evaluate the refuge’s role in wood stork recovery, develop baseline 

habitat information for wood stork foraging areas and roosting sites, and develop and implement 

appropriate restoration plans. 

Discussion: The refuge has served as one of the most consistent wood stork rookeries in Florida. 

However, wood stork nesting on Pelican Island proper has declined from 900 in 1980 to 85 in 1990. 

It is currently estimated that a total of 90-150 pairs of wood storks breed on Pelican Island proper. 

With the addition of staff, the refuge can take a more active role in this recovery plan. The refuge will 

continue to acquire all applicable permits related to management activities regarding the federally 

protected wood stork. For additional information about the recovery plan for this species, see the 

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999c). 

Strategies: 

• Work with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office to identify and map wood stork 

foraging and roosting sites on the refuge. 

• Restore wood stork feeding areas and rookeries on the refuge and locate foraging and 

roosting habitat for wood storks off the refuge. 

• Participate in wood stork annual nesting surveys and utilize standardized census procedures 

where disturbance is minimal. 

• Encourage research on the biology and life history of wood storks, including research into 

productivity of wood stork nesting, survivorship, age structure, movement patterns of 

fledglings and post-breeding adults, foraging ecology and behavior, importance of roost sites, 

and impacts of contaminants. 

• Encourage research into essential habitat components necessary to trigger successful nesting 

by wood storks, including research into the densities, species composition, and size classes of 

42 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
fishes necessary and research into the effects of natural and human-caused influences, such 

as impoundment water levels, on the ecology of the prey base. 

• Continue managing the impoundments for multiple objectives, including for wood stork 

foraging. 

Objective A.5: Migratory and Resident Birds

Within 10 years of plan approval, develop baseline data and monitoring programs to evaluate the 

status and trends of migratory and resident bird species on the refuge to support healthy populations 

of the migratory and resident birds of the Peninsular Florida Physiographic Region. 

Discussion: The refuge has collected data for Pelican Island proper (i.e., the original 5.5-acre 

island) for nearly 100 years, but lacks data coverage for the rest of the refuge. The refuge currently 

conducts a few bird surveys (i.e., two to three annual roost counts, two to three annual colonial

waterbird surveys, and the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Count), but this information is insufficient. 

Further, the federally listed piping plover and bald eagle occasionally occur on the refuge. With the 

addition of staff, the refuge can contribute towards recovery efforts for these species as identified in 

the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable 

permits related to management activities regarding migratory and resident birds. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate surveys, data collection and monitoring protocols to determine baseline 

populations on the refuge. Continue to survey brown pelicans and other colonial nesting birds 

on Pelican Island proper to monitor trends. 

• Establish point count stations to determine population changes with emphasis on species of 

refuge management concern (e.g., those identified on the Audubon Watch List and the 

Partners-in-Flight Watch List for this area). 

• Conduct nest productivity studies, including monitoring predator disturbance during the 

nesting season in woodlands, hammocks, and citrus groves. 

• Develop volunteer training and programs to survey and monitor birds. Encourage partners 

and volunteers to assist in surveys. Investigate utilizing Sebastian River High School students 

(to help satisfy their community involvement requirements). 

• Compile management guidelines for wintering piping plovers. Determine the occurrence and 

location of wintering sites of piping plovers through annual surveys. Identify factors within the 

refuge limiting the quantity and quality of piping plover habitat. If applicable, modify the lease 

with the State of Florida to provide protection for piping plover wintering sites by closing and 

buffering islands during piping plover use. Implement public information and education 

programs through partnerships. 

• Monitor bald eagle nesting and foraging activities in the refuge. 

• Coordinate management to increase public awareness of the habitat related issues that affect 

the recovery of the bald eagle in South Florida. 

Objective A.6: Shorebirds

Within 10 years of plan approval, evaluate the refuge’s role in relation to shorebirds, develop baseline 

data, and develop and implement appropriate restoration plans. 

Discussion: Shorebirds are an important part of coastal refuges. Pelican Island Refuge already 

provides shorebird habitat (e.g., along the impoundments and along the natural and spoil islands) for 

a mix of shorebirds. However, data have not been collected regarding the amount of shorebird 

habitat provided, the quality of shorebird habitat provided, and the quantity of shorebird habitat that

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
could be provided. Further, minimal data have been collected regarding the abundance and diversity 

of shorebirds using the refuge. The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to 

management activities regarding the abundance and diversity of shorebirds. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate management with the partners to maintain and restore shorebird habitat. 

• Enhance shorebird habitats within the impounded wetlands using existing or additional 

portable pumps and water control structures [recommended in the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (Fish and Wildlife Service 2000)]. 

• Monitor habitat used to support local populations of shorebirds. Survey abundance and 

distribution of shorebirds on and near the refuge. Evaluate and prioritize those areas that 

could potentially serve as shorebird habitat. 

• Identify the numbers of acres available and being utilized by shorebirds, the number of islands 

involved, and the types and numbers of shorebirds using the refuge. 

• Consider creating least tern and black skimmer nesting habitat in developing an offshore wave 

break for Pelican Island proper. 

• Utilize existing research regarding nesting substrates (e.g., Mallach and Leberg 1999). 

• Maintain wash overs, sand flats, and mud flats within the refuge. 

• When and where possible, do not immediately attempt to repair hurricane created shorebird 

habitat. 

• Enhance and restore spoil and natural islands for breeding terns and shorebirds. Remove 

exotic vegetation and maintain bare sand or sparsely vegetated conditions on these islands. 

Determine required elevation of natural gradients and soil types needed. Emphasize black 

skimmer, least tern, Wilson’s plover, and American oystercatcher. 

• Evaluate the potential of including seasonal shorebird foraging in the multiple objectives of 

managing the impoundments. 

Objective A.7: Resident Wildlife

Within the 15-year life of the plan, develop baseline data and monitoring programs to evaluate the 

status and trends of native wildlife species on the refuge to support healthy populations of resident 

wildlife. 

Discussion: The refuge has collected data for Pelican Island proper (i.e., the original 5.5-acre 

island) for nearly 100 years, but lacks data coverage for the rest of the refuge. The survey of resident 

species of wildlife (e.g., woodrats, diamondback terrapins, land crabs, and bobcats) may yield 

important information essential for the prevention of such species from becoming extirpated. 

Strategies:

• Conduct surveys of resident species of wildlife to establish biodiversity baseline data, as well 

as to determine the relative abundance and range of a variety of species of refuge 

management concern (e.g., woodrats, diamondback terrapins, land crabs, and bobcats). 

• Investigate the presence of species expected, but not yet confirmed on the Refuge (e.g., 

round-tailed muskrats, rice rats, and bats). 

Objective A.8: Exotic Plants

Within the 15-year life of the plan, eliminate exotic plants as the primary land cover type in all refuge 

uplands habitats. 

44 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Discussion: Exotic, invasive, and nuisance species are serious threats to fish and wildlife in Florida. 

With the addition of staff and through improved coordination with partners and neighbors, the Service 

can control exotic, invasive, and nuisance species on the refuge that threatened the survival of many 

species. The refuge provides orientation information to all new employees, volunteers, and 

contractors involved in controlling and removing exotic plants regarding federally listed species found 

on the refuge. The refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit wildlife impacts of

management activities associated with controlling and removing exotic plants. The refuge will 

continue to acquire all applicable permits related to exotic plant control activities, including any 

earthmoving activities, before commencement. 

The main exotic, invasive, and nuisance plants of the refuge are Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, 

and Guinea grass. And citrus groves persist within the refuge and within the acquisition boundary. 

During implementation of this plan, refuge management aims to eliminate all exotic plants, including 

citrus, as the primary land cover type in all refuge upland habitats. A primary cover type is defined 

here as >50% of the land cover of a site. (Existing land use/land cover types are outlined in Figures 8 

and 10 and Table 3, while planned refuge habitats are outlined in Figure 12.) Despite the 

management efforts outlined, Brazilian pepper and other exotics will continue to persist in varying 

degrees as secondary or tertiary land cover on the refuge throughout the 15-year life of this plan. 

Strategies:

• Coordinate with refuge neighbors, including giving talks at meetings of nearby homeowners’ 

associations and providing educational and informational materials regarding exotic, invasive, 

and nuisance plants (e.g., regarding exotic and ornamental plants). 

• Prioritize the eradication of exotic, invasive, and nuisance plants that impact state and 

federally listed species and other species of management concern and control accordingly. 

• Seek supplemental funding (e.g., Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Invasive 

Upland Plant Removal Program) for removal and treatment activities and for the restoration to 

native vegetation (through other partnerships and funding sources). 

• Annually monitor all treated areas to evaluate the effectiveness and success of eradication 

efforts. 

• Expand the volunteer program to increase exotic plant removal activities (e.g., Moon Vine 

Crew and Pepper Busters). 

• Survey areas with exotic infestation prior to control activities to identify occurrence of wildlife 

and take measures to limit wildlife impacts. 

Objective A.9: Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species

Within the 15-year life of the plan, control and eliminate, where feasible, exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species found on the refuge and work with the partners and neighbors to control the spread 

of these species onto refuge lands and waters. Within 10 years of plan approval, develop baseline 

data regarding the presence and spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species throughout refuge 

habitats. 

Discussion: Exotic, invasive, and nuisance species are serious threats to fish and wildlife in Florida. 

With the addition of staff and through improved coordination with partners and neighbors, the Service 

can control exotic, invasive, and nuisance species on the refuge that threatened the survival of many 

species. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
46 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 12. Proposed habitats of the refuge 

46 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Strategies:

• Coordinate with refuge neighbors, including giving talks at meetings of nearby homeowners’ 

associations and providing educational and informational materials regarding exotic, invasive, 

and nuisance species (e.g., regarding exotic and ornamental plants, free roaming pets, and 

feral cats). 

• Prioritize the eradication of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species that impact state and 

federally listed species and other species of management concern and control accordingly. 

• Seek supplemental funding (e.g., Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Invasive 

Upland Plant Removal Program) for removal and treatment activities and for the restoration to 

native vegetation (through other partnerships and funding sources). 

• Annually monitor all treated areas to evaluate the effectiveness and success of eradication 

efforts. 

• Prohibit the introduction of non-native fish and shellfish to refuge waters. 

• Expand the volunteer program to increase exotic species removal activities (e.g., Moon Vine 

Crew and Pepper Busters). 

GOAL B: HABITATS 

Restore and manage the values and functions of refuge habitats characteristic of the southern Indian 

River Lagoon system to augment opportunities for nesting, resting, foraging, and/or migrating native 

species. 

Discussion: All refuge habitats have been impacted to one degree or another, from changes in 

water quality to wholesale alteration of native landscapes. Table 5 and Figure 12 outline acreages 

and areas of primary habitats to be maintained, created, and/or restored during the 15-year life of the 

plan. During the life of the plan and through acquisition or some type of management agreement, the 

refuge expects to dramatically lower or eliminate the occurrence of several uses within the refuge’s 

acquisition boundary, including residential, commercial, and agricultural, as well as exotics. Further, 

the refuge plans to substantially restore and create key habitats, especially upland hardwood forest 

and maritime hammock. As habitats are created and restored, the refuge’s vegetation/habitat map 

will be updated in conformance to the National Vegetation Classification System. 

Objective B.1: Refugia Habitat

Within five years of plan approval, restore and maintain ±5.3 acres of old field as refugia habitat for 

the Southeastern beach mouse, while also providing habitat benefits for ground doves, gopher 

tortoises, and other native species. 

Discussion: Although the refuge does not include dune habitat, which is the kind of habitat favored 

by the Southeastern beach mouse, this species persists in an old field habitat on the refuge. Recent 

surveys report 1-4 individuals on the refuge. This species previously existed on the adjacent dunes 

of Segment 4 of Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. With the addition of staff, the refuge can 

contribute to recovery efforts plan for this species, see the South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999c). The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits 

related to management activities regarding the federally protected beach mouse. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Table 5. Proposed land use/land cover within the refuge’s acquisition boundary in 15 years. 

Primary 

Land Use/ 

Cover 

Code 

(Lucode) 

Secondary 

Land Use/ 

Cover 

Code 

(Lucode2) 

Land Use/Land Cover Code Description Estimated 

Acreage 

1100 0 Residential, low density, <2 dwelling units per acre 25.0

1750 0 Governmental (shop, offices) 5.0

1880 0 Historical sites 55.7

1890 0 Other recreational (public access) 9.8

2210 4370 Agriculture, citrus groves, Australian pine 32.9

3300 0 Mixed rangeland (old field, cabbage palm) 5.3

4200 0 Upland hardwood forest 73.0

4250 0 Temperate/tropical hardwood (maritime hammock) 69.1

4250 4220 Temperate/tropical hardwood (maritime hammock), 

Brazilian pepper 16.2

4250 6410 Temperate/tropical hardwood (maritime hammock), 

freshwater marsh 339.5

4370 4220 Australian pine, Brazilian pepper 24.7

5100 0 Streams and waterways 0.9

5200 0 Lakes 31.8

5340 0 Reservoirs <10 acres 8.1

5400 0 Bays and estuaries 3,697.5

5400 6450 Bays and estuaries, submerged aquatic vegetation 879.1

6120 6420 Mangrove swamps, saltwater marshes 739.8

6120 6500 Mangrove swamps, Non-vegetated wetland 3.3

6300 0 Wetland forested mixed 18.1

6410 0 Freshwater marsh 0.2

6420 0 Saltwater marsh 56.6

6460 0 Mixed scrub-shrub wetland (predominantly willow and 

wax myrtle) 65.5

6500 0 Non-vegetated wetland 16.0

7430 0 Spoil areas 4.7

8140 0 Roads and highways 6.2

Total Acreage within the Refuge’s Acquisition Boundary 6,184.0

48 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Strategies: 

• Coordinate survey, research, and monitoring activities with the University of Central Florida 

[e.g., conduct two to three southeastern beach mouse surveys throughout each year to 

determine the ongoing abundance and distribution, expand this research and monitor the 

remnant population, develop data and results in consultation with others (e.g., through GIS 

databases)].

• Pursue a habitat connection to Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge to support the migration of 

the southeastern beach mouse and other species (e.g., land crabs). 

• Continue the control of feral and free roaming predators through pet owner education, feral 

predator removal, traps, and humane euthanasia of feral predators. 

• Encourage research into the basic biology of the species and on the population viability 

(through risk assessment) of the species, as well as encourage research into habitat 

components, minimum patch size, and beneficial habitat management actions. 

• Work with research partners, the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, and 

environmental education partners to investigate the viability of a captive propagation and 

reintroduction program and to increase awareness about this species. 

 Objective B.2: Jungle Trail Habitat Restoration

Within five years of plan approval, restore approximately 356 acres of salt marsh, mangrove swamp, 

and maritime hammock to mimic natural conditions and natural hydrology and manage about 1,225 

acres of these habitats along Jungle Trail to support a diversity of wildlife species characteristic of the 

refuge’s barrier island and lagoonal system. 

Discussion: At Pelican Island Refuge, habitat restoration usually begins with the removal and 

treatment of Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, citrus, and other non-native vegetation. Citrus trees 

and exotic vegetation will be removed and former groves will be restored to support native habitat. A 

main focus of restoration activities in the Jungle Trail area is on restoring original contours and 

managing water to emulate the natural hydrology of the area. Freshwater lakes and freshwater 

ephemeral ponds were recently created through excavation. Ditches have been and will continue to 

be filled. A tidal marsh area will be restored. Native vegetation will be planted in each of the restored 

habitats (e.g., maritime hammock, palm hammock, freshwater wetlands, and tidal wetlands). The

refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to restoring habitat and hydrology in the 

Jungle Trail area. Figure 13 details habitat restoration and facility development for the Jungle Trail 

area. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate partnerships to pursue complete restoration of the Jungle Trail area (i.e., the 

remaining habitats on the barrier island). 

• Coordinate partnerships to pursue habitat links between Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuge and Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. 

• Assess response of neotropical migratory birds and woodrats to hammock restoration.

Objective B.3: Pelican Island Proper Rookery

Within five years of plan approval, protect the Pelican Island proper rookery by stabilizing the 

shoreline of Pelican Island proper to reduce wave action and erosion and by managing this area to

stimulate the natural processes of native plant recruitment and succession, creating a stable 

environment for shoreline accretion to restore the Island to its original 5.5 acres within the 15-year life 

of the plan. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
50 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 13. Jungle Trail visitor facilities and restoration project 

50 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Discussion: Pelican Island proper is the original 5.5-acre rookery island, which is also designated as 

a Wilderness Area (Figure 1) and is closed to the public to protect the rookery management activities 

conducted within the Wilderness Area must meet the standards and criteria set forth in the 

Wilderness Act. From 1943 to 1996, Pelican Island proper eroded to less than half its original size

(i.e., from 5.5 acres to about 2.2 acres). The total number of nesting pairs of birds on this historic 

rookery has declined nearly 94 percent since 1910. In an effort to combat these losses, shoreline 

stabilization efforts began with a mangrove planting in 1996 that proved unsuccessful. A multi-partner 

effort began in 2000 to protect Pelican Island proper from eroding and losing its functionality as a 

rookery. Phase 1 was completed in 2000 and involved placing loose shell and shell bags and 

planting spartina and mangroves along 165 feet of the northern shore of Pelican Island proper. 

Phase 2 was completed in February 2001 and involved placing loose shell and planting vegetation 

(i.e., spartina and mangroves) along 930 feet around the north and west shorelines of Pelican Island 

proper. Depending on the success of the shoreline stabilization efforts, additional actions to limit 

erosion may or may not be necessary to protect this historic rookery. Recent estimates show the

Island at 2.8 acres in 2004. The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to 

protecting the Pelican Island proper rookery, including earthmoving activities associated with 

shoreline stabilization. 

During 2000, the refuge negotiated with the State of Florida for an amendment to the lease for a 

buffer of up to 410 feet for the Pelican Island rookery. However, current studies show that the 

recommended minimum buffer size for brown pelicans is 549 feet (Rodgers and Schwikert 2000). 

Strategies:

• Monitor measurable changes to Pelican Island proper (e.g., accretion, sea level changes, and 

vegetation growth and regrowth) by visiting the Island once a month (in conjunction with the 

monthly Wilderness Area visit). Supplement shell, where needed. Supplement existing 

vegetation to ensure the ongoing availability of a nesting substrate on the Island. 

• Continue to work with the partners to evaluate the causes of the erosion of Pelican Island 

proper (e.g., increased boat traffic and speeds and increased wave energy reaching the Island

due to Sebastian Inlet) and to develop and implement solutions. 

• Implement slow speed areas to reduce wave impacts to Pelican Island proper by working with 

the State of Florida (e.g., through alteration of the lease agreement) and the partners. 

• Expand the buffer of the Pelican Island rookery to one supported by current research. Adapt 

this minimum buffer size as new data become available. 

• Post closed area signs at the buffer. Post closed area and Wilderness Area information and 

regulations at informational kiosks, city and county boat ramps, and all visitor information 

facilities. 

• Design and implement a program to monitor the effectiveness of the buffer (e.g., monitor the 

number of times a day the buffer is violated, monitor the numbers of nests, and monitor nest 

success). Document probable causes of any changes. 

Objective B.4: Natural and Spoil Islands

Within 10 years of plan approval, manage, maintain, and restore, where necessary, approximately 

332 acres of natural and spoil island vegetation characteristic of the southern Indian River Lagoon to 

benefit breeding terns, shorebirds, and colonial birds and to minimize disturbance to birds utilizing 

these islands. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51
Discussion: With the ongoing increases in the human population around the refuge and with the 

growth of commercial and recreational use of the area, the resources of the refuge are facing 

increasing disturbances. As the landscape continues to develop and as the locations for wildlife 

continue to dwindle, it will become more and more important for the refuge to provide disturbancefree or minimal disturbance areas for wildlife to roost, nest, forage, and rest, especially on natural and 

spoil islands of the Indian River Lagoon. Further, exotic species can be found in almost every refuge 

habitat, in many cases disturbing and disrupting natural systems. The natural and spoil islands of the 

refuge are no exception. Measures must be taken to limit and eliminate the growth and spread of 

exotic species. Utilizing existing studies (e.g., Rodgers and Schwikert 2000) and any new studies, 

refuge staff will work with the partners to establish buffer zones and closed areas around those 

islands serving key habitat needs within the refuge to limit wildlife and habitat disturbance. The 

refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to management activities regarding 

natural and spoil islands, including prescribed fire activities and earthmoving activities associated with 

shoreline stabilization and exotic plant control and removal. 

Strategies: 

• Survey wildlife abundance and distribution on refuge islands and determine baseline 

populations for shorebirds on these islands. 

• Develop outreach materials and educational displays to promote public awareness of fish and 

wildlife threats on and around refuge islands. 

• Coordinate restoration and protection strategies with the partners to limit wildlife disturbances. 

Work with the partners to develop outreach materials to increase awareness and 

understanding of the importance of disturbance free areas for wildlife. 

• Increase enforcement and patrol of the refuge’s waterways and islands and improve 

coordination with State partners to protect these fish and wildlife communities from 

disturbance within the refuge’s boundary. 

• Remove all exotic, nuisance, and invasive species from key spoil islands serving wildlife 

needs (e.g., Pelican Island and Preacher’s Island). 

• Eliminate exotic plants as the primary land cover type on all refuge islands. 

Objective B.5: Aquatic Habitats

Throughout the 15-year life of the plan, maintain over 4,500 acres of lagoonal waters on the refuge

(including open estuarine waters, seagrasses, drift algae, exposed bottoms, and fish spawning and 

settlement sites) for a variety of aquatic and birds species and coordinate management of 280 acres 

of the open water portion of impoundments to increase foraging opportunities for water birds. 

Discussion: Over 70 percent of the refuge is aquatic habitats, with the bulk represented in the 

Indian River Lagoon and with a smaller portion in the impoundments. Several federally listed species 

occur in or use the aquatic habitats of the refuge: Johnson’s seagrass; bald eagle; wood stork; 

Atlantic salt marsh snake; Eastern indigo snake; American alligator; green, loggerhead, leatherback, 

hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; and West Indian manatee. Since the fish spawning and 

settlement sites found in the estuary on the refuge are so important to the future of certain fish 

species, it is imperative that they be protected (e.g., two of the three known sea trout spawning sites 

in the southern Indian River Lagoon are located in the refuge). Refuge staff will work with Indian 

River Mosquito Control District to actively manage and monitor the impoundments for multiple 

objectives, including wildlife feeding areas (e.g., for wood storks, shorebirds, neotropical migratory 

birds, and waterfowl), fisheries, salt marsh habitat, mangrove habitat, and mosquito control. With

over a decade of the same management operations for the impoundments, no conflicts or impacts to 

federally listed species have been found. Managing the water levels in the impoundments has 

52 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
proven foraging benefits for wood storks. The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits 

related to management activities regarding aquatic habitats. 

Strategies:

• Coordinate management, including enforcement, protection, and lease agreement 

modifications with appropriate agencies to sustain key fish spawning and settlement sites 

(e.g., spotted seatrout, black drum, and silver perch). Work with State of Florida to modify the 

lease agreement or develop a new approach to provide protection for these key sites. 

Management actions to limit negative wildlife and habitat impacts could include, but are not 

limited to the seasonal closure of specific areas to protect key fish spawning and settlement 

sites and the establishment of pole only zones in sensitive, shallow, seagrass areas. Work 

with appropriate public agencies to identify and evaluate the existing impacts to important fish 

habitat and reduce impacts to important fish habitat. Maintain the ban on mechanical 

harvesting of shellfish in the refuge. 

• Determine existing boat traffic and associated impacts to aquatic habitats and associated 

species. 

• Coordinate with the State of Florida to conduct the State Creel Survey and other independent 

surveys to determine catch per unit effort and angler success on the refuge. 

• Continue managing impoundments with Indian River Mosquito Control District (i.e., Bird’s and 

Pete’s impoundments) and modify management to maximize conditions for shorebirds. 

Monitor conditions to limit pesticide use, as appropriate. 

• Determine species’ needs for water levels, durations, and depths in refuge impoundments. 

• Determine invertebrate fauna under present impoundment management. Investigate options 

to increase production and availability of food and habitat for migrating birds. 

• Monitor shorebird use of the impoundments of the refuge. Implement a monitoring program 

for July, August, and September to include possible juvenile shorebirds making early 

migration. Address the need of these juvenile shorebirds for shoreline habitat. Implement the 

International Shorebird Survey protocol for shorebird surveys. 

• Build observation platforms for surveys. Incorporate impoundment dike vegetation as habitat 

managed for neotropical migratory birds. 

• Investigate the influence of nutrient dynamics of impounded mangrove wetlands and the role 

of Rotational Impoundment Management in black mangrove community domination. 

Objective B.6: Migratory and Resident Bird Habitats 

Throughout the 15-year life of the plan, manage the refuge’s sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal 

habitats to support the nesting, resting, and foraging of migratory and resident native birds of the 

Peninsular Florida Physiographic Region. 

Discussion: A number of migratory neotropical birds utilize coastal hammocks as a migration stopover site and for overwintering. Protecting, restoring, and managing suitable habitat is increasingly 

important as Florida develops and remaining hammocks and coastal woodlands are fragmented or 

decimated, leaving fewer and fewer sites for migratory birds. Table 5 outlines the land use/land cover 

classifications anticipated within the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan. Planned 

habitat restoration, creation, and management activities to support refuge wildlife, including migratory 

and resident bird species are varied and include restoring about 67 acres of upland forests to 

maintain approximately 73 acres on the refuge; maintaining 5.3 acres in an old field (i.e., refugia 

habitat for southeastern beach mouse also benefits migratory and resident birds); restoring, creating, 

and maintaining about 425 acres of maritime hammock; maintaining about 743 acres of mangrove 

53 

53
swamps; and maintaining several wetlands, ponds, and marshes totaling about 140 acres. The 

refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to management activities regarding 

migratory and resident birds. 

Strategies:

• Allow areas associated with high topography within impoundments to be colonized by patches 

of low shrubs/brush and include thorny shrub species. 

• Provide a mosaic of recently mowed dikes and medium-tall grass dike habitats to support 

anis, kingfishers, kingbirds, and shrikes. 

• Enhance cordgrass/rush for nesting habitat in salt marshes for wrens. Provide sedgedominated shallow marsh habitats with scattered shrubs (with little or no standing water) in 

winter. 

• Enhance scrub thickets adjoining marshes for warblers. In winter and during migration, 

provide dikes with short grass and saline-tolerant cover. Provide patches of dense willows 

near water. Provide shade trees near impounded wetlands, freshwater ponds, and sloughs. 

• Manage for a mix of coastal cordgrass/black needlerush/drop-seed/saltgrass/marsh elder 

habitats for sparrows. 

• Manage large expanses of open grassland environments near impoundments year-round and 

during migration for blackbirds. 

GOAL C: LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Continue working with the partners to protect and conserve the natural and cultural resources of the 

refuge and the Indian River Lagoon system. 

Objective C.1: Inholdings

Seek to acquire or otherwise protect the remaining inholdings, totaling ±403 acres, within the refuge’s 

existing acquisition boundary within the 15-year life of the plan. 

Discussion: The protection of additional lands is subject to the contribution of those lands to the 

biological needs of the refuge and national funding priorities. Land acquisition is subject to its 

contribution to the overall habitat configuration, its contribution to the overall forest configuration, and 

its contribution to fish and wildlife populations and habitat objectives, as well as subject to whether or 

not landowners are interested in selling their lands. Land acquisition assists in overall efforts to 

establish and/or sustain source populations of migratory birds, endangered, threatened, and resident 

species. 

Due to high development pressures experienced in this area, the Service has identified several 

priority tracts in the existing acquisition boundary for inclusion under refuge management. The 

highest priority tract that the Service wants to acquire is the Tor West Tract (±44.59 acres). 

Additional key inholdings of about 14.73 acres that are second priority acquisitions include lands that 

would join two refuges: the Paskor Tract (±4.49 acres) and the United Real Estate Venture Tract

(±10.24 acres). The United Real Estate Venture Tract was formerly called the Wilcox and Mills tracts 

[i.e., Tracts 49 of the Pelican Island acquisition and Tract 376 of the Archie Carr acquisition (Wilcox 

Tract), 6.56 acres, and Tract 59 of the Pelican Island acquisition and Tract 377c of the Archie Carr 

acquisition (Mills Tract), 3.68 acres]. (Although the former Mills Tract includes a substantial 

residence, it is surrounded by refuge lands and this tract would help buffer those surrounding refuge 

lands). (Figure 14 delineates the priority land acquisitions.) Once these and other inholdings are 

54 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 14. Land acquisition priorities (as of October 2003) 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55
acquired, refuge staff will develop restoration plans to mimic natural conditions and hydrology, based 

on the refuge’s wildlife and habitat priorities.

Strategies:

• Focus acquisition efforts on the priority tracts. 

• Prioritize remaining inholding tracts and seek to acquire or otherwise manage these tracts. 

Establish acquisition priorities based on greatest threats and habitat needs. 

• Initiate and continue contact with all landowners within the acquisition boundary. Determine 

the status of willing sellers. 

• Develop a coordinated approach with partners to appropriately locate areas of greatest 

conservation concern. 

• Seek partnerships with conservation organizations and others to complete the refuge’s 

acquisition boundary. 

Objective C.2: Bureau of Land Management Withdrawal

Within 10 years and before 2019, seek to obtain fee title ownership or permanent management 

authority from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for BLM’s 37.5-acre withdrawal within the 

refuge’s existing acquisition boundary. 

Discussion: Under a 40-year withdrawal from public domain, which expires in 2019, the Bureau of 

Land Management has title to 37.5 acres, which are currently managed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service as part of the refuge.

Strategy: 

• Coordinate the transfer of title of the Bureau of Land Management property. 

Objective C.3: Duck Point 

Within 10 years of plan approval, work with the partners to seek to protect fishes, wading birds, 

shorebirds, and other wildlife from disturbance within the refuge’s existing acquisition boundary at a 

targeted 33 acres of the nearly 144-acre Duck Point site.

Discussion: Beyond the higher priority acquisitions outlined under objectives C.1 and C.2, the 

Service will also pursue management agreements for and acquisitions of the other inholdings (e.g., a 

management agreement for the targeted 33-acres of the Duck Point site). 

Strategy:

• Develop a coordinated approach with partners to appropriately locate areas of greatest 

conservation concern. 

Objective C.4: Technical Assistance 

Throughout the 15-year life of the plan, provide technical assistance and, when appropriate, utilize 

private lands conservation programs to develop partnerships with landowners to achieve wildlife and 

habitat objectives to protect fishes, wading birds, shorebirds, and other wildlife characteristic of the 

southern Indian River Lagoon. 

56 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Discussion: The refuge will continue working with the partners and providing technical assistance 

for the conservation of natural resources on and off the refuge, including the 33-acre Duck Point site, 

the spoil islands off Duck Point, and area impoundments. 

Management of the publicly owned 33-acre Duck Point site should include the installation of water 

control structures to reconnect the impoundments to the tidal estuary, mimicking the tidal regime, 

providing access for fisheries, and allowing for the natural development of shellfish nursery habitats. 

(The Duck Point site and adjacent lands are one of the options for the location of a visitor center for 

the refuge.) 

Located between the main portion of the refuge and the proposed Duck Point management area, five 

spoil islands (totaling ±2 acres) are serving as important nesting and foraging areas for a variety of 

birds. They are adjacent to publicly owned and managed lands and waters (e.g., Service, State of 

Florida, and Florida Inland Navigation District). The refuge and the partners should coordinate 

management to protect these islands and the birds using them. 

The Indian River Mosquito Control District manages impoundments along the Indian River Lagoon, 

off the refuge. The refuge could provide technical assistance to increase feeding opportunities for 

birds such as wood storks in many of these impoundments. 

Strategies:

• Coordinate land conservation activities with private, local, state, and federal conservation land 

owners and managers. 

• Conduct seminars for local land managers (private and public) on habitat management, 

current research and monitoring, and watershed issues. 

• Communicate with adjacent and key landowners and other community organizations and 

participate in local Chamber of Commerce to promote outreach and cooperation in the 

management of the refuge and adjacent resources. 

• Coordinate with the partners to enable better wildlife and habitat management of Duck Point 

and the adjacent spoil islands. 

Objective C.5: Kroegel Homestead Land Preservation

Within the 15-year life of the plan, acquire and protect at least the core 15.71 acres of the Kroegel 

Homestead (which was the home of the first National Wildlife Refuge Manager) to provide future 

interpretation for visitors regarding the conservation pioneer, Paul Kroegel; the refuge; and the history 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System to increase awareness of the refuge, wildlife conservation, 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Discussion: The Kroegel Homestead is an integral piece of the history of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pelican Island Refuge, and the local community. Several options exist for 

management of the Kroegel Homestead site, including managing the existing structures and site as 

an interpretive site or developing a modest visitor center on the site. A Preliminary Project Proposal 

and Visitor Center Scoping Review in 2000 identified the Kroegel Homestead and adjacent parcels as 

the preferred site for a visitor center. (Other potential sites for a visitor center facility include Duck 

Point; the Environmental Learning Center on Wabasso Island, just south of the refuge; and a refuge 

site in the Jungle Trail area.) The establishment of a modest visitor center facility on the Kroegel 

Homestead is subject to negotiations with the Kroegel family and the partners. Negotiations are 

underway with the Kroegel family to acquire the Paul Kroegel parcel and the rest of the core tract. 

The Service, Indian River County, the State of Florida, and other partners are intent on purchasing 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57
this site with the Service acting as the lead manager. The entire Kroegel Homestead acquisition 

boundary is approximately 66 acres, while the core tract is 15.71 acres. (See Figure 15 for the 

Kroegel Homestead acquisition boundary and the 15.71-acre core tract. Also, please see Goal D, 

Education and Visitor Services, for a more complete discussion regarding the development of a visitor 

center for the refuge.) 

Strategies: 

• Continue working with the partners to acquire and manage the Kroegel Homestead. 

• Continue pursuing funding options for acquisition of this site (e.g., through grants). 

• After acquisition, submit the Kroegel Homestead for inclusion in the National Historic Register 

as a National Historic Landmark. 

 Objective C.6: Lease Agreement

Within five years of plan approval and before 2018, pursue the authority to enforce federal fish and 

wildlife regulations on all refuge-owned and managed lands and waters by working with the State of 

Florida and other partners to modify the existing state lease.

Discussion: In cooperation since 1968, the Service has leased the bulk of the refuge from the State 

of Florida. To better understand the lease between the Service and the State of Florida, it is 

necessary to look at the ownership history of some of these lands and waters. In 1909, 6 years after 

establishing Pelican Island Refuge, President Roosevelt expanded the refuge by Executive Order, 

“embracing all small islands within sections 9 and 10, T.31S. R.39E.,” later interpreted to include 

nearly 174 acres. In 1963, the Bureau of Land Management further expanded the refuge to 774 

acres. In 1968 (with the official transfer in 1970), the State of Florida claimed the area of these two 

expansions under the Swamp and Overflow Act as state lands and waters. Then later in 1968, the 

State of Florida leased 4,640 acres of state lands and waters to the Service as part of Pelican Island 

Refuge. Today, this lease covers ±4,737.54 acres, which constitutes 88 percent of the lands and 

waters under current refuge management and 77 percent of the refuge’s acquisition boundary. This 

lease was amended in 2000 and expires in 2018 with an option to renew for another 25 years. 

Under the current lease agreement with the State of Florida, traditional uses are allowed within the 

leased area of the refuge. 

The right of the public to use the area for traditional navigation, boating, bathing, shell fishing, and 

commercial and sport fishing shall not be restricted, with the exception of a 410(-)foot buffer zone 

surrounding Pelican Island (Government Lot 3, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River 

County). This buffer zone is measured from the mean high water line of said Island and extending 

out into the Indian River. 

The current lease agreement within the State of Florida does not specify control of using personal 

watercraft (like jet skis) and camping on spoil islands which are uncontrolled on the refuge. Camping 

on the spoil islands may be determined to be a traditional use under the lease agreement, but using 

personal watercraft is unlikely to qualify as traditional as of 1968 (the date of the original lease 

agreement). Using personal watercraft and camping negatively impact manatees, turtles, migratory 

birds, and other native species using the refuge. The refuge and the State of Florida must work 

together to limit negative wildlife and habitat impacts. Management actions to limit these negative 

impacts could include, but are not limited to, seasonal closures of specific areas to protect key fish 

spawning and settlement sites, closed areas around islands to protect nesting and foraging birds, 

elimination of bank fishing from all natural islands, slow speed and no wake zones, and pole only 

zones, as well as better management for multi-species benefits of the mosquito control management 

58 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
 Figure 15. Core Kroegel homestead tract 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59
activities in Bird’s and Pete’s impoundments by Indian River Mosquito Control District. At such time 

as the lease is altered or it is otherwise feasible, all uses not considered compatible will be eliminated 

(e.g., using personal watercraft and camping). 

Strategies: 

• Consider various options, including amending the present lease agreement with the State of 

Florida, using an inter-agency approach to apply refuge regulations to all refuge-managed 

areas, developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Florida, and creating 

special management areas. 

• If a lease amendment or other approach will not accomplish this objective, create special 

management areas within the lease for designated areas such as rookeries, roosts, foraging 

areas, and fish spawning sites. Some of these would be applied only during critical periods 

(e.g., for rookeries during nesting). These special management areas could be tested with 

short term (i.e., 5-year and 10-year) experimental management agreements. Post these sites 

with refuge signs and specific regulations, as appropriate. 

• Apply current research to implement needed buffer zones (e.g., Rodgers and Schwikert 2000) 

under whatever lease or agreement is applicable to a particular site (e.g., bird rookery). 

Ensure that staff monitors the effectiveness of these buffer zones. 

• Coordinate with the partners on law enforcement issues of the refuge (e.g., through a law 

enforcement team). (Since all the law enforcement partners are part of the National Estuary 

Program for the Indian River Lagoon, all have a stake in the law enforcement issues of the 

refuge.) 

• Pursue the authority to protect the few known spawning sites in the Indian River Lagoon for 

spotted seatrout, black drum, and silver perch. 

• Phase out camping and using personal watercraft within the refuge’s boundary. 

GOAL D: EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Promote awareness and appreciation within the local community and amongst refuge visitors of the 

unique values of the wildlife and habitats of the refuge’s sub-tropical and barrier island system and of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must 

be protected from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy the 

Refuge System long into the future. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, 

the uses must be found to be compatible. A compatible use is one that will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge 

[§668ee(1) USC]. “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they 

are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety” [§668dd(d)(3)(A)(iii) USC, ]. See Appendix V 

for the draft compatibility determinations. 

In order to implement a comprehensive visitor services program, additional staff will be needed, 

including a Refuge Ranger. In order to provide wildlife viewing and environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities, new facilities will be developed. With additional staff and facilities, the 

Service is eager to welcome and orient visitors, develop key resource awareness, provide and 

manage priority public use opportunities, maintain cultural resources, and project a positive image of 

the Refuge System and of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Deficiencies in current Pelican Island 

60 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
recreation and environmental education activities have been evaluated and the outlined goal, 

objectives, and strategies support the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

A Preliminary Project Proposal and Visitor Center Scoping Review in 2000 identified the Kroegel 

Homestead and adjacent parcels as the preferred site for a visitor center. (Other potential sites 

considered for a visitor center facility included Duck Point; the Environmental Learning Center on 

Wabasso Island; St. Sebastian River Buffer Preserve; and a site between the Kroegel Homestead 

and Duck Point.) Refuge land between A1A and Jungle Trail was not considered at that time 

because of political opposition. The establishment of a modest visitor center facility on the Kroegel 

Homestead is subject to negotiations with the Kroegel family and the partners. Recent attempts in 

2004 to acquire the Kroegel Homestead failed. Thus, all other options should be reconsidered for 

constructing a modest visitor center, including Refuge land between A1A and Jungle Trail. A modest 

visitor center is generally defined as one that will not exceed 6,000 square feet. 

Objective D.1: Bank Fishing

Within 10 years of plan approval, improve opportunities for high quality bank fishing and designate, 

map, and sign these sites within the Indian River Lagoon portion of the refuge. 

Discussion: Under the existing lease agreement with the State of Florida, fishing and boating are 

not restricted by the refuge in the leased area. Current uses include those which are negatively 

impacting wildlife and habitats (e.g., using personal watercraft and camping on the spoil islands). 

Current fishing activities and boating are impacting key fish spawning sites (e.g., boat propellers can 

damage submerged aquatic vegetation and juvenile fish). To limit negative wildlife and habitat 

impacts, the refuge will provide opportunities for bank fishing in less sensitive areas, allowing this use 

to occur on the refuge in a compatible manner. Opportunities for less restrictive fishing will continue 

to exist in the Indian River Lagoon, outside of the refuge’s boundary. Most shellfish leases within the 

refuge have been relocated to a centralized area (called the Aquaculture Use Zone) and transferred 

outside the refuge’s lease boundary with the State of Florida. All remaining shellfish leases will need 

to be transferred or reviewed for compatibility. 

Strategies: 

• As appropriate, coordinate management with the State of Florida and seek to modify 

stipulations in the agreement impacting key resources. 

• Develop maps and brochures identifying bank fishing sites and include regulatory and 

educational information. Locate these maps and brochures at all refuge kiosks and the visitor 

center, at the City of Sebastian’s Riverview Park kiosk, and at Indian River County’s Wabasso 

Causeway kiosk. Evaluate other boats ramps for distribution of maps and brochures.

• Conduct regular patrol and enforcement activities. 

• Work with the partners and public to consider and implement any needed regulations, such as 

seasonal closures of specific areas to protect key fish spawning and settlement sites, closed 

areas around islands to protect nesting and foraging birds, and pole only zones. Eliminate 

bank fishing from all natural islands of the refuge. 

• Coordinate with the state to transfer remaining shellfish leases outside of the refuge boundary. 

Objective D.2: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within five years of plan approval, develop and maintain refuge visitor facilities, including a wildlife 

drive and additional trails and boardwalks, in the Jungle Trail area to provide opportunities to view 

and photograph wildlife characteristic of the southern Indian River Lagoon. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61
Discussion: Figure 13 details the existing and proposed public use facilities in the Jungle Trail area, 

including the existing dike trails, the Centennial Trail boardwalk, the rookery observation tower, the 

proposed wildlife drive, additional trails, and boardwalks, as well as the parking and restroom facilities 

constructed and maintained by Indian River County. Several of the existing and proposed public use 

facilities are or will be handicapped accessible (e.g., Centennial Trail, observation tower, visitor 

center, and restroom facilities). Figure 16 outlines the existing and proposed visitor facilities for the 

entire refuge (i.e., the visitor facilities anticipated to be available during the 15-year life of this plan). 

The refuge will continue to acquire all applicable permits related to constructing visitor facilities. 

The Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit wildlife impacts related to increased 

visitation. Measures to limit wildlife impacts related to increased visitation include establishing and 

enforcing closed areas (e.g., for bird rookeries), controlling access (e.g., open only certain hours,

open only certain seasons, and open to limited numbers of visitors), and conveying ethical wildlife 

viewing messages (e.g., through brochures, interpretive talks, and presentations). 

Strategies: 

• Maintain the existing dike trails, boardwalk, and observation tower. 

• Seek funding within the Service and with the partners to develop and maintain the proposed 

wildlife drive, additional trails and boardwalks, and other visitor facilities.

• Develop interpretive signs and brochures for the trails, wildlife drive, boardwalks, and 

observation tower. 

• Offer volunteer-led interpretive tours and programs. 

• Provide wildlife checklists for the refuge at informational kiosks. 

• Conduct regular patrol and enforcement activities 

Objective D.3: Environmental Education

Within 10 years of plan approval, conduct environmental education and outdoor classroom programs, 

activities, and tours for local schools, groups, and organizations to increase awareness and 

understanding of the significance of the refuge’s sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal habitats and 

wildlife, and the significance of the refuge to the Indian River Lagoon, the South Florida Ecosystem, 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

62 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Discussion: Given the mass development of the landscape and the sensitivity of many of the 

resources, environmental education is one of the best ways to increase awareness and 

understanding to change behaviors to better protect these resources. During the public scoping 

process, environmental education was one of the top issues mentioned. With additional staff, the

refuge will be able to coordinate with community-based environmental education partners to increase 

awareness and understanding of the refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, threatened and 

endangered species, and other resources (e.g., shorebirds, migratory birds, hydrologic cycle, coastal 

and estuary systems, and biological diversity) by annually conducting at least eight environmental

education programs on-site or off-site and by annually conducting at least one outdoor classroom 

activity on-site or off-site. Off-site locations for environmental education activities could include local 

schools, the Environmental Learning Center, and key sites on nearby public conservation lands. Onsite locations include the proposed visitor center and the public use facilities in the Jungle Trail area 

(Figure 16). Included in these education efforts and materials will be an ethical wildlife viewing 

message. Environmental education partners include Environmental Learning Center, Environthon, 

St. Johns River Water Management District, St. Sebastian River Buffer Preserve (Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection), Sebastian Inlet State Park (Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection), and the school district of Indian River County. The refuge will continue to acquire all

applicable permits related to management activities regarding environmental education. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63
64 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 16. Existing and proposed refuge visitor and office facilities 

64 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Strategies: (General)

• Develop a local working group of environmental education partners as a sub-group of the 

Pelican Island Working Group. This working group can coordinate existing education efforts 

and plan a cohesive and comprehensive environmental education program for the area. 

• Engage Pelican Island Preservation Society heavily in producing and providing environmental 

education materials, facilities, and activities. 

• Maintain facilities and manage programs to support environmental education activities. 

• Construct a modest visitor center to support environmental education activities. 

• Identify and engage new partners to further environmental education efforts in the area, 

including partners in the business community (e.g., The Disney Company through Disney’s 

Vero Beach Resort). 

• Coordinate with Sebastian River High School to help students fulfill community service 

requirements. 

• Work with the partners (e.g., Environmental Learning Center and Brevard County Barrier 

Island Ecosystem Center) to increase awareness of the importance of healthy, functional 

coastal and estuarine habitats. 

• Sample participants in environmental education and outdoor classroom programs, activities, 

and tours to measure the trend in the awareness and understanding of the significance of the 

refuge’s sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal habitats and wildlife and the significance of 

the refuge to the Indian River Lagoon, the South Florida Ecosystem, and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Strategies: (Refuge Users) 

• Provide educational talks to local user groups. 

• Coordinate management with volunteers to educate refuge visitors (utilizing signs, brochures, 

and permit information) about how to reduce threats to wildlife. 

• Work with the partners to develop stick-on console maps for watercraft, showing 

environmentally sensitive areas for waterborne recreationists (e.g., shallow seagrasses, 

rookeries/roosts, foraging areas, and closed areas). 

• Educate the public on the need for buffers to limit wildlife disturbances and on the regulations 

for these areas. Work with partners to develop and disseminate brochures regarding

disturbance effects on nesting, roosting, and foraging birds and the impacts of boating and 

personal watercraft. 

• Educate people boating and fishing in and around the refuge about how monofilament fishing 

line, discarded nets, litter, and abandoned traps pose threats to fish and wildlife. 

Strategies: (Wildlife and Habitats) 

• Coordinate management with local sea turtle and educational groups (e.g., Friends of the Carr 

Refuge, Sea Turtle Preservation Society, Sea Turtle Survival League, Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation, Ocean Conservancy, and Environmental Learning Center) to 

continue and expand sea turtle information and education activities. 

• Coordinate management with environmental education partners to increase public awareness 

and appreciation of wood storks (e.g., through talks, educational materials, and brochures). 

• Educate the public about the importance of protecting fish spawning and settlement sites 

through outreach programs and information provided at informational kiosks. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65
• Determine the applicability of Shorebird Sister Schools and Sister Cities programs and 

adaptability of Shorebird Sister School materials for Pelican Island. (For more information on 

Shorebird Sister Schools, see http://sssp.fws.gov/index.cfm.) 

• Determine the applicability of the Great Shorebird Trail initiative for the Pelican Island area. 

• Implement a shorebird education program or component. 

• Increase the understanding of how local habitat conditions affect shorebird abundance and 

use of the refuge. 

• Implement a migratory bird education program or component. Provide educational materials 

on migratory birds at all informational kiosks and the visitor center. 

• Increase awareness and appreciation of threatened and endangered species by providing 

education materials to schools, private landowners, policymakers, elected officials, and refuge 

visitors. Provide educational materials at informational kiosks and the visitor center. 

• Increase public awareness about the southeastern beach mouse and about the value of the 

coastal dune ecosystem. 

• Increase awareness of the Atlantic salt marsh snake. 

Objective D.4: Interpretation

Within five years of plan approval, provide interpretive opportunities to increase visitor awareness and 

understanding of the refuge’s sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal habitats and wildlife, especially 

the threatened and endangered species of the refuge and provide interpretive opportunities to 

increase visitor awareness and understanding of the history and importance of the refuge and the 

Refuge System. 

Discussion: Interpretation can play a key role in a visitor’s experience and environmental 

awareness. With increased staff, volunteers, and facilities, the refuge can be positioned to offer 

interpretive tours and programs. Interpretive panels at informational kiosks and along the boardwalks 

and trails will enhance the quality of experience and help increase environmental awareness. (See 

Figure 13 for the facilities in the Jungle Trail area, including the restroom and parking facilities being 

constructed and maintained by Indian River County.) The refuge should offer materials, facilities, and 

services to local businesses (e.g., at marinas and boat launch areas), schools, and residents to 

increase awareness and understanding of the purposes of refuge and the mission of Fish and Wildlife 

Service and to convey an ethical wildlife viewing message. The refuge will continue to acquire all 

applicable permits related to conducting interpretive programs and constructing any associated visitor 

facilities. 

Strategies: 

• Provide wildlife checklists for the refuge at all informational kiosks. 

• Seek funding to develop and maintain the proposed wildlife drive and other facilities in the 

Jungle Trail area. 

• Develop and maintain interpretive signs and brochures for the trails, wildlife drive, boardwalks, 

and observation tower. 

• Maintain the Internet website with public notice of refuge events. 

• Develop and maintain directional signs, brochures, and newsletters. 

• Train volunteers and offer volunteer-led interpretive tours and programs. 

• Construct a modest visitor center to support interpretive activities. 

• Conduct regular patrol and enforcement activities. 

• Create an entry for the refuge in the Great Florida Birding Trail Guide beyond the reference 

under the entry for Sebastian Inlet State Park. Provide Great Florida Birding Trail guides at 

informational kiosks throughout the refuge. 

66 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
• Participate in other festivals and events in the area beyond the annual Pelican Island Wildlife 

Festival. 

• Increase participation in local events and organizations and regularly provide refuge 

management updates. 

• Provide outreach materials to local businesses and schools and at all informational kiosks. 

• Work with the commercial operations and provide outreach and educational materials and 

training to the commercial operators and guides. 

• Sample participants in interpretive programs and activities to measure the trend in the 

awareness and understanding of the refuge’s sub-tropical barrier island and lagoonal habitats 

and wildlife, especially the threatened and endangered species of the refuge and the history 

and importance of the refuge and the Refuge System. 

GOAL E. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Develop and implement a comprehensive refuge program, including providing sufficient staff, 

facilities, equipment, and volunteers to protect and manage the natural, cultural, and historical

resources and features that define the birthplace of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objective E.1: Staff

Within the 15-year life of the plan, provide a full complement of eleven permanent, full-time, welltrained staff to protect and manage the natural, cultural, and historical resources of the sub-tropical 

barrier island and lagoonal systems of the refuge. 

Discussion: Figure 17 delineates the proposed organizational structure and staff for the refuge over 

the 15-year life of the plan. 

Strategies:

• Staff the refuge with two permanent full-time refuge management positions (Refuge Manager 

and Assistant Refuge Manager), three permanent full-time biological program positions 

(Refuge Biologist and two Biological Science Technicians) and needed seasonal Biological 

Science Technicians, three permanent full-time public use program positions (two Refuge 

Rangers and a Refuge Officer), an Administrative Office Assistant, a Maintenance Worker 

(Heavy Equipment Operator), and a Supply Technician. 

• Manage a comprehensive employee training program to ensure expertise in all program 

areas. 

Objective E.2: Volunteers

Increase the participation of volunteers by 50 percent from 40 active volunteers to 60 within 10 years 

of plan approval to augment refuge staff, projects, and programs. 

Discussion: The refuge currently has nearly 300 volunteers, with an active core of 40 dedicated 

volunteers who contribute time, money, and labor to a variety of refuge management activities from 

exotic plant control to public outreach. The refuge provides an orientation to all new volunteers, with 

special attention on federally listed species found on the refuge and on ethical wildlife viewing. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67
Figure 17. Proposed organizational structure 

Maintenance Worker

 Supply Technician

Maintenance Staff

Administrative Assistant

Administrative Staff

Refuge Ranger

 Refuge Ranger

Refuge Officer

Public Use Program

Refuge Biologist

 Biological Technician

 Biological Technician

 Seasonal/Temporary

 Biological Technician(s)

Biological Program

Project Leader

Assistant Refuge Manager

Refuge Management

68 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Strategies:

• Manage a comprehensive volunteer training program to ensure expertise in all program areas. 

• Manage volunteer and student intern programs to compliment refuge staff and programs and 

to provide opportunities for interpretive activities and environmental education.Utilize 

volunteers to assist with refuge management activities, including the public use program (e.g., 

bird tours, annual wildlife festival, education and outreach efforts, trash cleanup, and 

boardwalk construction) and the biological program (e.g., bird surveys and exotic plant 

control). 

• Coordinate with local groups (e.g., Pelican Island Preservation Society, Pelican Island 

Audubon Society, Friends of the Carr Refuge, Environmental Learning Center and Marine 

Resources Council) to conduct joint projects and to help recruit new volunteers for refuge 

projects. 

• Contact Sebastian River High School about developing a volunteer program that will meet 

refuge needs and that will help fulfill the high school students’ community volunteer 

requirements. Activities might include a refuge cleanup program, data collection to meet 

refuge data needs (e.g., bird surveys), and outreach programs (e.g., educate the high school 

students and then have them make informative presentations to area elementary, middle, and 

high school classes). 

• Have volunteers and staff make informative and educational presentations about the refuge to 

local homeowners’ associations and recruit new refuge volunteers from these groups. 

Objective E.3: Researchers

Provide assistance and direct logistical support to qualified researchers to support ongoing 

cooperative investigations on the refuge and, within one year of plan approval, require a refuge 

special use permit for any and all research activities occurring on the refuge. 

Discussion: The refuge provides orientation information to all researchers regarding all federally 

listed species found on the refuge. Requiring special use permits for all research activities, public 

and private, will help the refuge to track research activities on the refuge and will supply additional 

information to the refuge to better enable management decisions. Each special use permit will 

contain conditions necessary to ensure compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and other 

applicable missions, laws, and policies. Further, each special use permit will require the annual 

submission to the refuge of copies of annual or final reports or other data reporting mechanisms. The 

Refuge Manager will deny permits for any research activities that do not further the purposes and

vision of the refuge or that otherwise violate existing policies, laws, or other rules. (As a result of this 

planning process, the refuge began issuing some special use permits in May 2002.) Further, all 

researchers are required to obtain all applicable permits before the commencement of research 

activities on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Require the application for and receipt of appropriate refuge permits for all research activities 

conducted within the lands and waters of the refuge. 

• Coordinate all research activities conducted within the refuge through special use permits and 

provide technical oversight, assistance, and research support to individuals, agencies, and 

other institutions interested in conservation issue resolution on the refuge. 

• Use special use permits to track research activities. Require annual updates and require the 

submission to the refuge of copies of all annual or final reports or other data reporting

mechanisms. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69
• Market research needs to universities and public and non-profit research entities (e.g., 

Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey and Smithsonian Institute). 

Objective E.4: Visitor Center

Throughout the 15-year life of the plan, pursue the development of a modest visitor center for Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge to enable compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational use of the 

refuge, including fishing, observing and photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental 

education and interpretation; to tell the story of the refuge and the Refuge System; to increase 

recognition of the Fish and Wildlife Service; and to increase awareness of the threatened and 

endangered species, migratory birds, native wildlife, and native habitats of the sub-tropical lagoonal 

and barrier island system of the refuge. 

Discussion: The preferred site for the proposed visitor center is at the Kroegel Homestead, the 

home of Paul Kroegel, the first Refuge Manager. The 1999 vision document identified the need to 

protect the Kroegel Homestead from development pressures being experienced in the area. The 

Service and its partners have been working together to purchase and manage the site (e.g., Indian 

River County purchased the Rodney Kroegel parcel, with the Service assisting in management of the 

site). A Preliminary Project Proposal in 1999 identified the Kroegel Homestead and adjacent 

properties as the preferred site for a visitor center and expanded the refuge’s acquisition boundary to 

include the Homestead. And, a public use review in May 2001 identified the Kroegel Homestead as 

the most appropriate site for a visitor center. The Kroegel Homestead is located on the mainland, 

across the Intracoastal Waterway from Pelican Island proper and the rest of the refuge on the barrier 

island. Historic structures persist on the site. The history of the city of Sebastian is inextricably 

woven with the history of the refuge and the Kroegel Homestead, making this site key to interpreting 

the history and future of the refuge, the City, and the Refuge System. The annual Pelican Island 

Wildlife Festival is held just over 1/2-mile down the road from the Kroegel Homestead in the city of 

Sebastian’s Riverview Park. Key issues involve negotiations with the Kroegel family for acquisition of 

the site and development of a modest visitor center that is in keeping with the historic character and 

nature of the site. Although all of these factors support the recommendation of siting a visitor center 

at the Homestead, key issues remain concerning the size of a visitor center and the level of public 

access. Kroegel family members, surrounding neighbors, and local partners wish to ensure that a 

visitor facility is in keeping with the historic character and nature of the site and that visitor access 

does not intrude on the privacy of the remaining family members and neighbors. These issues may 

prevent the Service from developing a visitor center on the Homestead in the foreseeable future. 

Other options exist for the development of a visitor center for Pelican Island Refuge. In 1999, the 

Service identified a second site at Duck Point. However, most of this site is under public ownership 

through the Florida Inland Navigation District as a remediation and storage site for dredged spoil 

material. A small area of Duck Point is leased to Indian River County for a county park. The 

remainder of the Duck Point site is under private ownership which is proceeding with the 

development of condominiums. A third option for the location of a visitor center is on the barrier 

island portion of the refuge in the Jungle Trail area, near the public use facilities of the refuge. 

However, this option involves concerns with barrier island construction and increased visitation. A 

fourth option involves co-locating a visitor facility at the Environmental Learning Center on Wabasso 

Island just south of the refuge. This option includes concerns regarding ease of access, 

organizational identity, and site management. Regardless of the option selected, the refuge will 

acquire all applicable permits related to constructing a visitor center. 

70 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Strategies:

• Continue pursuing the location of a modest visitor center facility at the Kroegel Homestead. 

• Pursue other options if the Kroegel Homestead location is not feasible. 

Objective E.5: Administrative/Maintenance Facilities

Within 10 years, develop administrative/maintenance facilities sufficient to support refuge operations 

by providing office space in conjunction with the planned visitor center and/or by providing office 

space and a maintenance facility on a 5-acre site in the Jungle Trail area.

Discussion: The South Florida Ecological Services Field Office in Vero Beach currently provides 

office space to refuge personnel. All refuge staff are located in the Vero Beach office, which is about 

30 minutes from the refuge. While the refuge does have a couple of pole sheds on the barrier island, 

other maintenance facilities are shared with the State of Florida at Sebastian Inlet State Park. The 

main office space is proposed to be co-located with the proposed visitor center. Another option is to 

build offices in conjunction with maintenance facilities on a 5-acre site in the Jungle Trail area, on the 

barrier island portion of the refuge, adjacent to the public use area (Figure 16). Regardless of the

option selected, the refuge will acquire all applicable permits related to constructing administrative 

and maintenance facilities. 

Strategies:

• Continue holding office space at the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office in Vero 

Beach until such time as sufficient facilities are constructed.

• Develop office facilities in conjunction with the planned visitor center. 

• Develop maintenance and office facilities on a 5-acre site in the Jungle Trail area to be more 

accessible to the refuge and to the public facilities on the barrier island. 

GOAL F. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Maintain and preserve, in perpetuity, the archaeological and historical resources of the refuge, 

especially Native American sites (e.g., Ais Indian sites) and the Kroegel Homestead (home of the first 

Refuge Manager). 

Objective F.1: Archaeological Resources

Continue to coordinate with Indian River County, the State of Florida Historic Preservation Office, and 

other partners to list key archaeological sites in the State of Florida’s Master Site File and to provide 

increased protection to these sites. 

Discussion: The refuge includes several archaeological sites. Since these sites are fairly 

accessible to disruption, vandalism, and theft, additional protection is necessary. 

Strategies:

• Consult with Native American tribes in Florida (i.e., Seminole and Miccosukee tribes) for input 

into management activities related to these sites.

• Conduct regular patrol and enforcement activities. 

• Continue to work with the partners to list key sites in Florida’s Master Site File. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71
Objective F.2: Historical Resources

Continue to coordinate with Indian River County, the State of Florida Historic Preservation Office, and 

other partners to manage the Kroegel Homestead and pursue the addition of this site to the National 

Historic Register as a National Historic Landmark. 

Discussion: The refuge and the Kroegel Homestead are integral threads in the local community. 

The Kroegel Homestead is locally and nationally historically significant as the home of the first Refuge 

Manager. The Kroegel family is still involved in the local community and continues to live on the 

homestead. Beyond being an important historical element of the National Wildlife Refuge System,

this site allows a visitor the opportunity to view the refuge and Pelican Island proper from the western 

shore of the Indian River Lagoon, much as Paul Kroegel did 100 years ago. (The Service and the 

partners continue to pursue acquisition of the Kroegel Homestead. This objective and these 

strategies are contingent upon this acquisition.) 

Strategies:

• Develop some type of visitor facility on this site (e.g., kiosk, interpretive panels and viewing 

scopes, or a visitor center) in keeping with whatever agreements and/or conditions that are 

applied to the Homestead. 

• Conduct regular patrol and enforcement activities. 

72 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
V. Plan Implementation 

BACKGROUND 

As required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service will 

manage all refuges in accordance with an approved comprehensive conservation plan, which, when 

implemented, will achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge; 

help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. 

FUNDING NEEDS 

This plan recommends funding that is substantially above current budget allocations and subject to

Congressional allocations on an annual basis. Funding and staffing shortages continue to limit the 

Service’s ability to protect resources and to provide the best quality experiences to the public. Capitol 

improvement projects, like the proposed visitor center, are generally funded based on local influences 

rather than on Refuge System or Service priorities. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge can 

effectively enhance interpretive and educational programs with a new visitor center and facilities to

accommodate wildlife viewing in an undisturbed setting. The refuge also needs better scientific 

information on which to gauge the immediate and long-term impacts of recreational uses on wildlife 

and its habitat. 

The recommended funding outlined is not a commitment from Congress or the Service for staff,

operational, and maintenance increases, but represents a future management framework to meet the 

goals, objectives, and strategies identified in this plan. Other possible funding sources include

grants, fee demonstration program, mitigation funds, and donations. See Table 6 for the current

refuge staff and associated costs. 

The Refuge System currently faces a backlog of maintenance and equipment needs. Under current 

conditions the needs of Pelican Island Refuge, which are recorded in the deferred Maintenance 

Management System (MMS), total $6.2 million. These needs will continue under this plan. See 

Table 7 for the currently unfunded MMS projects. 

The currently unfunded Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) projects total $830,000 in first year costs 

with $355,010 in annual recurring costs. These projects are in addition to the base operating budget 

of the refuge, which was $300,500 in fiscal year 2002. See Table 8 for the currently unfunded RONS 

projects. 

To achieve the goals, objectives and strategies outlined in Chapter IV of the proposed plan, additional 

personnel, operations, maintenance, facilities, and funds are needed. See Table 9 for the proposed 

staff and associated costs and Table 10 for the priority projects and estimated costs. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73
Table 6. Current staff and costs. 

Position Estimated Annual 

Recurring Cost

Refuge Manager $87,000

Refuge Biologist 

(funded 2001) $86,000

Refuge Ranger 

(funded 2001) $86,000

Biological Technician 

(funded 2001) $53,000

Assistant Manager 

(funded 2003) $80,000

Administrative Assistant

(funded through 2004 

rollover) $53,000

Total $445,000

74 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 7. Current unfunded Maintenance Management System projects. 

Refuge 

Priority

Rank

MMS Project Name (FY 2002) Estimated 

Cost

1 Construct Administrative Office $491,000

2 Construct Visitor Center Phase I $899,000

3 Construct Visitor Center Phase II $2,000,000

4 Construct Visitor Center Phase III $1,357,000

5 Rehabilitate 2000 Pole Barn and Service Road $56,000

6 Repair 1970 Pole Barn $56,000

7 Replace Honda ATV $6,000

8 Replace 1999 4x4 Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup $23,000

9* Construct Pelican Island Buffer Wildlife Drive $632,000

10* Construct public use facilities ** $425,000

none Replace 2001 4x4 Dodge Ram 2500 Pickup $25,000

none Replace 2001 4x4 Chevrolet Tahoe $32,000

none Replace 2001 Ford Econoline Van $24,000

none Replace 2002 Dodge 3500 Van $19,000

none Replace 1992 Turner Gorilla Mower $14,000

none Replace 1992 John Deere Tractor $19,000

none Replace Bush Hog 2610L Flexwing Mower $8,000

none Replace New Holland 7610 Farm Tractor $33,000

none Replace Alamo FMM 2251 Tree Shredder $27,000

none Replace New Holland TV 140F-100 Bi-directional Tractor $80,000

none Replace Caterpillar 420 Backhoe/Loader $72,000

none Replace Caterpillar D5G LGP Dozer $84,000

none Replace Pathfinder 2400 Flats Boat $37,000

none Replace 2001 Forest River Travel Trailer 14,000

Total $6,433,000

 Notes: 

 * Not ranked in MMS

 ** Partially completed

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75
Table 8. Current unfunded Refuge Operating Needs System projects. 

Refuge 

Priority

Rank

RONS Project Name (FY 2002)

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Annual 

Recurring 

Cost

1 Provide management and planning for Pelican 

Island NWR - Project Leader 

$152,000 $87,000

2 Administrative Assistant Position $118,000 $53,000

3 Refuge Officer Position $125,000 $60,000

4 Maintenance Worker Position (Heavy Equipment

Operator) 

$125,000 $60,000

5 Radio System $25,000 $0

6 Exotic Plant Control $60,000 $10,000

7 Property Management Position for SAMMS $114,000 $49,000

8 Construct a Maintenance Facility for Pelican Island 

NWR 

$111,000 $46,000

Total $830,000 $365,000

Table 9. Proposed additional staff and costs. 

RONS/MMS

Project 

Number

Objective 

Number(s) Proposed Position

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Annual 

Recurring 

Cost

RONS 00007 

A.1-7, B.1-6, 

C.1-4, D.1-4, 

E.1-5, F.1-2 

Project Leader 

(to replace the current 

Refuge Manager position) 

$152,000 $87,000

RONS 00006 

A.1-7, B.1-6, 

C.1-4, D.1-4, 

E.1-5, F.1-2 

Administrative Assistant 

(to fully fund this position) $118,000 $53,000

A.1-7, B.1-6, 

C.2, D.3, E.1-3 Biological Technician $114,000 $49,000

B.4-5, C.4, 

D.1-4, E.1-2, 

E.4-5, F.2 

Refuge Ranger $125,000 $60,000

RONS 99039 B.3-5, D.1-2, 

E.1-2, E.4, F.1 Refuge Officer $125,000 $60,000

RONS 00005 B.1-2, B.4, B.6, 

E.1, E.5 

Maintenance Worker/Heavy 

Equipment Operator $125,000 $60,000

RONS 02002 E.1 Supply Technician $110,000 $45,000

Total $869,000 $414,000

76 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 10. Prioritized project needs and costs. 

RONS/ 

MMS Project 

Number(s)

Goal/ 

Objective 

Number(s)

Project Description

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Recurring 

Annual Cost

N/A* A.4-6, B.3 Pelican Island Proper 

Shoreline Stabilization, 

Phase III 

$2,000,000 $0

Pelican Island Buffer Habitat 

Restoration, Phase I 

RONS 93006** $1,000,000 $0

RONS 99033*** 

RONS 00005 

(partial) 

A.5, A.7-8, 

B.2, D.3 

Pelican Island Buffer Habitat 

Restoration, Phase II 

$1,000,000 $0

MMS 03006 E.1-3, E.5 Construct New Administrative 

Office 

$470,000 $0

Construct Visitor Center 

Facility, Phase I 

$861,000 $0

Visitor Center Facility, 

Phase II 

$2,000,000 $0

MMS 99051 

MMS 99052 

MMS 99053 

C.3, D.3, D.4, 

E.2, E.4-5, 

F.2 

Visitor Center Facility, 

Phase III 

$1,300,000 $35,000

RONS00007 A.1-7, B.1-6,

C.1-4, D.1-4, 

E.1-5, F.1-2 

Provide Management and 

Planning with Project Leader 

$152,000 $87,000

RONS 00006 A.1-7, B.1-6, 

C.1-4, D.1-4, 

E.1-5, F.1-2 

Staff administrative office 

with Administrative Assistant 

$118,000 $53,000

RONS 99039 Goals A-F Resource Protection with

Refuge Officer 

$125,000 $60,000

RONS 00005 A.7-8, E.1 Habitat Restoration and 

Maintenance Worker/Heavy 

Equipment Operator 

$125,000 $60,000

RONS 99040 Goal E Communication System $25,000 $0

RONS 01003 A.6, A.8, B.4, 

B.5, B.6 

Exotic Plant Control on 

Natural and Spoil Islands 

$60,000 $10,000

RONS 03001 E.5 Construct Maintenance 

Facility 

$170,000 $10,000

MMS 02002 E.5 Rehabilitate Pole Barn and 

Service Road

$54,000 $0

MMS 03000 E.5 Repair 1970 Pole Barn $54,000 $0

MMS 02NNN D.2, D.4 Jungle Trail Wildlife Drive $764,000 $35,000

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77
RONS/ 

MMS Project 

Number(s)

Goal/ 

Objective 

Number(s)

Project Description

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Recurring 

Annual Cost

RONS 00004*** D.1-4, E.4-5, 

F.1-2 

Jungle Trail Public Use 

Facilities, Signs, and Kiosks 

$729,000 $35,000

N/A  B.5 Impoundment Management

with Biological Science 

Technician 

$114,000 $49,000

N/A** ** B.4, C.2, D.3-

4 

Public Outreach Projects with 

Refuge Ranger 

$125,000 $60,000

RONS 99013*** C.3, D.4, F.2 Kroegel Homestead - 

protection and interpretation 

$705,000 $10,000

N/A  A.8, B.2, B.6 Purchase Dump Truck $50,000 $0

N/A** ** B.1-2, B.6 Purchase Fuel Tanks $20,000 $0

N/A  A.8, B.1, B.6 Purchase Fire Engine $50,000 $0

N/A** ** A.8, B.1, B.6 Purchase Fire Plow $20,000 $0

N/A  A.8, B.1-2,

B.6 

Purchase Equipment Trailer $30,000 $0

N/A** ** A.6 Regional Shorebird Plan - 

portable pump 

$40,000 $0

N/A  A.6 Regional Shorebird Plan - 3-

4 water control structures

$15,000 $0

N/A** ** A.6, B.4, C.2 Shorebird Habitat 

Restoration

$50,000 $5,000

N/A  A.6, B.4, C.2 Shoreline Stabilization for 

Natural and Spoil Islands 

$50,000 $5,000

N/A** ** A.5, B.2, B.6 Migratory Birds - habitat 

restoration and maintenance 

$50,000 $5,000

N/A  B.1 Refugia Habitat - restoration 

and maintenance 

$50,000 $5,000

N/A** ** A.1 Sea Turtles - surveys $30,000 $15,000

N/A  A.4 Wood Storks - surveys $30,000 $5,000

N/A** ** A.2 West Indian Manatee - 

habitat surveys 

$30,000 $0

N/A  A.3 Eastern Indigo Snake and 

Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake 

Surveys 

$30,000 $0

78 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
RONS/ 

MMS Project 

Number(s)

Goal/ 

Objective 

Number(s)

Project Description

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Recurring 

Annual Cost

N/A** ** A.7-8, B.2,

B.4 

Exotic, Invasive, and 

Nuisance Species - survey 

and control 

$30,000 $5,000

N/A  A.6, B.4-5 Shorebirds - surveys $30,000 $0

N/A** ** A.7 Woodrat - surveys $30,000 $0

N/A  A.7 Diamondback Terrapin -

surveys 

$30,000 $0

N/A** ** A.7 Land Crab - surveys $30,000 $0

N/A  A.7 Bobcat - surveys $30,000 $0

N/A** ** A.7 Small mammal - surveys $30,000 $0

N/A  B.5, C.2, D.1 Fisheries - surveying, 

monitoring, and protecting 

$30,000 $5,000

N/A** ** D.3 Environmental Education

Projects and Teacher 

Materials

$30,000 $5,000

N/A  D.1-4 Public Use

Maps/Brochures/Information 

$20,000 $5,000

MMS 02001 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace Honda ATV $6,000 $0

MMS 02014 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace Caterpillar 420 

Backhoe/Loader 

$69,000 $0

MMS 02019 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, D.2-4, 

E.1, E.5 

Replace Bush Hog Mower $8,000 $0

MMS 02017 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace Alamo Shredder $26,000 $0

MMS 02016 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace New Holland Bidirectional Tractor $77,000 $0

MMS 02015 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace New Holland Farm 

Tractor 

$32,000 $0

MMS 02010 E.1, E.5 Replace Dodge Pickup 

(1999) 

$22,000 $0

MMS 02009 D.2-4, E.1, 

E.5 

Replace Ford Van $23,000 $0

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79
RONS/ 

MMS Project 

Number(s)

Goal/ 

Objective 

Number(s)

Project Description

Estimated 

First Year 

Cost

Estimated 

Recurring 

Annual Cost

MMS 02008 E.1, E.5 Replace Dodge Pickup 

(2001) 

$24,000 $0

MMS 02007 E.1, E.5 Replace Chevrolet Tahoe $31,000 $0

MMS 02005 E.1, E.5 Replace Pathfinder Boat $35,000 $0

MMS 03002 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace Caterpillar D5 LGP $80,000 $0

MMS 03001 D.2-4, E.1, 

E.5 

Replace Dodge Van (2002) $18,000 $0

MMS 03003 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, E.1, E.5 

Replace John Deere Tractor $18,000 $0

MMS 03004 A.8, B.1-2, 

B.6, D.2-4, 

E.1, E.5 

Replace Turner Mower $13,000 $0

MMS 03005 E.1, E.5 Replace Travel Trailer $13,000 $0

N/A** ** Goals A-F 15-year CCP Update $152,000 $0

Total $13,433,000 $564,000

Notes: 

* Project funded through partnership with US Army Corps of Engineers and Florida 

Inland Navigation District under §1135 

** Project marked for deletion in RONS (funded through a partnership with Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection and Indian River County under Federal Aid 

program) 

*** Project formerly in RONS 

**** Project to be added to RONS (new project) 

In addition to these projects, a variety of needed research projects exist today. These research 

projects cover a wide range of management issues, including threats and impacts to refuge wildlife 

and habitat; biology, life history, and habitat components of threatened and endangered species and 

other species of management concern (e.g., land crabs, woodrats, and green anoles); juvenile fish

status; water quality; contaminants; wildlife disturbances; fibropapilloma disease; and the impacts of 

red tide events. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The Service will prepare step-down management plans to provide strategies and implementation 

schedules for meeting goals and objectives identified in this comprehensive conservation plan. 

At present, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge has five step-down plans. All of these plans will 

be updated during the 15-year life of this plan. The existing management plans are: 

• Fishing Plan, 1985; 

• Wilderness Management Plan, 1986; 

80 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
• Management Plan for Indian River Impoundment #2 (Bird’s Impoundment), 1992; 

• Management Plan for Indian River Impoundment #3 (Pete’s Impoundment), 1992; and 

• Fire Management Plan, 2001 (during this planning process).

Additional step-down plans will be developed. A single, integrated step-down plan will be developed 

addressing population management, habitat management, integrated pest management, and exotic 

species, based on the strategies defined in this comprehensive conservation plan and the direct 

relationship between program areas. A single, integrated step-down plan will be developed 

addressing priority wildlife dependent recreation including fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and interpretation. Table 11 lists the needed step-down 

management plans and their anticipated completion dates. 

Table 11. New step-down management plans. 

New Step-down Management Plan Anticipated 

Completion Date

Hurricane/Storm Event/Disaster Preparedness 2004 

Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management 

 Population management 

 Habitat management 

Integrated pest management 

 Exotic species 

2006 

Education and Visitor Service Management 2006 

Cultural Resources Management 2006 

Law Enforcement 2006 

Special Area Management 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 

2008 

Fisheries Resources Management 2010 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The refuge will continue an aggressive approach to work with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Service is fully committed to maintaining and 

expanding joint endeavors and cooperates with educational institutions, researchers, local 

governments, state government, and other federal agencies, as well as organizations, schools, 

volunteers, and conservation organizations. To this end, the refuge will maintain and enhance 

existing partnerships, which include those listed partners, as well as the residents and business 

owners of the area. 

• Abercrombie and Kent Global Foundation 

• Anheuser-Busch 

• Audubon of Florida 

• Brad Smith Associates

• Caterpillar Corporation 

• The City of Sebastian 

• ConocoPhilips 

• The Conservation Fund 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81
• The Disney Company 

• Eagle Optics 

• East Coast Florida Aquatic Preserves Office, Florida Department Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), State of Florida

• Environmental Learning Center (ELC) 

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), State of Florida

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWC), State of Florida 

• Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) 

• Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) 

• Florida Power and Light

• Friends of the St. Sebastian River 

• Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

• Indian River Audubon Society 

• Indian River County Board of Commissioners 

• Indian River County Chamber of Commerce 

• Indian River County Historical Society 

• Indian River County School District 

• Indian River Mall 

• Indian River Mosquito Control District 

• Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway 

• Kayaks Etc. 

• Lewis Environmental Services 

• Marine Resources Council (MRC) 

• National Audubon Society 

• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

• National Park Service (NPS) 

• National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

• North Beach Civic Association 

• Pelican Island Audubon Society (PIAS) 

• Pelican Island Elementary School 

• Pelican Island Preservation Society (PIPS) 

• Sebastian Area Chamber of Commerce 

• Sebastian Inlet State Park, FDEP, State of Florida 

• Sebastian River Area Historical Society 

• Sebastian River Boat Tours 

• Sembler & Sembler, Inc. 

• St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), FDEP, State of Florida 

• Theodore Roosevelt Society 

• Trust for Public Land (TPL) 

• University of Central Florida 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Estuary Program

• U.S. Postal Service 

• Wild Birds Unlimited 

Potential new partnerships for the refuge include local business owners; commercial tour boat 

operations; additional local elementary, middle, and high schools; new residents; additional research 

82 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
centers and universities; National Marine Fisheries Service; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISIONS 

Monitoring the Service’s performance while implementing this plan is critical to its successful 

implementation. Monitoring and evaluation allows the Service, other government agencies, the 

public, and the partners to measure and evaluate progress. Following approval of this plan and

public notification of the decision, the Service will begin implementing the strategies identified. The 

Service will monitor, evaluate, and determine whether or not progress is being made towards 

achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals. Monitoring will address habitat or population 

objectives and the effects of management activities. Through adaptive management, evaluation of 

monitoring and research results may indicate the need to modify refuge objectives or strategies. 

The Service will review this plan annually to decide if it requires any revisions. The plan will be 

modified along with associated management activities whenever this review or other monitoring and 

evaluation determine that changes are needed to achieve planning unit purpose(s), vision, and goals. 

The Service will revise this plan when significant new information becomes available, ecological 

conditions change, major refuge expansion occurs, or when the need to do so is identified during plan 

review. At a minimum, plan revision will occur every 15 years. All plan revisions will follow the 

procedures outlined in current policy and will require compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The Service will conduct ongoing public involvement and continue informing and involving 

the public regarding management of this refuge. 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83
84 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
SECTION B: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Environmental Assessment for Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge (see Figure 1) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. 

Following a public review and comment period on the draft comprehensive conservation plan, a final 

decision will be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that will guide Pelican Island Refuge 

management actions and decisions over the next 15 years, provide understanding about the refuge 

and management activities, and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge 

partners. 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan proposes a management direction, which is described in 

detail through a set of goals, objectives, and strategies. The draft plan addresses current 

management issues, provides long-term management direction and guidance for the refuge, and 

satisfies the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

In contrast, the environmental assessment determines and evaluates a range of reasonable 

management alternatives. The intent is to support informed decision-making regarding future 

management of the refuge. Each alternative presented in this environmental assessment was 

generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation plan. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this draft environmental assessment. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service 

in determining if the alternatives represent no significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a 

finding of No Significant Impact, or if the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring 

more detailed analysis through an Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. 

Following public review and comment, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be 

fully developed for this refuge. 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of developing a comprehensive conservation plan is to ensure that Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge serves as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds; conserves 

threatened and endangered species; serves the development, advancement, management, 

conservation, restoration, and protection of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources; provides opportunities 

for compatible, wildlife-oriented recreation; promotes awareness and appreciation of natural 

resources; administers and protects the wilderness character; and protects and preserves 

archaeological and historical resources. 

This environmental assessment addresses the need to adopt a 15-year management plan for Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge that provides guidance for future refuge management and that meets 

the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 85
DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will (1) select an 

alternative that best serves the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System; and (2) determine if the selected alternative is a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The 

Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public; organizations; 

agency managers; conservation partners; local, state, and federal government agencies; and others. 

The Service’s planning team identified significant issues, developed a range of alternatives, 

evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each of the alternatives, and recommended 

Alternative C as the best approach to guide direction of the refuge. The Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was developed for implementation 

based on this recommendation. 

AUTHORITIES, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes federal lands and waters managed primarily to provide 

habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species. National wildlife refuges are established

under many different authorities and funding sources for a variety of purposes. The purposes for 

these refuges are established by specific legislation, through Executive Orders of the President, or in 

special agreements. Additional authority delegated by Congress, federal regulations, executive 

orders, and several management plans guide the operation of a refuge. Appendix III contains a list of 

the key laws, orders, and regulations that provide a framework for the proposed action. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is located along Florida’s southeast coastline in Indian River 

County, generally east of the city of Sebastian, west of segment 4 of Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge, south of Sebastian Inlet, and north of Wabasso Island (Figure 1). Over 16,000 people call 

the city of Sebastian home, which is just across the Intracoastal Waterway from the refuge. For a 

Florida county, Indian River County has a relatively small population at over 113,000. The planning 

study area includes lands and waters identified within the refuge’s current acquisition boundary and 

those lands that are being studied for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System and/or 

partnership planning efforts. 

PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION 

During the preplanning and public scoping phases of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, a myriad of issues and concerns surfaced. While some of these 

issues and concerns are important to the future of the refuge, many are not within the sole jurisdiction 

of the refuge and some are completely outside of its control. Many of the issues and concerns raised 

represent opportunities for increased coordination with existing and potential partners. 

For more detailed information about the planning process and the identification of issues, see Section 

A, Chapter III. 

86 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
II. Alternatives 

INTRODUCTION 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management actions and activities designed 

to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System; and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the 

significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service, the public, and the governmental 

partners during public scoping and throughout the development of the draft plan. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection and restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. A major 

consideration in the formulation of the alternatives is the ability to obtain sufficient proprietary interest 

in the management of lands to facilitate a physical and biological connection of habitats and to 

restore the function and habitat diversity once found in this area. In particular, the fish and wildlife 

communities found in the aquatic, transitional, and terrestrial habitats on the refuge serve as 

migration corridors and stop-over habitats for many migratory birds and other trust species. Refuge

managers assessed biological conditions and analyzed external relationships affecting the refuge. 

This information contributed to the development of alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents 

different approaches to meeting long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how 

much progress it would make and how it would address core habitat issues, problems, and wildlife 

threats. 

Problems and threats provide important perspective and guidance in developing alternatives. Where 

data were available, trends in habitat and wildlife uses were evaluated, as was the capability of 

refuge habitats to support these uses. The physical loss of lands from Pelican Island proper, due to 

human activities and development (e.g., from water development projects and high public use) 

contributed to the loss of rookery of the refuge. Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and 

associated habitats in the South Florida Ecosystem and the Indian River Lagoon is characterized by 

the permanent loss of habitats and connectivity. Thus, the Service has prioritized protecting and

restoring the remaining habitats. 

All of the alternatives incorporate several concepts and management techniques intended to achieve 

the goals for management programs and activities conducted on the refuge, including management 

goals for fish, wildlife, and plant populations; habitats; land protection and conservation; education 

and visitor services; refuge administration; and cultural resources. Alternative A, the “no action” 

alternative, is a description of ongoing refuge management activities and may not, in all cases, meet 

all the goals. The no action alternative is described as a basis of comparison for the “action” 

alternatives–B and C. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Several elements of refuge management are common to all of the alternatives. All management 

activities that could impact natural resources, including subsurface mineral reservations, utility lines

and easements, soil, water, air, contaminants, and archaeological and historical resources will be 

managed to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. All alternatives would provide 

equal protection and management of the Wilderness Area. Individual projects may require additional 

consultation with the State of Florida’s Historic Preservation Office. Additional consultation, surveys, 

and clearance may be required where project development would be conducted on the refuge or 

when activities would affect properties eligible for the National Historic Register. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 87
COMPATIBLE USES 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy their lands and waters 

long into the future. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, those uses 

must first be found to be compatible. A compatible use is one that will not materially interfere with, or 

detract from, the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of 

the refuge [§668ee(1) USC]. “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge

when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety” [§668dd(d)(3)(A)(iii) USC]. The 

Service completed draft compatibility determinations for fishing activities; wildlife observation; wildlife 

photography; environmental education; interpretation; commercial ecotour operations; research 

activities; and interim citrus grove management (Appendix V). These compatibility determinations 

outline stipulations with which a particular use must comply in order to occur on the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

During this planning process, other future management alternatives were discussed in a limited 

fashion, but were not fully developed due to their inability to meet mission requirements, purposes of 

the refuge, and conservation goals established for the ecosystem. Alternatives proposed in the 

recent past were also revisited. In 1990, a failed proposal recommended quintupling the size of the 

refuge (i.e., expanding the refuge management area by 5 times) to over 26,000 acres of lands and 

waters predominantly through an expanded lease agreement with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. This would have extended the refuge north to Palm Bay, south to Vero 

Beach, and west to the St. Sebastian River. This alternative sought to protect those resources which 

were in imminent danger of being developed and/or irreparably damaged or destroyed. Although the 

original proposal failed due to insufficient public support, it did heighten the awareness of the extreme 

development pressures being experienced in the area and being exerted on the Pelican Island and 

Archie Carr Refuges. Much of the area under consideration for this expansion is now under 

management of the State of Florida (e.g., Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve and St. Sebastian 

River Buffer Preserve) or was developed. Pursuit of the large-scale expansion of the refuge was 

abandoned in an effort to build consensus amongst its partners and within the agency to pursue the 

later-developed vision document. In the time since this proposal originated, considerable 

development has occurred in the area, which threatens to diminish and degrade the remaining 

natural resources of the area, including those on both refuges. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A (i.e., the no action alternative) continues current management activities similar to recent 

activities and levels on the refuge. Alternative B minimally expands upon the current management 

activities to add some biological and public use management activities to current refuge 

management. Based on the 1999 vision document, Alternative C moderately expands upon current 

management to develop a more comprehensive refuge management approach by expanding and

adding needed biological management activities, and by providing compatible public use 

opportunities and outreach. Due to the collaborative development, support, and vast distribution of 

the vision document by the Pelican Island Working Group, Alternative C has a great deal of support 

from the public and private sectors at the local, state, regional, and national levels. The three 

alternative management approaches take into consideration the listed criteria developed as a result 

of issue identification, and are organized under five broad management categories. 

88 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats 

• Stabilize and restore Pelican Island Refuge lagoonal and spoil islands, habitats, and fish and 

wildlife populations. 

• Reverse the loss and decline of the nesting substrate on the Pelican Island proper rookery. 

• Manage refuge habitats and foster broad participation in fish and wildlife stewardship and 

recovery. 

• Manage and improve data collection, survey, monitoring, and research to contribute to longterm recovery efforts. 

• Control and conduct long-term eradication of invasive, exotic, and nuisance species. 

Land Protection and Conservation 

• Acquire or otherwise manage key lands and waters, including the home of the first refuge 

manager. 

Education and Visitor Services 

• Address the recreation impacts on fish and wildlife resources within the existing borders of the 

refuge. 

• Promote compatible wildlife viewing, environmental education, and interpretation on the 

refuge. 

• Build awareness and understanding in the local community and amongst visitors about fish 

and wildlife conservation and wilderness management. 

Refuge Administration 

• Seek funding to address inadequate staffing and support for biological and environmental 

education programs. 

• Coordinate management actions, agreements, and leases with local, state, and federal land 

management agencies to improve fish and wildlife conservation on the refuge and emphasize 

the enforcement of Service regulations. 

Cultural Resources 

• Coordinate protection of archaeological and historical resources of the refuge, especially 

Native American sites and the Kroegel Homestead. 

ALTERNATIVE A - CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

Until 2001, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was a one-staff person (or less) operation. The 

refuge was largely managed and supported by local volunteers, while funds for management were 

supplied by the partners and diverted from Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. The March 2003 

Centennial Celebration of the National Wildlife Refuge System provided an impetus for the Service 

and others to provide refuge wildlife viewing facilities and adjoining habitat restoration at the first 

refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 2001, three additional permanent full-time staff 

members were added to manage the refuge. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 89
Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats 

In 1993, a refuge manager was located in Sebastian to serve both the Pelican Island and Archie Carr 

Refuges. Seasonal roost counts and production surveys were conducted. Daily sea turtle nesting

surveys and land acquisition activities for the Archie Carr Refuge, as well as outreach activities for 

both refuges, dominated much of the refuge manager’s time. Research by the University of Central 

Florida focused on Archie Carr Refuge and its important sea turtle nesting beaches. The research 

was expanded to include Pelican Island and the juvenile sea turtles in the Indian River Lagoon (i.e., 

the ongoing study of the population ecology of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central 

coast of Florida by Dr. Llewelyn Ehrhart). 

Recent refuge management activities have also included stabilizing the Pelican Island proper 

rookery; conducting occasional patrols; occasionally removing monofilament line and other trash from 

Pelican Island proper; occasionally removing moon vine and Brazilian pepper; conducting 2-3 annual 

colonial bird surveys; conducting 2-3 annual roost counts; and participating in Audubon’s Christmas 

Bird Count. During 2001 and 2002, through a state and county partnership, the refuge and its 

partners restored a citrus grove and its associated ditches and created and restored perennial and

ephemeral freshwater wetlands, while partially restoring maritime hammock. These activities benefit 

threatened and endangered species and native wildlife found in the transitional and terrestrial 

habitats of the refuge. Currently, little or no refuge management activities address neotropical 

migratory birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, fishes, and the natural and spoil islands in the Indian River 

Lagoon. Active aquaculture (shellfish) leases are inholdings within the refuge and interim agriculture 

(citrus) leases are managed by the refuge. 

Land Protection and Conservation 

Although the refuge was established in 1903, the Service did not begin purchasing land until 1990. 

Currently, the refuge manages ±5,462 acres (with only ±400 acres under Service ownership and with 

the majority of the remainder covered by a lease with the State of Florida). Current land acquisition

activities within the acquisition boundary address willing sellers. Only ±403 acres of the acquisition 

boundary are private or public inholdings within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. 

The refuge holds several special designations impacting refuge management. In 1963, Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge was designated a National Historic Landmark. The 5.5-acre Pelican 

Island proper was designated a Wilderness Area in 1970, after repeated attempts in 1963, 1968, and 

1969 to designate 403 acres of the refuge as wilderness. In March 1993 the refuge was designated a 

Wetland of International Importance. On December 1, 2000, the refuge was listed as a candidate 

Marine Protected Area, pursuant to Executive Order 13158. 

Education and Visitor Services 

Environmental education and visitor services at the refuge have been highly limited due to a variety of 

constraints. Historically, the refuge did not have visitor facilities; however, the refuge’s partners 

continue to supply refuge information and brochures at their visitor facilities. The city of Sebastian

maintains an informational kiosk for the refuge at Riverview Park. Indian River County also maintains 

an informational kiosk on Wabasso Causeway. Sebastian Inlet State Park provides information and 

brochures at its main recreation area and at a kiosk at its administrative offices, northeast of the 

refuge. The Pelican Island Preservation Society, the Pelican Island Audubon Society, the 

Environmental Learning Center, two local chambers of commerce, and two local historical societies 

also provide information and brochures on the refuge. 

Outreach activities have been limited to the annual Pelican Island Wildlife Festival, the refuge’s 

Internet website, refuge brochures, and about six annual programs (which are conducted by special 

request). The Indian River Lagoon portion of the refuge is covered by a lease agreement with the 

90 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
State of Florida, which allows traditional uses on this portion of the refuge. However, additional uses 

such as personal watercraft and camping on the spoil islands currently occur. 

The remainder of the refuge was closed to the public until March 14, 2003 (the 100-year anniversary 

of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System). Beginning in 2003, the refuge is officially 

managed to support fishing, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in 

environmental education and interpretation. The facilities supporting these activities include dike 

trails, an interpretive boardwalk, and an observation tower, as well as restrooms and parking lots

constructed and maintained by Indian River County. 

Refuge Administration 

Relying heavily on its partners, the refuge has made great strides in land acquisition, habitat 

restoration, impoundment management, and environmental education and outreach. Pelican Island

Refuge has historically been managed through funds diverted from Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, grants, cost-share agreements, partners, and volunteers. A budget for the refuge was 

established in Fiscal Year 2001. Currently housed at the South Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office in Vero Beach, the refuge manager is responsible for both the Pelican Island and Archie Carr 

Refuges. Volunteers, staff from area refuges, and temporary staff comprise the fluctuating workforce. 

Three new staff members were employed in 2001: a Biologist, a Biological Science Technician, and a 

Refuge Ranger. The Service added two staff to the refuge in 2002: an Administrative Office Assistant 

and an Assistant Manager/Refuge Operations Specialist. This staff is assisted by 40 volunteers. 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge became a satellite refuge of the Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex in 1964. Along with Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, both refuges were 

transitioned from being managed as satellite refuges of the Merritt Island Refuge Complex to 

becoming stand-alone refuges independently managed by a separate staff under Pelican Island 

Refuge. 

The historic lack of staff has helped to limit refuge management activities, including little or no 

management activities addressing the Wilderness Area, other special designations, contaminants, 

research activities, and commercial activities. The refuge continues to protect the 5.5-acre 

Wilderness Area located on the natural lagoonal island (i.e., Pelican Island proper) under the current 

Wilderness Management Plan. However, no ongoing refuge management activities address the 

other special designations held by the refuge. Minimal refuge management activities address 

contaminants on the refuge by utilizing Service staff from Ecological Services’ field offices in Vero 

Beach, Florida and Brunswick, Georgia. Historically, no ongoing refuge management activities 

addressed the multitude and variety of research and commercial activities currently occurring on the 

refuge. In May 2002, the refuge began requiring special use permits for new research projects on the 

refuge (however, the majority of the research projects existing before this time are not under refuge 

permit). 

Cultural Resources 

The refuge is currently working with Indian River County to have the refuge’s shell middens included 

on the State of Florida’s list of archaeological sites (i.e., Master Site File). Little or no other refuge 

management activities address the archaeological and cultural resources of the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE B - MINIMALLY EXPAND REFUGE PROGRAMS

Alternative B minimally expands upon the current management activities to add some biological and 

public use management activities to marginally increase the functionality of the refuge. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 91
Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats 

Proposed management addressing transitional and terrestrial wildlife and habitats includes stabilizing 

the Pelican Island proper rookery to historic conditions (5.5 acres) and shape; implementing an 

expanded buffer for the Pelican Island proper rookery; conducting regular patrol and enforcement 

activities; conducting habitat restoration activities on the barrier island portion of the refuge; 

developing baseline data for neotropical migratory birds and shorebirds; implementing a litter removal 

program; participating in Indian River County’s monofilament recycling program; increasing removal 

and control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; increasing wildlife surveys to develop baseline 

information; and developing a fish and wildlife management plan. 

Proposed management activities addressing aquatic wildlife and habitats include conducting regular 

patrol and enforcement activities; increasing awareness of issues related to threatened and 

endangered species utilizing aquatic habitats; increasing coordination with the State of Florida on

manatee issues; developing agreements to improve habitat management of the breached Deerfield 

impoundments; providing protection for key fish spawning and settlement sites; working with the

partners to limit wildlife and habitat disturbance (e.g., through buffers, speed zones, and outreach 

activities); developing baseline information on aquatic exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; and 

coordinating with partners to address the loss and decline of seagrass beds. 

Land Protection and Conservation 

Proposed land protection and conservation activities include pursuing, funding, and acquiring key

inholdings; continuing to operate under the current lease with the State of Florida and under other 

current management agreements; and removing two outstanding shellfish leases (i.e., inholdings) 

from the lease with the State of Florida. 

Education and Visitor Services 

Proposed management activities related to education and visitor services include continuing to 

operate under the lease with the State of Florida and allowing traditional uses under the lease; 

providing opportunities for bank fishing; continuing wildlife observation, photography and 

interpretation from the new boardwalk and trails; developing a public use management plan; 

coordinating with community-based environmental education partners to increase awareness and

understanding of the refuge, threatened and endangered species, and other resources; expanding 

outreach activities; requiring permits for commercial operations on the refuge (other than those 

covered by the lease with the State of Florida); expanding patrol and enforcement activities; and 

eliminating uses that are not compatible. 

Refuge Administration 

Proposed refuge administration activities include adding three permanent, full-time staff to the refuge 

(i.e., Refuge Officer, Maintenance Worker, and Supply Technician) for a total staff of nine; adding

informational kiosks; increasing equipment, as needed (especially to support law enforcement 

activities); requiring special use permits for all research activities on the refuge; continuing to protect 

the 5.5-acre Wilderness Area located on the natural lagoonal island of Pelican Island proper under 

the current Wilderness Management Plan; minimally addressing contaminants on the refuge; and 

minimally addressing the special designations held by the refuge. 

Cultural Resources 

Proposed management activities related to archaeological and cultural resources include: working 

with Indian River County to have the refuge’s shell middens included on the State of Florida’s list of 

archaeological sites (i.e., Master Site File) and providing patrol and enforcement of these resources. 

92 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
ALTERNATIVE C - MODERATELY EXPAND REFUGE PROGRAMS (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative C moderately expands upon current management programs to increase the functionality 

of the refuge to meet its purposes and goals. 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats 

Proposed management addressing transitional and terrestrial wildlife and habitats includes stabilizing 

the Pelican Island proper rookery to historic conditions (5.5 acres) and shape; implementing an 

expanded buffer for the Pelican Island proper rookery (to reflect current research); conducting regular 

patrol and enforcement activities; completing habitat restoration activities on the barrier island portion 

of the refuge and conducting habitat restoration activities on the natural and spoil islands in the 

refuge; conducting habitat restoration activities to benefit threatened and endangered species; 

developing baseline data for neotropical migratory birds and shorebirds; implementing programs and 

plans to manage for neotropical migratory birds and shorebirds; implementing a litter removal 

program; participating in Indian River County’s monofilament recycling program; evaluating 

acceptable wildlife disturbance distances and frequencies and implementing corrective actions; 

exploring partnership opportunities to support and restore important lagoonal island habitats; 

increasing removal and control of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species and developing appropriate 

plans (e.g., integrated pest management plan); increasing wildlife surveys to develop baseline 

information; and developing a fish and wildlife management plan. 

Proposed management activities addressing aquatic wildlife and habitats include conducting regular 

patrol and enforcement activities; providing additional erosion protection of Pelican Island proper;

increasing awareness of issues related to threatened and endangered species utilizing aquatic 

habitats; increasing coordination with the State of Florida on manatee issues; developing and 

implementing sea turtle and manatee management programs; investigating the occurrence of Kemp’s 

ridley and hawksbill sea turtles and Atlantic salt marsh snake; developing agreements to improve 

habitat management of the breached Deerfield impoundments; developing a fish management 

program to provide protection for key fish spawning and settlement sites; developing baseline 

fisheries information; working with the partners to limit wildlife and habitat disturbance (e.g., through 

buffers, speed zones, and outreach activities); modifying the lease with the State of Florida or 

developing a new approach to limit negative wildlife and habitat impacts and disturbance by enabling 

the enforcement of Service regulations; developing baseline information on aquatic exotic, invasive, 

and nuisance species; and coordinating with partners to address the loss and decline of seagrass 

beds and to provide associated outreach materials. 

Land Protection and Conservation 

Proposed land protection and conservation activities include pursuing, funding, and acquiring key

inholdings; working with partners to protect and manage the Kroegel Homestead and Duck Point; 

modifying the lease with the State of Florida or developing a new approach to limit negative wildlife 

and habitat impacts and disturbance by enabling the enforcement of Service regulations; and 

removing two outstanding shellfish leases (i.e., inholdings) from the lease with the State of Florida.

Education and Visitor Services 

Proposed management activities related to education and visitor services include modifying the lease 

with the State of Florida or developing a new approach to limit negative wildlife and habitat impacts

and disturbance by enabling the enforcement of Service regulations; providing opportunities for high 

quality, compatible fishing and bank fishing; increasing wildlife observation and photography and 

interpretation from the new boardwalk and trails and proposed wildlife drive; developing a modest 

visitor center facility to enable compatible public use activities; providing interpretative opportunities at 

the Kroegel Homestead; developing a public use management plan; coordinating with communityDraft Environmental Assessment 93
based environmental education partners to increase awareness and understanding of the refuge,

threatened and endangered species, and other resources; greatly expanding environmental 

education activities, materials, and programs on- and off-site; expanding outreach activities; 

increasing the volunteer resource; increasing participation in other festivals, events, and community 

organizations to provide outreach and refuge management updates; requiring permits for commercial 

operations in the refuge; providing outreach and educational materials and training to commercial 

tour operators and guides; expanding patrol and enforcement activities; and eliminating uses that are 

not compatible. 

Refuge Administration 

Proposed refuge administration activities include adding five permanent, full-time staff to the refuge 

(i.e., Refuge Officer, Maintenance Worker, Biological Technician, Refuge Ranger, and Supply 

Technician) for a total staff of eleven; adding informational kiosks and a visitor center; adding refuge 

management office and maintenance facilities; increasing equipment, as needed (especially to 

support law enforcement activities); requiring special use permits for all research activities on the

refuge; continuing to protect the 5.5-acre Wilderness Area located on the natural lagoonal island

(Pelican Island proper) under an updated Wilderness Management Plan; addressing contaminants on 

the refuge; and addressing the special designations held by the refuge. 

Cultural Resources 

Proposed management activities related to archaeological and cultural resources include working 

with the partners to acquire and manage the Kroegel Homestead, pursuing the addition of the 

Kroegel Homestead to the National Register, developing a management plan for the Kroegel 

Homestead, creating a visitor facility on the Kroegel Homestead in keeping with the current character 

and historic nature of the site, working with Indian River County to have the refuge’s shell middens 

included on the State of Florida’s list of archaeological sites (i.e., Master Site File), providing patrol 

and enforcement of these resources, and developing an archaeological resources step-down 

management plan. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Each alternative is different in the type and level of land management and protection it would offer to 

achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each is similar in its approach to managing 

the refuge. Each alternative would pursue the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan; would acquire, protect, and enhance a diverse assemblage of habitats; and would be consistent 

with the recovery plans for those threatened and endangered species occurring on the refuge, with 

the purposes of the refuge, and with the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Table 12 identifies and compares the management actions under each alternative as a means of 

responding to the problems and issues raised by Service managers, the public, and governmental 

partners. These management actions were summarized into the three alternatives previously 

described to accomplish the Refuge System mission and the purposes and vision of the refuge and to 

address significant threats, problems, and issues raised by public agencies, private citizens, and 

interested organizations. Each alternative column provides a summary of that particular alternative. 

The rows allow for the comparison of the alternatives for each issue or resource topic. “No active 

management” indicates that no management activities are routinely undertaken. “Same as 

Alternative” indicates that management actions for that particular item are the same as another 

alternative. Alternatives B and C are the action alternatives and are compared to Alternative A. In 

most instances, possible management activities (outlined in alternatives B or C) are increased from

current activities (Alternative A). In some instances, possible management activities are a departure 

94 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Environmental Assessment 

from current management activities. For many issues and resource topics, alternatives B and C 

propose similar, but different management actions.

Table 12 separates the issues and resource topics into five main categories, as listed. 

• Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats

• Transitional and Terrestrial Communities 

• Aquatic Communities

• Land Protection and Conservation

• Education and Visitor Services

• Refuge Administration

• Cultural Resources

95
Table 12. Comparison of management alternatives. 

Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternExpan

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Transitional and Terrestrial Communities) Pelican Island Proper Manage shoreline restoration at 

current levels. Continue monthly patrol. 

Increase restoration from current levels [complete shoreline restoration, as necessary, to historic conditions (i.e., 5.5 acres)]. Conduct monitoring and adaptive management as necessary). Increase patrol and enforcement. 

Same 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No active management. Coordinate with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

Coordinate with the State to expand buffer around Pelican Island proper in accord with current research. Implement consistent enforcement and increase patrols. Manage research projects in support of refuge objectives. Conduct habitat restoration activities. Coordinate with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

CoordexpanIsland currenconsisincrearesearefuge habitaExpanMap wCoordpartneindigo ConduAtlantMonitoCoordEcolo. 

96 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternExpan

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Transitional and Terrestrial Communities) Neotropical Migratory Birds No active management. Survey baseline populations. Surve

Develmanasuitab

Shorebirds No active management. Survey baseline populations. Surve

Evalusuppoa shorprograhabita

Fish and Wildlife Disturbance Occasionally remove 

monofilament line. 

Implement litter removal program. Participate in Indian River County’s monofilament recycling program. Implement consistent enforcement and increase patrol. 

ImplemprograRiver recyclconsisincreamanaControlimit wdisturb

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternExpan

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Transitional and Terrestrial Communities) Natural and Spoil Islands No active management. Develop partnerships with public 

agencies to protect select islands serving key species. 

InvestrestorDevelagencislandExploopporrestorlagoonowner

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

Occasionally remove moon vine and Brazilian pepper (up to 10 acres/annually. Continue 2001 barrier island restoration project to mimic historic conditions). Occasionally remove feral cats. 

Increase removal of exotic, invasive, and nuisance species.Increase restoration efforts to mimic historic conditions. Apply for State grants for exotic plant removal and control. Develop nuisance animal removal program. 

IncreainvasiIncreamimic for Staremovan inteplan acontroexoticspecie

98 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternExpan

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Transitional and Terrestrial Communities) Native Wildlife Conduct Christmas bird count, 

2-3 annual roost counts and 2-3 annual colonial waterbird surveys. Coordinate contaminant investigations and oversight of habitat restoration at Jungle Trail.

Increase wildlife surveys and establish baseline data, including increased roost counts and colonial waterbird surveys. Coordinate habitat restoration at Jungle Trail. Develop and implement a general Fish and Wildlife Management Plan (e.g., to include trapping, inventorying, and monitoring). Require special use permits for all research activities conducted on the refuge. 

Increaestabldeveloincludand coCoordinvestthe reimplemWildlifto incland muse peactivitrefuge

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternExpan

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitat (Aquatic Communities) Pelican Island Proper Continue minimal patrol and 

enforcement of closed area buffer in waters adjacent to Pelican Island proper. Continue coordination with partners to restore shoreline.

Coordinate with the State to expand Pelican Island proper buffer in accordance with current research. Continue coordination with partners to protect and restore Island to historic conditions. Increase patrol and enforcement activities. 

CoordinFlorida (or with partners refuge twith curexpand disturbaincrease and resconditioenforce

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Continue coordination with State of Florida to provide manatee protection. Coordinate with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office.

Continue coordination with State of Florida to provide manatee protection. Implement consistent enforcement and patrol. Manage research projects in support of refuge objectives. Increase awareness in the local communityof aquatic threatened and endangered species. Coordinate with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

Continuof Floridprotectienforceresearcrefuge oawarenof aquaendangand impmanateInvestigoccurrehawksbwith SoService

100 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitat (Aquatic Communities) Impoundment Management Continue managing Pete’s and 

Bird’s Impoundments with Indian River Mosquito Control District for mosquito control and wood storks. 

Coordinate management of Pete’s and Bird’s Impoundments with Indian River Mosquito Control District and improve conditions for foraging wading birds. Coordinate management to improve habitat conditions at breached Deerfield Impoundments. 

CoordinPete’s awith IndControl habitats birds anCoordinimprove breacheImpounmanageimpounSebastiWabass

Estuary and Fish No active management. Coordinate with partners to 

protect key fish spawning and settlement sites (e.g., through seasonal closures of keyspawning and settlement sites). 

Taking with pafish spasites (eclosuresettlembaseline refuge. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitat (Aquatic Communities) Fish and Wildlife Disturbance No active management. Coordinate with State and other 

partners to increase efforts to minimize wildlife disturbance (e.g., buffers, speed zones, and outreach). Implement consistent enforcement and patrol. 

Alter the the Statenforceregulatiwildlife 

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

No active management. Coordinate with partners to 

develop baseline information. 

Same a

Seagrass Beds No active management. Coordinate with partners to 

improve protection and enforcement. 

Coordinimprove enforceeducatito local 

Land Protection and Conservation Land Acquisition Continue current management. Pursue acquisition of priority 

inholdings and buffer tracts. Work to complete acquisition boundary. 

Same a

102 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Land Protection and Conservation Management Agreements Continue current management. Same as Alternative A Coordin

manageHomestthe Seras needregulatiand ma

State of Florida Lease Agreement 

Continue current management. Continue current management. 

Coordinate with State to remove shellfish lease inholdings from the lease agreement. 

Coordinthe leasService regulatiprotectihabitatsto remothe leas

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Education and Visitor Services Fishing Continue current management 

(e.g., managing under current lease, users can fish from bank, by wading, and by boat and are generally unrestricted byService regulations in the lease area). 

Continue current management (e.g., managing under current lease, users can fish from bank, by wading, and by boat and are generally unrestricted by Service regulations in the lease area). Allow bank fishing from select upland and island sites. Revise Fishing Management Plan. Conduct regular patrols.

Modify with StaService opportulagoonafishing oand islaFishing Conducenforce

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Develop viewing facilities (e.g. boardwalks, signs, and observation tower). Provide passive wildlife viewing from dike trails. Expand refuge’s role in Great Florida Birding Trail. 

Develop viewing facilities (e.g. boardwalks, signs, and observation tower). Passive wildlife viewing from dike trails. Expand refuge’s role in Great Florida Birding Trail. Develop Visitor Services Management Plan. 

Develop boardwtower, awildlife wildlife Expand Florida Visitor SPlan. 

104 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Education and Visitor Services Environmental Education Volunteers and partners 

provide educational activities. 

Increase community-based environmental educationactivities with partners. Provide staff and educational materials to increase awareness of the refuge, the Service, and threatened and endangered species and support on-site activities by partners. Develop Visitor Services Management Plan. 

Increasenvironactivitiestaff anto suppactivitieawarenServiceendangVisitor SPlan. Dsupport Learninmodest refuge eprogram partners

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Education and Visitor Services Interpretation Develop and maintain signs that 

interpret the natural and cultural history of the refuge. 

Develop and maintain signs that interpret the natural and cultural history of the refuge. Increase awareness of refuge purposes and National Wildlife Refuge System (e.g., through outreach to local Chamber of Commerce). 

Develop that intecultural IncreaspurposeRefuge outreacCommeprovide Provide and/or mHomestof the restate, aorganizEnvironCenter)

106 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Education and Visitor Services Outreach Conduct about six programs and 

the Pelican Island Wildlife Festival annually. Update website as needed. Manage volunteer program at current levels (about 40 people through Pelican Island Preservation Society). Continue participating in local rotary clubs meetings. 

Expand outreach activities. Update and expand signs at marinas and boat ramps. Make presentations to schools and local residents. Conduct annual Pelican Island Wildlife Festival. Increase volunteer participation (to about 60people). Increase staff participation in local community meetings and events to increase awareness of refuge and Service activities. 

Expand Update marinas presentlocal reannual Festivaparticippeople)participmeetingincreasand Se

Commercial Operations No active management. Coordinate with the State of 

Florida and require Service permit for commercial operators. Provide information about Service regulations and management issues to operators and guides. 

CoordinFlorida agreempermit foperatoabout Smanageoperatotraining to guide

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Education and Visitor Services Other Recreation Uses Continue current management. Increase sign development and 

law enforcement activities. Coordinate with the State of Florida to limit or control personal watercraft use and camping. Continue public use in the leased area under the lease agreement with the State of Florida (i.e., continue public use activities within the refuge’s management boundary that do not meet compatibility requirements). 

Increaslaw enfoCoordinFlorida personacampinagreemFlorida regulatiboundaopportucompatand elim

108 Pelican Island 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Refuge Administration Staffing and Funding Continue current management 

with a six-person staff: Refuge Manager, Biologist, Biological Science Technician, Refuge Ranger, Administrative Assistant, and AssistantManager/Refuge Operations Specialist. Current staff funding costs are $445,000. 

Increase current management to an nine-person staff by adding: Refuge Officer, Maintenance Worker, and Supply Technician. Increase staff funding with first year additions totaling $360,000 and with recurring costs of $165,000. The staff of nine represents an annual recurring cost of $610,000. 

Increasto an eladding: Refuge WorkerRefuge Technicfunding totaling recurrinThe staan annu$719,00

Equipment and Facilities Maintain current facilities (e.g., 

pole shed, trails, boardwalk, observation tower, interpretative signs, and office equipment). Continue utilizing donated off-site locations (e.g., office space in Vero Beach for six-person staff and storage at Sebastian Inlet for equipment). 

Increase current equipment and facilities (e.g., add informational kiosks and off-site office space and equipment for nine-person staff). 

Increasfacilities kiosks, drive, omaintenequipmstaff). 

Research Activities Require special use permits for 

new research activities on the refuge. 

Require special use permits for all research activities on the refuge. 

Same a

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Refuge Administration Contaminants Manage investigations and 

restoration for Jungle Trail area. Coordinate with South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 

Same as Alternative A Manage 

restoratCoordinEcologiOffice. 

Wilderness and Special Designations

Continue current management of Wilderness Area. No active management for other special designations. 

Same as Alternative A Update 

Manageappropractivitiedesignathe partHomestHistoric 

Cultural Resources Kroegel Homestead No active management. Same as Alternative A Coordin

acquire Kroegemanagevisitor fahistoric Homestthe NatSystem

110 Pelican Island 
Draft Environmental Assessment 

Issue/Resource Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action ) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Action) 

AlternaExpand 

Cultural Resources Archaeological Sites Continue current management 

(i.e., coordinate with Indian River County to list sites in the State of Florida’s Master Site File). 

Continue current management (i.e., coordinate with Indian River County to list sites in the State of Florida’s Master Site File). Provide law enforcement and patrol for these sites. 

Continu(i.e., coRiver CState of File). Pand patDevelop manage
112 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
III. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, The Refuge. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 113
114 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW

The Service assessed the environmental impacts of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan on the biological, physical, social, economical, cultural, and historical resources of the refuge. 

Specific environmental and social impacts of implementing each alternative are discussed in Figure 

13 under five broad management categories: fish, wildlife, plants and habitats; land protection and 

conservation; education and visitor services; refuge administration; and cultural resources. Outlined 

are the predicted impacts over the 15-year life of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan that could 

result from the implementation of proposed actions described in alternatives A, B, and C. Proposed 

management actions described in Alternative A, such as acquisition of in-holdings and restoration of 

habitats at the Jungle Trail, are anticipated to have minimal to no negative effect on the environment. 

Proposed management actions described in alternatives B and C, such as developing facilities to 

manage biological, recreational, and environmental education programs, could have short-term 

negative effects and are expected to have no long-term negative effects on the environment. 

Implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C is anticipated to have neutral or positive impacts to 

area land values, related employment and income, and outdoor recreational and environmental 

education opportunities.

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

A few potential effects would be similar under each of the alternatives. The implementation of any of 

the alternatives will follow the refuge’s best management practices and will pursue avoidance and 

minimization of impacts to federally threatened and endangered species, to the extent possible and 

practicable. Under each of the alternatives, the refuge, any contractors, researchers, and other 

consultants will continue to acquire all applicable permits (e.g., for future construction activities). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historical sites found on 

refuge lands. Since cultural resource surveys on the refuge have been limited, additional surveys 

would be conducted prior to any new construction or excavation on refuge lands in order to fully 

satisfy provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and applicable acts and policies related to 

historical and archaeological resources. Potentially negative impacts from construction of trails or

facilities would require the review by the Regional Archaeologist and consultation with the Florida 

State Historic Preservation Office. Determining whether a particular management action within an 

alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that would occur during 

the detailed planning stages of every project. Service acquisition of land with known or potential 

archaeological or historical sites provides two major types of protection for these resources: 

protection from damage by federal activity and protection from vandalism or theft. Service policy is to 

preserve these resources in the public trust, avoiding impact whenever possible. Minimal or no 

negative impacts are anticipated for any particular cultural resources of the refuge under any of the 

alternatives. As a whole, positive impacts are expected to the cultural resources due to management 

and protection of these resources under all of the alternatives. However, the level of positive impacts 

to cultural resources varies by alternative. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 115
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

None of the management alternatives described in this environmental assessment would 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economical, social, or health impacts on minority 

or low-income populations. Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and 

environmental education is anticipated to benefit minority and low-income citizens living in the vicinity 

of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior requires agencies under its direction to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long-range planning. The increase of carbon within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as 

global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, 

carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be considered in planning. 

The U.S. Department of Energy defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere” (U.S. Department of Energy 

1999). The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts (e.g., 

grasslands, wetlands, and forests) are effective in both preventing carbon emission and acting as a 

biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy report’s 

conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or 

prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Preserving natural habitat for fish and wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this plan and environmental assessment would preserve or restore 

land and water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to 

efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes. 

SOILS 

All alternatives are anticipated to positively impact soil formation processes on lands the refuge 

manages. Some disturbances to surface soils and topography would occur at those locations 

selected for administrative, maintenance, and visitor facilities, as well as in areas targeted for exotic 

and invasive species removal and eradication. However, these impacts would be at discrete sites. 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, AND FLOOD PLAINS 

All alternatives would positively impact water quality. Positive impacts are anticipated from protecting 

groundwater recharge, preventing runoff, retaining sediment, and minimizing non-point source 

pollution and boating in select areas. The proposed management alternatives are not anticipated to 

have any adverse effects on the area’s wetlands and flood plains, pursuant to Executive Orders 

11990 and 11988. Further, the refuge provides protection to lands and waters that would otherwise 

be developed into commercial and residential uses in the near future. 

AESTHETICS 

Each alternative would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated with natural habitats. 

116 

116 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Under all alternatives, the level of recreation use and ground based disturbance from pedestrians 

would be concentrated at developed facilities (e.g., trails, boardwalks, and viewing areas). Impacts 

are related to building-created impervious areas, graveled entrance roads, and parking lots. The 

Service would consult with local and state officials and the public during detailed planning for and 

construction of any new facilities. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Based on the nature of each alternative, the location of the refuge, and current land use, all 

alternatives are anticipated to have no significant negative impacts on the quality of the human 

environment, including public health and safety. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A - Continue Current Management (No Action Alternative) 

The No Action Alternative is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. Impacts are 

described for air quality, water quality, soils, topography, aesthetics, native habitats, social and 

economical factors, public use, Wilderness Area, and cultural resources.

Although revegetation and habitat management activities are limited under the No Action Alternative, 

they do help to increase the amount of native vegetation, thus helping to improve air quality. Minor, 

very short-term negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. 

However, these are offset by the positive impacts of native habitats developing on restored sites. 

Land acquisition activities by the Service for Pelican Island Refuge decrease the amount of lands that 

would have otherwise been developed. Developed lands are a key source of non-point source 

pollutants. The limited amount of habitat restoration planned under the No Action Alternative slightly 

increases the amount of native vegetation, helping to enhance water quality of the refuge and in the 

area. Ongoing land acquisition and habitat management activities are anticipated to provide neutral 

to positive hydrological benefits. 

The No Action Alternative includes management actions that are anticipated to provide net positive 

impacts to soils over both the short term and long term. Management activities include removing the 

existing citrus groves and restoring a portion of the sites to more natural conditions with native 

vegetation. These activities would benefit the soils by eliminating citrus grove management activities, 

thereby reducing potential contaminant inputs, and replanting a portion of these groves with native 

vegetation. However, these benefits are minimal due to the limited amount of replanting that 

currently occurs. 

The No Action Alternative does not address the topography of the refuge. The original topography of 

the area was highly altered by the installation and operation of citrus groves and associated ditches. 

Minor positive aesthetic impacts are anticipated from management actions outlined under the No 

Action Alternative over both the short term and long term. Continued land acquisition activities would 

ensure that those lands acquired would be managed in a natural state. Minor revegetation activities 

would continue to restore native vegetation. Short-lived negative aesthetic impacts are anticipated

during initial stages of habitat restoration activities (e.g., when all citrus trees are removed from a 

site). 

Draft Environmental Assessment 117
The No Action Alternative outlines management actions that are anticipated to result in positive 

wildlife, plant, and native habitat benefits over both the short term and long term. Land acquisition

and revegetation efforts are anticipated to result in positive impacts by limiting the amount of land 

developed in the immediate area and by restoring native vegetation. Management actions are 

expected to result in positive native wildlife impacts over both the short term and long term. Land 

acquisition and revegetation efforts are anticipated to result in positive wildlife benefits by increasing 

the amount of native habitat to be sustained in the immediate area and by restoring native vegetation. 

Exotic plants also negatively impact wildlife. Although Indian River County has low manatee mortality 

figures (2001-5 deaths, 2002-7 deaths, 2003-6 deaths, and 2004-6 deaths), the refuge is located just 

south of Brevard County which frequently has the highest manatee mortality figures in the state 

(2001-52 deaths, 2002-50 deaths, 2003-42 deaths, and 2004-65 deaths) (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2004). 

The No Action Alternative outlines management actions that are anticipated to positively impact 

socioeconomic factors of the community over both the short term and long term. Pelican Island is 

part of the historical and social fabric of the local community. The refuge provides residents and 

visitors an opportunity to experience the peace and beauty of its natural systems. Although the 

refuge does occupy lands that would provide income to the tax base of Indian River County, tax 

revenues are offset by enhanced property values on adjacent lands and improved aesthetics related 

to open space. Further, the refuge does provide Indian River County with a Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act payment in lieu of property tax income. Further, conservation lands require less expenditures of 

local taxes to fund infrastructure and other services required by developed lands. 

The No Action Alternative does not include increasing public use. The Indian River Lagoon portion of 

the refuge is governed by the lease with the State of Florida. Thus, current public use activities are 

largely unrestricted and are expected to negatively impact fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats on the 

refuge.

The No Action Alternative provides for minor positive impacts to the Wilderness Area. The impacts of 

uncontrolled use, adjoining water management activities, and global changes add to the pressures 

faced by wilderness wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Fragmentation 

throughout the landscape has caused greater pressures on the wildlife, habitats, and surrounding 

aquatic resources of the refuge. Protecting fish, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species, 

the No Action Alternative includes limited management actions, including removing trash and 

controlling access into and next to the Wilderness Area, which favor the continuation of several 

species and which are necessary to follow the intents of the Endangered Species Act and the 

Wilderness Act.

The No Action Alternative outlines management designed to positively impact the historical and 

cultural resources of the refuge and the community over the short term and long term. The history of 

the City of Sebastian is inextricably linked to the history of Pelican Island Refuge. Protection and

management of the historical and cultural resources of the refuge (e.g., the archaeological sites) 

greatly benefit these resources (e.g., law enforcement protection). However, the No Action 

Alternative does not include protection of the Kroegel Homestead. 

Alternative B - Minimally Expand Refuge Programs 

Alternative B builds on the No Action Alternative and recommends management activities that are 

anticipated to have net positive environmental benefits. Impacts are described for air quality, water 

118 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
quality, soils, topography, aesthetics, native habitats, social and economic factors, public use,

Wilderness, and cultural resources. 

The management actions outlined under the Limited Program Alternative are anticipated to have net 

positive impacts to air quality over both the short term and long term. Recommended land acquisition 

activities decrease the amount of lands that would have otherwise been developed. Proposed habitat 

restoration activities increase the amount of native vegetation, helping to enhance area air quality. 

Slight vehicle and emission increases due to increased visitation are expected to be offset by 

increases in the planting of native trees and shrubs. Further, these increases are much less than 

would occur in association with developed lands. Minor, short-term negative air quality impacts would 

be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires on the refuge. 

Positive impacts to water quality and natural hydrology over both the short term and long term are 

expected. Recommended land acquisition activities decrease the amount of lands that would have 

otherwise been developed. Such developed lands are key sources of non-point source pollutants. 

Proposed habitat restoration activities increase the amount of native vegetation, helping to enhance 

water quality. Minor, very short-term neutral to negative water quality impacts have the potential to 

be experienced during facility construction and habitat restoration activities. 

Net positive environmental benefits to soils are expected. The recommended management actions 

include restoration activities that involve changing the topography of some sites. Restoration 

activities involve restoring and mimicking the natural hydrology of the site, which would also result in 

positive soil impacts over the long term. The recommended management actions include removing

the existing citrus groves, thereby reducing potential contaminant inputs, and restoring the sites to

more natural conditions with native vegetation. These activities would greatly benefit soils by 

eliminating citrus grove management activities and restoring a naturally functioning system. The only 

minor negative soil impacts would be related to public use activities. Soils are expected to be 

negatively impacted during the construction of facilities. However, these impacts would be shortlived. Facility development would negatively impact the soils in the footprint of the structure, 

however, the impacts would be offset by the engineering designs for any roads, parking areas, 

structures, and trails that provide pervious, stable surfaces. Any negative impacts would also be 

offset by the positive soil impacts from the habitat restoration of the Jungle Trail area. Unimproved

trails would experience some amount of compaction and erosion. These minor impacts would be

more than offset by the positive soil impacts resulting from the recommended management activities. 

Positive benefits to topography are anticipated over both the short term and long term. This 

alternative includes recommendations to restore the existing citrus groves and associated ditches to 

a more naturally functioning system that would include perennial and ephemeral wetlands, coastal 

hammock, and mangrove swamp. These restoration activities would involve alteration of the existing 

topography (which was originally altered to ditch and drain the site for citrus production) to a more 

natural state. 

Views and viewsheds are anticipated to improve over the short term and long term. Restoring citrus 

groves to native habitat is expected to produce positive benefits. Recreational development of the 

Jungle Trail area increases opportunities for wildlife viewing and enhances visitor experience. Shortlived negative aesthetic impacts are anticipated during initial stages of habitat restoration activities 

(e.g., when all citrus trees are removed from a site). 

Alternative B outlines a variety of management actions that are designed to result in positive benefits 

to restore native fish and wildlife communities and habitats. Neutral to minor, short-lived negative 

habitat impacts are anticipated to occur during habitat restoration and facility construction activities. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 119
These impacts would be minimized by a phased-in approach of habitat restoration and facility 

construction activities. These minor negative impacts are anticipated to result from the construction 

of permanent facilities. However, immediately following the restoration work, habitat quality would 

improve. Acquisition and restoration of additional properties would add to the positive habitat 

impacts. However, the management actions outlined under Alternative B are insufficient to address 

the myriad of wildlife and habitat issues that exist on the refuge. 

Alternative B outlines management actions that are anticipated to positively impact socioeconomic 

factors of the community over both the short term and long term. Pelican Island is part of the 

historical and social fabric of the local community. Further, the refuge provides residents and visitors 

the opportunity to take a break from daily human life to experience the peace and beauty of natural 

systems. Although the refuge does occupy lands that would provide income to the tax base of Indian 

River County if they were developed, the quality of life benefits that stem from its existence far 

outweigh any lost property taxes and properties adjacent to conservation lands generally experience 

increased property values. The refuge does provide Indian River County with a Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act payment to help offset any depletion of property tax income. Further, conservation lands 

also require less expenditures of local taxes to fund infrastructure, utilities, and other services that are 

normally required with the developed lands. Property values of the area are actually enhanced by the 

presence of the refuge. With the addition of the Jungle Trail public use facilities, such as the parking 

lots, the unimproved dike trails, and the restroom facility, visitation is expected to increase 

moderately, further resulting in positive economic benefits to the area. In 1995, residents and tourists 

valued the Indian River Lagoon at over $733 million, including spending on recreational activities 

(e.g., rental of fishing boats), commercial fish landings (e.g., seafood sales), and Lagoon-front 

property (e.g., home purchases) (Apogee 1996). An estimated $54 million was spent on recreational 

fishing in the Lagoon in 1990, with an anticipated escalation to $87 million by 2010 (Milon and 

Thunberg 1993). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission estimates that nonconsumptive bird use (e.g., observing, photographing, drawing, and painting) annually generates 

$477 million in retail sales in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000). 

However, the outlined management actions under Alternative B are insufficient to address the current 

and anticipated social and economic issues. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are designed to improve and expand wildlifedependent public use opportunities over both the short term and long term. Public use and the 

demand for public use are high and increasing in this area. In 1993, over 75,000 pleasure boats 

were registered in the Indian River Lagoon region (Milon and Thunberg 1993). Alternative B 

increases wildlife viewing and environmental education opportunities, which provides indirect positive 

benefits to fish and wildlife resources. However, the outlined management actions under Alternative 

B are insufficient to address the current and anticipated public use issues existing on the refuge, 

since, among other things, Alternative B continues the current conditions of the lease with the State 

of Florida (limiting the ability of the refuge to address current and anticipated conflicts and impacts), 

provides only a few visitor use facilities (Alternative C proposes a wildlife drive, additional trails,

additional programs, and a modest visitor center), develops a limited environmental education 

program and relies heavily on the partners for environmental education, and provides few interpretive 

opportunities and materials. 

Alternative B provides for positive impacts to the Wilderness Area. The impacts of uncontrolled use, 

adjoining water management activities, and global changes add to the pressures faced by wilderness 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Fragmentation throughout the landscape has 

caused greater pressures on the wildlife, habitats, and surrounding aquatic resources of the refuge. 

Protecting fish, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species, Alternative B outlines management 

actions, including removing exotic species and controlling access into and next to the Wilderness 

120 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Area, which favor the continuation of several species and which are necessary to follow the intents of 

the Endangered Species Act and the Wilderness Act. 

Alternative B benefits the cultural resources of the refuge. The history of the city of Sebastian is 

inextricably linked to the history of the refuge. Protection and management of historical and 

archaeological resources greatly benefit these resources. However, the outlined management 

actions are insufficient to address the current and anticipated cultural resource issues of the refuge. 

Alternative C - Moderately Expand Refuge Programs 

As the proposed or preferred alternative, Alternative C expands the biological, recreational, and 

educational programs of the refuge. Alternative C recommends management activities that are 

anticipated to net positive environmental consequences. Impacts are described for air quality, water 

quality, soils, topography, aesthetics, native habitats, social and economic factors, public use,

Wilderness Area, and cultural resources. 

The management actions outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to net positive impacts to air 

quality over both the short term and long term. Recommended land acquisition activities decrease

the amount of lands that would have otherwise been developed. Without the presence of the refuge, 

the anticipated primary land uses for these lands would include low, medium, and high density 

residential and commercial. Proposed habitat restoration activities increase the amount of native 

vegetation, helping to enhance area air quality. The anticipated increase in visitation would cause the 

number of vehicles and emissions to increase from current levels. This is anticipated to be offset to

some degree by the air quality benefits represented by planting native trees and shrubs. Further, 

these increases are much less than would occur in association with developed lands. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts would be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires, but these 

would infrequent and are not anticipated to pose a cumulative impact. 

The management actions outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts to 

water quality and natural hydrology over both the short term and long term and impacts are similar to 

or more positive than those described in Alternative B. During these restoration activities, hydrology 

may experience minor, short-lived negative impacts. However, the gain in positive impacts to natural 

hydrology far outweighs these negative impacts. During the construction and restoration activities, all 

efforts would be made to limit any negative impacts to natural hydrology. 

Alternative C recommends management actions that include restoration activities which involve 

changing the topography of some sites. These activities would initially negatively impact the soils of 

those sites altered, however, the restoration and ongoing management would produce positive 

impacts over the long term. Other restoration activities involve restoring and mimicking the natural 

hydrology of the site, which would also result in positive soil impacts over the long term. The 

recommended management actions include removing the existing citrus groves, thereby reducing 

potential contaminant inputs, and restoring the sites to more natural conditions with native vegetation. 

These activities would benefit soils by eliminating citrus grove pesticides and mechanical activities

and restoring areas to natural conditions. Some minor soil impacts would be related to public use 

activities. Soils are expected to be negatively impacted during the construction of facilities. However, 

those impacts from construction activities are short-lived and all efforts would be made to limit 

disturbance during construction. The facilities planned for the Jungle Trail area would negatively 

impact the soils in the footprints over the long term. However, this area would experience positive 

benefits to soils from the habitat restoration activities planned for Jungle Trail area. Unimproved trails 

would experience some amount of compaction and erosion. The planned visitor center facility would 

also negatively impact soils in the footprint of any structures; however, the proposed site is at the

Draft Environmental Assessment 121
Kroegel Homestead on the mainland, in a developed area, at a previously disturbed site. Overall, 

soils are expected to be positively impacted. 

Alternative C recommends management actions that are anticipated to have net positive 

environmental impacts to the topography of the refuge. Alternative C includes recommendations to 

restore the existing citrus groves and associated ditches to a more naturally functioning system that 

would include perennial and ephemeral wetlands, coastal hammock, and mangrove swamp. These 

restoration activities would involve alteration of the existing topography (which was originally altered 

to ditch and drain the site for citrus production) to a more natural state, mimicking natural hydrology. 

Viewing and viewsheds should be enhanced under Alternative C. Working with the partners, the 

refuge proposes to protect the Kroegel Homestead from development and locate the visitor facility on 

the mainland, providing views of the refuge across the Intracoastal Waterway. Restoring citrus 

groves to native habitat is expected to produce positive viewing experiences and increase wildlife

viewing opportunities. Development of boardwalks, the wildlife drive, trails, and the observation tower 

would enhance viewing opportunities. Minor, short-lived neutral to negative aesthetic impacts may 

arise during construction and habitat restoration activities. 

Alternative C outlines a variety of management actions that are designed to result in positive benefits 

to fish, wildlife, plants, and native habitats over both the short term and long term. Increased patrol 

and enforcement, data, research, and management are expected to benefit wildlife and habitat 

resources of the refuge. Neutral to minor, short-lived negative habitat impacts are anticipated to

occur during habitat restoration and facility construction activities. While habitat restoration or 

construction work is underway, neutral to minor short-lived negative impacts are expected for the site 

under restoration or construction, as well as for adjacent habitats.

Alternative C outlines management actions that are anticipated to positively impact socioeconomic 

factors of the community and similar to what is described for Alternative B. In 1995, residents and 

tourists valued the Indian River Lagoon at over $733 million, including spending on recreational 

activities, commercial fish landings, and lagoon-front property purchases (Apogee 1996). An 

estimated $54 million was spent on recreational fishing in the Lagoon in 1990, with an anticipated

escalation to $87 million by 2010 (Milon and Thunberg 1993). The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission estimates that non-consumptive bird use annually generates $477 million 

in retail sales in Florida.

The management activities outlined under Alternative C describe improving and increasing 

environmental education and wildlife viewing. Facility development on the barrier island includes 

Jungle Trail wildlife drive, observation tower, boardwalks, trails, parking areas, and restroom facility. 

A visitor facility and viewing opportunities at the Kroegel Homestead on the mainland would provide 

increased visitation and environmental education opportunities. Camping, using personal watercraft, 

and boating would be restricted in sensitive areas (e.g., on the natural and spoil islands and in some 

seagrass areas) resulting in displacing these uses to other areas off the refuge. 

Alternative C provides for positive impacts to the Wilderness Area. The impacts of uncontrolled use, 

adjoining water management activities, and global changes add to the pressures faced by wilderness 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Fragmentation throughout the landscape has 

caused greater pressures on the wildlife, habitats, and surrounding aquatic resources of the refuge. 

Protecting fish, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species, Alternative C outlines management 

actions, including removing exotic species and controlling access into and next to the Wilderness 

Area, which favor the continuation of several species and which are necessary to follow the intents of 

the Endangered Species Act and the Wilderness Act. 

122 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Positive benefits to visitors interested in the natural and cultural history of this site are expected, with 

a gain in education opportunities. Participation in bird watching, pleasure viewing and walking and 

sightseeing are anticipated to increase on refuge properties under Alternative C. Management 

activities would increase to manage increases in tourism on developing sites, including increased 

signage and patrols, interpretation, environmental education, and tours by refuge and volunteer 

staffs. The history of the City of Sebastian is inextricably linked to the history of the refuge. 

Preserving the Kroegel Homestead should yield benefits to local communities, especially to the City 

of Sebastian and Indian River County. Further, pursuing a National Historic Landmark designation 

for the Homestead provides additional protection for this site. 

COMPARISON OF EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVES 

While the three alternatives share similarities, their differences result in varying types and levels of 

impacts. None of the proposed management activities would lead to a violation of federal, state, or 

local laws imposed for the protection of the environment. Adaptive management is a key component 

of each alternative. As such, the actions outlined would not establish a precedent for future actions 

with significant effects, nor represent a decision in principle about future considerations. Refuge 

management activities are constantly adapted as new research, data, and information become 

available. 

Alternative A does not propose any change in the present management direction. As such, 

Alternative A serves as the baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Without funding and 

staffing to support needed programs and to provide protection for the resources, Alternative A 

provides the least support for long term productivity and sustainability of the refuge. 

Alternative B builds on Alternative A, with minimal increases in the biological and public use

programs. While Alternative B includes several needed biological programs, some public use

facilities, and additional protection of the resources, it disregards possible educational and 

recreational opportunities and benefits, as well as needed changes to the lease with the State of 

Florida and expansion of wildlife and habitat management activities. Further, it offers no protection

for the Kroegel Homestead, a key historical component of the refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Alternative C (the Preferred Alternative) pursues the widely supported 1999 vision document. 

Focusing on needed biological and law enforcement programs and activities, Alternative C also 

provides for compatible, wildlife-dependent public use. Alternative C provides the most benefits to 

the refuge, the natural resources supported by the refuge, and the local community, supporting longterm productivity and sustainability of the refuge.

The anticipated impacts of the implementation of each of the alternatives are outlined in Table 13, 

which separates the issues and resource topics into five main categories, as listed. 

• Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats 

• Transitional and Terrestrial Communities 

• Aquatic Communities 

• Land Protection and Conservation 

• Education and Visitor Services 

• Refuge Administration 

• Cultural Resources 

Draft Environmental Assessment 123
124 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 13. Summary of anticipated environmental consequences. 

Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Terrestrial and Transitional Communities) Pelican Island Proper Increase in nesting substrate 

and land base. Minor and short-lived increases in turbidity and disturbance. No change in the levels of wildlife use. 

Nesting substrate and wildlife use increases due to habitat restoration and protection. 

Same as A

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No change in the levels of wildlife use.

Moderate increase in species protection; no change in levels or a decrease in wildlife and habitat disturbance; slight increases in protection for eastern indigo snake, wood stork, piping plover, bald eagle, and southeastern beach mouse. 

Increase in decrease disturbancprotection snake, woplover, basoutheasteIncreased species stincreases managem

Neotropical Migratory Birds No changes in the levels of 

wildlife use, habitat quality, and habitat availability. 

Potential for decrease inwildlife use, habitat quality, and habitat availability. Increased knowledge of species status. 

 Increased species stincreases managem

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Terrestrial and Transitional Communities) Shorebirds No changes in the levels 

habitat quality and habitat availability. Potential forincrease in the levels of wildlife and habitat disturbance.

Potential for decrease inhabitat quality, and habitat availability. Increase in wildlife and habitat disturbance.Increased knowledge of species status. 

Increased species stquantity anDecreases habitat dis

Fish and Wildlife Disturbance Potential for minor increase in 

habitat and wildlife disturbance.

No change in levels or a minor decrease in wildlife and habitat disturbance and mortality. 

Decreases habitat dismortality aincreases patrol and 

Natural and Spoil Islands Potential for decreases in 

quality, amount of habitat, and wildlife use. Potential forincrease in exotics and wildlife and habitat disturbance.

Same as Alternative A. Increased 

Decrease disturbancnatural ha

Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

Potential for increase in exotic, invasive, and nuisance species due to an anticipated increase in nearby seed sources.

No change in levels or adecrease in exotic, invasive, and nuisance species. 

Decrease and nuisan

126 Pelican Island 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Native Wildlife Greater awareness of species 

status. 

Greater awareness of species status. No change in levels or a possible increase in native wildlife use due to management. 

Greater awstatus. Incwildlife use managem

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Aquatic Communities) Pelican Island Proper No change in the levels of 

wildlife use or habitat quality. 

No change in levels or anincreased habitat quality due to increased protection, restoration, and habitat management. 

Increased to increaserestorationmanagem

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential for increase in wildlife and habitat disturbance due to increased use. 

Stable or increased species protection. Minor decrease in wildlife and habitat disturbance due to species protection. 

Increased Decrease habitat disspecies prmanagem

Impoundment Management No change in the level of use 

by wading birds. 

No change in levels or increased use by wading birds due to habitat management coordination.

Increased due to haband coorduse by othshorebirds

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Estuary and Fish Potential for increases in 

disturbance and no change to decreased wildlife use.

No change in levels or increased wildlife use due to habitat protection. 

No change increased habitat proawareness status. 

Fish and Wildlife Disturbance Potential for increase in wildlife 

and habitat disturbance.Potential for decrease inwildlife use.

No change in levels or increased wildlife use.Increased awareness and protection due to management, patrol, andenforcement. 

Increased Increased protection managemenforceme

Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Habitats (Aquatic Communities) Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

No knowledge and no control. If a problem was discovered, 

the refuge would develop an appropriate control program. 

If a problethe refuge appropriat

Seagrass Beds Potential for decrease in

habitat quality. Potential for increase in wildlife and habitat disturbance.

No change in levels or increased associated fish and wildlife use due to increased habitat protection. Stable or decreased wildlife and habitat disturbance.

No change increased wildlife use awareness habitat promanagemDecreased disturbanc

128 Pelican Island 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Land Protection and Conservation Land Acquisition Potential for increase in habitat 

and/or private development of inholdings, loss of connectivity, and decrease in exotic vegetation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same Alte

Management Agreements Potential for no change or for 

decreased habitat protection. 

Same as Alternative A. Benefits to 

due to incrand protec

State of Florida Lease Agreement 

Potential for no change or for decreased habitat protection. 

Same as Alternative A. Enhanced 

Increased enforcemewildlife and disturbanc

Education and Visitor Services Fishing Increased use (unrestricted by 

Service leased area). 

Increased opportunities due to increased management and protection (unrestricted byService in leased area). Potential for continued wildlife and habitat disturbance.Positive benefits from increased monitoring. 

No change increased increased protectionwildlife and disturbancfrom increcompatible 

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Increased quality viewing experiences and visitation. Increase soil compaction due to facility development. Increase in wildlife disturbance in developed areas. Positive benefits from increased monitoring. 

Same as Alternative A. Expanded 

wildlife obsphotograpquality vieand visitatcompactiodevelopmewildlife disdeveloped benefits fromonitoring

Environmental Education No change in the levels of 

opportunities through use of volunteers and partners.

Minor increase in opportunities through expanded programs and facilities in coordination with partners. 

Major increopportunitexpanded facilities awith partne

Education and Visitor Services Interpretation Increased interpretation

opportunities due to signdevelopment. 

Same as Alternative A. Major incre

interpretatto volunteedevelopmestaff, and clocal comm

130 Pelican Island 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Commercial Operations Increases in use due to lack of 

management. 

No change in levels of use due to increased awareness and understanding of Service regulations..

Same as A

Other Recreation Uses Increased use due to lack of 

Service management authority in leased area. Potential conflicts between user groups. 

Same as Alternative A. No change 

decreased increased understanregulations

Refuge Administration Staffing and Funding No change in the levels of 

biological support and wildlife and habitat protection. 

Increased biological support, maintenance, and wildlife and habitat protection. 

Increased maintenanhabitat proservices; aeducation. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 
Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Refuge Administration Equipment and Facilities No change in the levels of 

operations and maintenance of off-site office space andexisting equipment and facilities. 

Construction of visitor facilities on the barrier island and increased visitation may affect local air and water quality, natural vegetation, and soil compaction. Increased disturbance to resident and migratory wildlife. Increased conflicts between refuge users. Physical impacts to soil and vegetation in localized areas due to restoration improvements. 

Construction the barmainland avisitation mand water vegetationcompactiodisturbancmigratory conflicts bIncreased wildlife. Psoil and veareas due improveme

Research Activities Neutral to negative net 

environmental impacts (e.g., potential for increase in wildlife and habitat disturbance). Lack of control over research activities. 

Positive net environmental impacts (e.g., decrease in wildlife and habitat disturbance and increase in information for refuge management decisions). 

Same as A

Contaminants Increased knowledge and 

awareness through investigations and restoration of Jungle Trail area. 

Same as Alternative A. Increased 

awareness Jungle Tra

132 Pelican Island 
Draft Environmental Assessment 

Issue Statement/Topic 

Alternative A - ContinueCurrent Refuge Management (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B - MinimallyExpand Refuge Programs (Preferred Alternative) 

AlternativExpand R

Refuge Administration Wilderness and Special Designations

No change to increased protection of Wilderness Area. 

No change in levels or increased protection of Wilderness Area. Increased awareness of refuge resources at a national and international scale. 

Increased Wildernesawareness at a nationscale. Incactivities in designatio

Cultural Resources Kroegel Homestead Potential for loss of opportunity 

to protect site in perpetuity. Potential for loss of site toprivate development. 

Same as Alternative A. Protection 

site in perpawareness significanc

Archaeological Sites Minimal protection. Potential 

for loss of opportunity to protect sites in perpetuity. Potential for theft and vandalism. 

Increased protection of sites through increased education and staffing.

Same as A
134 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
V. Consultation And Coordination 

INTRODUCTION 

The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive planning process involved a wide variety 

of participants including federal, state, and local governments; universities and other researchers; 

private non-profit groups; and the friends of the refuge, Pelican Island Preservation Society, as well 

as a wide variety of local residents, local businesses, concerned citizens from all over the country, 

local schools, universities, and state and national organizations. At one of the public scoping 

meetings, a local middle school student even expressed his concerns about the refuge and the future 

of its resources. Outreach efforts by the refuge and news coverage by the media have spread across 

the country. The list of participants, beyond those individuals and organizations providing comments 

during the public scoping process, includes the Core Planning Team, the Wildlife and Habitat 

Management Review Team, the Public Use Review Team, the Wilderness Review Team, the 

Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team, and the Pelican Island Working Group. During the 

initial phases of this planning process, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was a satellite refuge 

of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex and heavily involved staff from Merritt Island

Refuge. During 2002, Pelican Island and Archie Carr Refuges were separated from the Merritt Island 

Refuge Complex as a stand-alone complex of two refuges. 

Core Planning Team 

Consisting exclusively of Fish and Wildlife Service staff, the Core Planning Team involved staff from 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex and from the local Ecological Services field office. 

Key tasks of the team involved defining and refining the vision; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the 

issues; defining the goals; and outlining the alternatives. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Marc Epstein, Refuge Biologist, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Ron Hight, Project Leader, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Deborah Jerome, National Wildlife Refuge Planner, Southeast Regional Office 

• Ralph Lloyd, Deputy Refuge Manager, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Evelyn Nelson, Writer/Editor, Southeast Regional Office 

• Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island NWR 

• Jane Tutton, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecosystem Field Office, Ecological 

Services 

• Dorn Whitmore, Supervisor, Refuge Ranger, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

 

Draft Environmental Assessment 135
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team 

Organized by staff at the Merritt Island NWR Complex, the Wildlife and Habitat Management Review 

Team included a core group of Service staff with invited participants. The invited participants 

included local and regional experts, researchers, and individuals with intimate knowledge of and 

expertise in the resources of the refuge. These participants included representatives from: Indian 

River Mosquito Control District, Indian River Lagoon National 

Estuary Program (St. Johns River Water Management District), State Parks (Department of 

Environmental Protection), University of Central Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, and Service staff from Migratory Birds and State programs. 

Core Group

• Jorge Coppen, Refuge Biologist, Ding Darling NWR Complex, USFWS 

• Mark Epstein, Refuge Biologist, Merritt Island NWR Complex, USFWS 

• Ron Hight, Project Leader, Merritt Island NWR Complex, USFWS 

• Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island NWR, USFWS 

• Kat Royer, Biological Technician, Merritt Island NWR Complex, USFWS 

Invited Participants 

• Alice Bard, Environmental Specialist II, Division of State Parks, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection

• Doug Carlson, Director, Indian River Mosquito Control District 

• Robert Day, Environmental Specialist, Indian River Lagoon Program, St. Johns River Water 

Management District 

• Llew Ehrhart, Professor, University of Central Florida 

• Grant Gilmore, Senior Fisheries Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, Kennedy Space Center, 

NASA 

• George Heinlein, Mosquito Technician II, Indian River Mosquito Control District 

• Chuck Hunter, Wildlife Biologist, Migratory Birds, USFWS 

• Steve Rockwood, Supervisor of the South Florida Field Station, Tom Goodwin Wildlife 

Management Area, Division of Wildlife, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

• Jim Rodgers, Research Biologist, Division of Wildlife, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission

• Richard Paperno, Research Administrator, Marine Resources Division, Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Public Use Review Team 

The Public Use Review Team consisted of Service staff from the Southeast Regional Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Frank Podriznik, Outreach/Public Use Specialist, Southeast Regional Office 

• Cheryl Simpson, Branch Chief, Division of Visitor Services and Outreach, Southeast Regional 

Office 

136 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Wilderness Review Team 

The Wilderness Review Team involved the Refuge Manager and the Planner. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island NWR 

Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team 

The Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team included local, state, and federal governmental 

field staff representatives involved with the resources at the local level. In addition to the Pelican 

Island Refuge Manager, this included staff from the Florida Marine Research Institute (Florida Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Commission), St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve (Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection), Sebastian Inlet State Park (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection), Indian River Lagoon Program (St. Johns River Water Management 

District), Community Development Department (Indian River County), Parks Department (Indian River 

County), County Commission (Indian River County), and Indian River Mosquito Control District. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island NWR 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

• Blair Witherington, Assistant Research Scientist, Florida Marine Research Institute 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

• Brian Proctor, Environmental Specialist, Aquatic Preserve Manager, St. Sebastian River State 

Buffer Preserve, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

• Steve Williams, Environmental Specialist, Aquatic Preserve Manager, St. Sebastian River 

State Buffer Preserve, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

• Ron Johns, Resident Park Manager III, Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

• Terry O’Toole, Parks Services Specialist, Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

St. Johns River Water Management District 

• Robert Day, Environmental Scientist, Indian River Lagoon Program 

Indian River County 

• Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Section, Planning 

Division, Community Development Department

• Beth Powell, Conservation Lands Manager, Parks Department 

• Bob Keating, Director, Community Development

• Ruth Stanbridge, County Commissioner and County Historian 

• Terry Thompson, Capital Projects Manager, Public Works Department

Indian River Mosquito Control District 

• Doug Carlson, Assistant Director 

• George Heinlein, Mosquito Technician II 

Draft Environmental Assessment 137
Pelican Island Working Group 

Formed to address issues facing the refuge (e.g., erosion of Pelican Island proper and the Centennial 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System), the Pelican Island Working Group began as a subcommittee 

of the South Florida Ecosystem Team. As such, it involves a variety of Service staff, as well as 

representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Inland Navigation District, Indian

River County, Indian River Mosquito Control District, Pelican Island Preservation Society, and The 

Conservation Fund. The membership ebbs and flows, depending on the input and expertise needed 

to address the issues at hand. Working with the multitude of partners, this group developed the 1999 

vision document which guided the comprehensive conservation planning process. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Roger Beckham, Supervisory Realty Specialist, Realty, Southeast Regional Office 

• Glen Cullingford, Regional Aviation Manager, Southeast Regional Office

• Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Christine Eustis, ARD, External Affairs, Southeast Regional Office 

• Tom Follrath, Chief of Realty, Southeast Regional Office 

• Bob Gasaway, Federal Aid, Southeast Regional Office 

• George Gentry, Video Productions, National Conservation Training Center 

• Kyla Hastie, Regional Centennial Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office 

• Ron Hight, Project Leader, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

• Louis Hinds, Refuge Supervisor, Southeast Regional Office 

• Ricky Ingram, Refuge Supervisor, Southeast Regional Office

• Marsha Isaac, Branch Chief, Contracting and General Services, Southeast Regional Office 

• Rick Kanaski, Regional Archeologist, Southeast Regional Office 

• Kevin Kilcullen, Service Archaeologist, Arlington Office 

• Marilyn Lawal, Federal Aid, Southeast Regional Office 

• Mark Madison, Service Historian, National Conservation Training Center 

• Richard Mattison, Architect, Southeast Regional Office 

• Vicki McCoy, Special Assistant for Strategic Planning and Communications, Regional 

Director’s Office, Southeast Regional Office 

• Carol Phillips, former Branch Chief, Division of Information Management, Southeast Regional 

Office 

• Frank Podriznik, Outreach/Public Use Specialist, Southeast Regional Office 

• Tom Prusa, Deputy Refuge Supervisor, Southeast Regional Office 

• Allison Rowell, Chief, Division of Visitor Services, Arlington Office 

• Laurie Shaffer, Centennial Commission Coordinator, Arlington Office 

• Cheryl Simpson, former Branch Chief, Division of Visitor Services and Outreach, Southeast 

Regional Office 

• Ruth Slette, former Chief, Division of Contracting and General Services, Southeast Regional 

Office 

• Doug Staller, Acting Chief, Division of Visitor Services and Communications, Washington 

Office 

• Janet Tennyson, Communications Team Leader, Division of Visitor Services and 

Communications, Washington Office 

• Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, Pelican Island NWR 

138 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
• Jane Tutton, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, South Florida Ecosystem Field Office, Ecological 

Services 

• Dorn Whitmore, Supervisor, Refuge Ranger, Merritt Island NWR Complex 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• Don Fore, Plan Formulation Branch, Planning Division, Jacksonville District 

• Rick McMillen, Don Fore, Plan Formulation Branch, Planning Division, Jacksonville District 

• Deborah Peterson, Planning Division, Jacksonville District 

• David Schmidt, Chief, Coastal/Navigation Section, Plan Formulation Branch, Planning 

Division, Jacksonville District 

• Steve Traxler, Biologist, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program Section, 

Environmental Branch, Planning Division, Jacksonville District 

• Jonas White, Planning Technical Leader, Planning Division, Jacksonville District 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

• Keith Fisher, Manager, St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection

• Brian Proctor, Environmental Specialist, Aquatic Preserve Manager, St. Sebastian River State 

Buffer Preserve, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

• Steve Williams, Environmental Specialist, Aquatic Preserve Manager, St. Sebastian River 

State Buffer Preserve, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

St. Johns River Water Management District 

• Robert Day, Environmental Scientist, Indian River Lagoon Program 

• Troy Rice, Indian River Lagoon Project Office Director 

Florida Inland Navigation District 

• George Bunnell, Commissioner 

• Mark Crosley, Assistant Executive Director 

Indian River County 

• Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Section, Planning 

Division, Community Development Department

• Beth Powell, Conservation Lands Manager 

• Ruth Stanbridge, County Commissioner and County Historian 

Indian River Mosquito Control District 

• Doug Carlson, Assistant Director 

• George Heinlein, Mosquito Technician II 

Pelican Island Preservation Society 

• Walt Stieglitz, President

The Conservation Fund 

• Matt Sexton, Florida Representative 

The Environmental Learning Center 

• Holly Dill 

Draft Environmental Assessment 139
Consultants 

• Joe Carroll, Carroll and Associates (Indian River Lagoon Habitats) 

• Robin Lewis, Lewis Environmental Services (Habitat Restoration and Shoreline Stabilization) 

• Brad Smith, Brad Smith Associates (Public Use Planning) 

Congressional Representatives 

• Pam Gillespie, Congressman Dave Weldon’s District Office 

• Michelle McGovern, Senator Bill Nelson’s Palm Beach Office 

140 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
SECTION C. APPENDICES 

I. Glossary 

adaptive management – responding to changing ecological conditions so as to not exceed 

productivity limits of a specific place.

alternative – a reasonable way to address the identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2). 

anadromous – fish that spend a large proportion of their life cycle in the ocean and return to fresh 

water to breed. 

aquatic – growing in, living in, or dependent upon water.

biological integrity – biotic composition, structure, and function at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural conditions, and the biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities.

biota – the plants and animals of an area.

categorical exclusion – a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1508.4). 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations.

compatibility determination – the process required before any public use is allowed to occur on a 

refuge. A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, 

will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission or refuge 

purpose(s). The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that a compatibility 

determination be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service before any use may be allowed on a refuge. 

compatible use – an allowed use that will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the purposes 

for which the unit was established (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). A compatible use is one that has 

been determined to be so through the compatibility determination process. 

comprehensive conservation plan – a document that describes the desired future conditions of a 

refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purposes of the refuge, help fulfill the mission of the System, maintain and, where appropriate, 

restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the System, 

and meet other mandates. 

conservation – the management of natural resources to prevent loss or waste. Management actions 

may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

Appendices 141
conservation easement – a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust (a private, 

nonprofit conservation organization) or government agency that permanently limits a property's uses 

in order to protect its conservation values. 

cooperative agreement – the legal instrument used when the principal purpose of the transaction is 

the transfer of money, property, services or anything of value to a recipient in order to accomplish a 

public purpose authorized by Federal statute and substantial involvement between the Service and 

the recipient is anticipated. 

cultural resource – evidence of historic or prehistoric human activity, such as buildings, artifacts,

archaeological sites, documents, or oral or written history. Cultural resources include historically, 

archaeologically, and/or architecturally significant resources. 

database – a collection of data arranged for ease and speed of analysis and retrieval, usually 

computerized. 

easement – an agreement by which a landowner gives up or sells one of the rights on his/her 

property. For example, a landowner may donate a right-of-way across his/her property to allow 

access. 

ecology – the branch of science that studies the distribution and abundance of organisms and the 

relationship between organisms and their environment. 

ecosystem – a biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, the Service has designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States and 

its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries and vary in 

their sizes and ecological complexity. 

endangered species – any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. 

Endangered Species Act – adopted in 1973 to provide protection for species in danger of becoming 

extinct. 

§4 - outlines procedures and criteria for (1) identifying and listing threatened and endangered 

species; (2) identifying, designating, and revising critical habitat; (3) developing and revising 

recovery plans; and (4) monitoring species removed from the list of threatened and 

endangered species. 

§7 - outlines procedures for interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and 

designated habitat. 

§9 - prohibits the taking of endangered species of fish and wildlife, as well as most threatened 

species of fish and wildlife. 

§10 - provides exceptions to the §9 prohibitions, with the most relevant exceptions being 

scientific take permits (to enable scientific research or to enhance propagation or survival of a 

listed species) and incidental permits (as part of an otherwise legal activity). 

endemic – native to and restricted to a particular geographical region. 

environment – the complex of climatic, geologic, hydrologic, soils, and biotic factors acting upon 

organisms. 

142 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment – A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 

1508.9). 

environmental education – education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve

these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution (Stapp et al. 1969).

environmental health – Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment consistent 

with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment. 

Environmental Impact Statement – A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action,

adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-tern uses of 

the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

estuaries – deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by

land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean 

water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. 

extirpated – no longer occurring in a given geographic area; the removal, elimination, or 

disappearance of a species or subspecies from a part of its range. 

fauna – the collection of wildlife in a particular region. 

federally listed species – a species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, either as endangered, threatened or species at risk (formerly candidate species).

federally threatened species – any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Finding of No Significant Impact – A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a 

federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

flora – the collection of plants in a particular region. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Global Rank – a ranking of a species, natural community, 

bird rookery, spring, sinkhole, cave, or other ecological feature based on the world-wide status of that 

element. 

• critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or 

less than 1,000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to 

some natural or man-made factor 

G2 imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or less than 3,000

individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or manmade factor 

Appendices 143
G3 either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less than 

10,000 individuals) or found locally in restricted range or vulnerable to extinction 

from other factors 

G4 apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range) 

G5 demonstrably secure globally 

T1 G1 equivalent for subspecies or varieties 

T2 G2 equivalent for subspecies or varieties 

T3 G3 equivalent for subspecies or varieties 

T4 G4 equivalent for subspecies or varieties 

T5 G5 equivalent for subspecies or varieties 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) State Rank - a ranking of a species, natural community, 

bird rookery, spring, sinkhole, cave, or other ecological feature based on the status of that element in 

Florida. 

S1 

critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or 

less than 1,000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to 

some natural or man-made factor 

S2 imperiled in Florida because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or less than 3,000

individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or manmade factor 

S3 either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less than 

10,000 individuals) or found locally in 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 

SU due to lack of information, no rank or range can yet be assigned 

goal – descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define measurable units.

habitat – the place where a particular type of plant or animal lives. An organism's habitat must 

provide all of the basic requirements/components for life and should be free of harmful contaminants.

hydrology – the scientific studies of the properties, distribution, and effects of water in the 

atmosphere, on the earth’s surface, and in soil and rocks.

Integrated Pest Management – sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, 

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental

risks. 

interjurisdictional fish – populations of fish that are managed by two or more states or national or 

tribal governments because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations. 

issue – any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; e.g., a Service initiative, an 

opportunity, a management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public 

concerns, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition. Issues should be documented, 

described, and analyzed in the CCP even if resolution cannot be accomplished during the planning

process (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

144 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
land use/land cover – an assessment of the use of land (e.g., for agricultural purposes) or the 

vegetative cover [e.g., temperate/tropical hardwood (maritime hammock)]. 

management plan – a plan that guides future land management practices on a tract of land. In the 

context of this environmental impact statement, management plans would be designed to produce 

additional wildlife habitat along with the primary products, such as timber or agricultural crops. 

mitigation – actions taken to compensate for the negative effects of a particular project or action. 

Wetland mitigation usually takes the form of restoration or enhancement of a previously damaged 

wetland or creation of a new wetland. 

MMS – Maintenance Management System, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

mosaic – a variety of different habitats intermixed in a relatively small area; several successional 

stages intermixed within a vegetation type. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 – requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to 

facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge System – all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl 

production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources. 

natural conditions – conditions thought to exists from the end of the Medieval Warm Period to the 

advent of the industrial era (approximately 950 AD to 1800 AD), based upon scientific study and 

sound professional judgment.

objective – a concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Objectives are attainable, time-specific, and measurable.

old field – an area that was formerly cultivated or grazed and where woody vegetation has begun to 

invade. If left undisturbed, it will eventually succeed into a forest. 

partnership – a contract or agreement entered into by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or some in–kind 

service, i.e., labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

priority public uses – hunting, fishing, participating in environmental education, participating in 

environmental interpretation, observing wildlife, and photographing wildlife. These six priority public 

uses are outlined in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.

private land – land that is owned by a private individual, group of individuals, or non– governmental 

organization.

private landowner – any individual, group of individuals or non–governmental organization that owns 

land. 

Appendices 145
protection – mechanisms such as fee title acquisition, conservation easements or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintenance of the species population at the site. 

public involvement – a process that offers impacted and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to express their opinions on Service actions and policies. 

In the process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public views is 

given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

public land – land that is owned or otherwise managed as public land by the local, state, or federal 

government.

recovery – improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer 

appropriate under the criteria set out in §4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act; the process by 

which species’ ecosystems are restored so they can support self-sustaining and self-regulating 

populations of the listed species as persistent members of native biotic communities. 

refuge goals – descriptive, open-ended and often broad statements of desired future conditions that 

convey a purpose but do not define measurable units (Writing Refuge Management Goals and 

Objectives: A Handbook). 

refuge purposes – the purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing,

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit, and any subsequent modification 

of the original establishing authority for additional conservation purposes (Service Manual 602 FW

1.4). 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) – the Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 

database which contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. We include projects 

required to implement approved plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

reintroduction – the process of relocating a plant or animal species to a location where it historically 

occurred. 

restoration – management actions that return a vegetative community or ecosystem to its original, 

natural condition or to something close to its natural state. 

RONS – Refuge Operating Needs System, FWS. 

runoff – water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a water body. 

scoping – a process utilized to determine the scope of issues to be addressed. 

species – a distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics that can 

interbreed and produce viable young; a category of biological classification. 

species of management concern – species present in the watershed for which the Refuge has a 

special management interest. A list of such species would include a mix of federally listed threatened 

and endangered species; migratory bird, especially declining species, neotropical migrants, colonial 

146 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl; marine mammals; sea turtles; interjurisdictional fish; statelisted threatened, endangered, special concern, and commercially exploited species; Audubon 

WatchList species for Florida; species on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory list; species listed by 

the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals; and key indicator species. 

state land – public land owned by a state such as state parks or state wildlife management areas. 

step-down management plans – step-down management plans describe management strategies 

and implementation schedules. Step-down management plans are a series of plans dealing with 

specific management subjects (e.g., croplands, wilderness, and fire) (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4). 

strategy – a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. 

succession – a natural sequence of changes in plant species and community structure over time,

leading to a hypothesized stable climax community. 

trust resource – one that through law or administrative act is held in trust for the people by the 

government. A federal trust resource is one for which trust responsibility is given in part to the federal 

government through federal legislation or administrative act. Generally, federal trust resources are 

those considered to be of national or international importance no matter where they occur, such as 

endangered species and species such as migratory birds and fish that regularly move across state 

lines. In addition to species, trust resources include cultural resources protected through federal 

historic preservation laws, nationally important and threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable 

waters, and public lands such as state parks and national wildlife refuges.

upland – dry ground; other than wetlands. 

vegetation – plants in general or the sum total of the plant life in an area. 

viable population – a population that will continue to occur in the area for the foreseeable future. In 

population modeling, minimum viable population (MVP) is the smallest number of individuals that are 

needed to maintain a species population in the long term. 

visitor center – a permanently staffed building offering exhibits and interpretive information to the 

visiting public. Some visitor centers are co-located with refuge offices, others include additional 

facilities such as classrooms or wildlife viewing areas. 

visitor contact station – compared to a visitor center, a contact station is a smaller facility which 

may not be permanently staffed. 

watershed – the geographic area within which water drains into a particular river, stream or body of 

water. A watershed includes both the land and the body of water into which the land drains. 

wetlands – The Fish and Wildlife Service's definition of wetlands states that "Wetlands are lands 

transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the 

surface or the land is covered by shallow water" (Cowardin, Carter, Golet, and LaRoe 1979).

wildlife – the mix of living organisms; includes plants and animals. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use – “A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.” These are the six 

Appendices 147
priority public uses of the System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 

public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other 

uses in the preparation of refuge comprehensive conservation plans, however, the six priority public 

uses always will take precedence. 

wildlife management – the practice of manipulating wildlife populations, either directly through 

regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat 

conditions and alleviating limiting factors.

148 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
II. References 

Apogee Research, Inc. 1996. Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon. 

Apogee Research, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Barile, DD, W. Rathjen, P. Barile, and J. Steward. 1986. An Analysis of the Impact of a Ten-Year 

Storm Event on the Population of the Clam Mercenaria mercenaria in the Indian River. 

Florida Scientist. Vol. 49, Suppl. 1.

Brownall, L. W. (Nyack-on-Hudson, N.Y.) 1899. A Visit to Pelican Island, on Indian River, Florida. 

Pp.70-71. The Osprey. 

Campbell, Paul, R. 1996. Population Projections for States - by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 

Origin: 1995 to 2025. PPL-47. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division. Washington, 

D.C. 105 pp. 

Chapman, Frank M. 1914. Editorial. Pp. 124-125. Bird--Lore. Vol. XVI. No. 2. April 1, 1914. 

Chapman, Frank M. 1901. Pelican Island Revisited. Pp. 3-8. Bird-Lore. Vol. III, No. 1. JanuaryFebruary 1901. 

Cowardin, Lewis M, Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C. 30 pp. 

Cox, James A., and Randy S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled 

Wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 156pp. 

Deyrup, Mark and Richard Franz, eds. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida - Volume IV: 

Invertebrates. Series editor - Ray E. Ashton, Jr. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, 

Florida. 798 pp. 

Eck, C., K. Webster, and S.P. Lewis. 1998a. Archaeological Resource Assessment Survey of the 

Kennedy East and West Tracts. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. Orchid Island, 

Indian River County, Florida. 

Ehrhart, L. M., W. E. Redfoot, and D. A. Bagley. 1996. A Study of the Population Ecology of InWater Marine Turtle Populations on the East-Central Florida Coast From 1982-96. Final 

Report to NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 164pp. 

Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 10. Washington, D.C. 106 pp. 

Eljera, Bert. 2001b. “Census Data Finds a New Wrinkle.” Vero Beach Press Journal. May 23, 2001. 

Vero Beach, Florida. 

Florida Audubon Society. 1918. A Defense of the Pelican. By the Florida Audubon Society. 1-10 

pp. 

Appendices 149
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999b. Sebastian Inlet State Park Information. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/District_3/SebastianInlet/ . Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. 2000. Florida Labor Market Trends, December 2000. 

Tallahassee, Florida. 6 pp. 

Florida Department of Transportation. 1998. Archaeological Resource Assessment Survey of the 

Surman Tract Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Orchid Island, Indian River County, 

Florida. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2004a. 2003 Boating Accident Statistical Report. 

http://myfwc.com/law/boating/2003stats/2003StatBook1.pdf/ . Tallahassee, FL. 78 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2004b. Manatee Mortality Statistics. 

http://floridamarine.org/ . Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2000. Birding Economics. 

http://floridabirdingtrail.com/fwc/viewing/gfbt/economics.htm . Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1998. Tracking Florida’s Biodiversity. http://www.fnai.org/ . Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, The Nature Conservancy, and National Heritage Program 

Network. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Frakes, Bob. 2001. Personal communications on June 13 and August 29, 2001 between Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge’s Refuge Biologist, Mark Graham, and Bob Frakes, 

Supervisory Contaminant Ecologist, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vero 

Beach, Florida. 

Gardner, Tom. 1990. Indian River Lagoon: Spoil Island Management Plan. Prepared by Bureau of 

Submerged Lands and Preserves, Division of State Lands. 170 pp. 

Gibbs, Morris. 1891. A Trip to Pelican Island. Pp 124-125. The Oologist. Vol. IIX. 

Gilmore, R. Grant Jr., Christopher J. Donohoe, Douglas W. Cooke, and David J. Herrema. 1981. 

Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters, Florida. Harbor Branch Foundation, 

Inc. Technical Report No. 41. Ft. Pierce, Florida.

Graham, Frank Jr. 1990. The Audubon Ark. Alfred A Knopp, N.Y. 41-47 pp. 

Hornaday, W.T. 1894. “The Pelicans”. Indian River Advocate. April, 13, 1894. 

Hunter, Chuck, Jaime Collazo, Bob Noffsinger, Brad Winn, David Allen, Brad Harrington, Marc 

Epstein, and Jorge Saliva. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Southeastern Coastal 

Plains-Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 53 pp. 

Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. 1996. The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive 

Conservation & Management Plan. Palatka, Florida. 357 pp. 

Indian River Mosquito Control District. 1992b. Management Plan for Indian River Impoundment #3 

(Pete’s). Vero Beach, Florida. 48 pp. 

Job, Herbert K. 1903. The City of the Pelicans. Pp. 367-375. 

150 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Johnson, Ann F., James W. Muller, and Kelly A. Bettinger. 1993b. An Assessment of Florida’s 

Remaining Coastal Upland Natural Communities: Southeast Florida. Florida Natural Areas 

Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Kanaski, R.S. 2000. Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Wetland Restoration Project. Pelican 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. Indian River County, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Atlanta, Georgia. 18 pp.

Keystone Center. 1991. Final Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological 

Diversity on Federal Lands. Keystone, Colorado. 96pp. 

Lenze, David G. 2002. Florida: Long-term Economic Forecast 2002, Volume 2 – State and 

Counties. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. Gainesville, 

Florida. 503 pp. 

Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. 2000. Installation of a Breakwater and Spartina Planting, the 

Phase I Shoreline Restoration Project, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. A 

summary report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

Titusville, Florida. 13 pp. 

Lewis, R. R. and F. M. Dunstan. 1975a. Possible Role of Spartina alterniflora Loisel in Establishment 

of Mangroves in Florida. Pp. 82-100 in R.R. Lewis (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Annual 

Conference on Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in Florida. 203 pp. 

Lewis, Roy R. III. 1999. Time Zero Report for the Cross Bayou Mangrove Restoration Site, Pinellas 

County, Florida. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. Tampa, Florida. 32 pp. 

Lewis, Roy R. III. 1982b. Mangrove Forests. Ch. 8, pp. 154-171 in R.R. Lewis (ed.) Creation and 

Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 219 pp. 

McCulloch, Steve. 2002. Personal communication on February 12, 2002 between Pelican Island

National Wildlife Refuge's Refuge Manager, Paul Tritaik, and Steve McCulloch, Research 

Scientist, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Ft. Pierce, Florida. 

Moler, Paul E., ed. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida - Volume III: Amphibians and 

Reptiles. Series editor - Ray E. Ashton, Jr. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 

291 pp. 

Myers, Ronald J. and John J. Ewel, ed.s. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, Florida. 632 pp. 

O'Bryan, P. and D. Carlson. 1993. Aerial Bird Surveys at Bird’s (IRC #2) and Pete’s (IRC #3) 

Impoundments - Year 3, Final Report. 

Ogden, John C. Unknown Date. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the 

Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9pp. 

Parkinson, Randall W., and Colleen Dunlevey. 1999a. Action Plan: Shoreline Stabilization of Pelican 

Island. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

Sebastian, Florida. 

Appendices 151
Partners in Flight Bird Prioritization Technical Committee. 1998. PIF Priority Score Website. 

http://www.cbobirds.org/pif/index.html . Version 98.1. Colorado Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado. 

Rodgers, J.A. Jr., A.S. Wenner, and S.T. Schwikert. 1988. The Use and Function of Green Nest 

Material by Wood storks. Pp. 411-423. Wilson Bull., Vol. 100, No. 2. 

Rodgers, James A. Jr. and Stephen T. Schwikert. 2000. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging 

and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbance by Personal Watercraft and Outboard-powered 

Boats. Bureau of Wildlife Diversity Conservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. Gainesville, Florida. 

Rudolph, T.P. and C.O. Braley. 1981. Cultural Resources Survey, Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, Florida. Contract A-51309(81). Archaeological Services Division, National Park 

Service. 75 pp. 

Smith, Brad and Robin Lewis. 2001. Environmental Resource Permit Application to St. Johns River 

Water Management District for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. Brad Smith Associates, Inc. and Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2001. Magnuson-Stevens Act/NEPA Scoping 

Document: Using Marine Protected Areas in the South Atlantic. Charleston, South Carolina. 

23 pp. 

Spence, Donald J. 1998. Composition and Change of Maritime Hammock Flora in East-Central 

Florida After 20 Years. A thesis submitted Graduate School of College of Arts and Sciences,

University of Central Florida. Orlando, Florida. 82 pp. 

St. Johns River Water Management District. 1999. Seagrass Change Poster. 

/sjr/irl/arcview/proj/poster_sg_change2.apr. 2/8/1999. SJRWMD. Palatka, FL. 

Stapp, William B., D. Bennet, W. Bryan, J. Fulton, J. MacGregor, P. Nowak,. J. Wan, R. Wall, and S. 

Havlick. 1969. The Concept of Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental

Education. 1(1): 30-31. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. 1997 Economic Census, Volume 1, MAICS Report Series. 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html . Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. County Population Estimates for July 1, 1999 and Population Change 

for July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999. CO-99-1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000e. U.S. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171). 

http://www.census.gov and http://factfinder.census.gov . 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. Population Profile of the U.S.: 1997. Current Population Reports, 

Series P23-194. Washington, D.C. 61 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Indian River Lagoon Agricultural 

Land Use Inventory and Discharge Study. Gainesville, Florida. 

152 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters. EPA 840-B-00-

002. Office of Water (4503F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 58 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region Report: U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 45 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Pelican Island: Honoring a Legacy. Washington, D.C. 14 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999d. 50 CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened. Vol. 64, No. 205. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. South Florida Ecosystem Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 60 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and their Allies: 

1976-78. Biological Services Program. 2 pp. 

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee. 2000a. The North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative in the United States: A Vision of American Bird Conservation. 21 pp. 

Unknown. 1894. “Protect Pelican Island”. Indian River Advocate. April, 27 1894. 

West, Carol T and David G Lenze. 2000. Florida: Long-term Economic Forecast 2000, Volume 2 - 

State and Counties. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 

Gainesville, Florida. 5 pp. 

Appendices 153
154 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

Several procedural and substantive requirements of federal and applicable state and local laws 

and regulations affect refuges. The key laws, treatises, conventions, and executive orders are listed. 

• Lacey Act (1900), as amended 

• Antiquities Act (1906) 

• Weeks-McLean Law (1913) 

• Canadian United States Migratory Bird Treaty (Convention between the United States and 

Great Britain for Canada for the Protection of Migratory Birds) (1916) 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918 and 1978) 

• Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929), as amended 

• Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934) 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended 

• Historic Sites Act (1935)

• Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended 

• Convention between the United States of America and the Mexican States for the Protection 

of Migratory Birds and Game Animals (1936) 

• Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, as amended (1937) 

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940), as amended 

• Convention of Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (1940) 

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1943) 

• Flood Control Act (1944), as amended 

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948) 

• Refuge Trespass Act (1948) 

• Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (1949), as amended 

• Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (1950) 

• Fish and Wildlife Act (1956), as amended 

• Waterfowl Depredations Prevention Act, as amended (1956) 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958) 

• Cooperative Research and Training Units Act (1960) 

• Wetlands Loan Act (1961) 

• Refuge Recreation Act (1962), as amended 

• Water Resources Planning Act (1962), as amended 

• Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1964), as amended 

• Wilderness Act (1964) 

• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965), as amended 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act (1966) 

• National Historic Preservation Act (1966) 

• Freedom of Information Act (1967) 

• Architectural Barriers Act (1968) 

• National Trails System Act (1968) 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) 

• National Environmental Policy Act (1969) 

• Executive Order 11514 - Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (1970) 

• Executive Order 11593 - Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

• Clean Water Act (1972) 

Appendices 155
156 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1972) 

• Executive Order 11644 - Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands (1972), as amended 

(Executive Order 11989, 1977) 

• Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (1972), as amended 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (1972), as amended 

• Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended 

• Rehabilitation Act (1973) 

• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974) 

• Environmental Education Act (1975) 

• Federal Land Policy Management Act (1976) 

• Clean Air Act (1977), as amended 

• Clean Water Act (1977) 

• Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management and Wetlands Preservation (1977) 

• Executive Order 11989 - Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands (1977) 

• Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (1977) 

• Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978) 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) 

• Administrative Procedures Act (1979) 

• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1980) 

• Executive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982) 

• The Food Security Act (1985) 

• Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) 

• North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1989) 

• Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990) 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) 

• Americans with Disabilities Act (1992) 

• Wild Bird Conservation Act (1992) 

• Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income 

Populations (1994) 

• Secretarial Order 3127 (602 DM 2) - Contaminants and Hazardous Waste Determination 

(1995) 

• Executive Order 12996 - Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996) 

• Executive Order 13007 - Indian Sacred Sites (1996) 

• National Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) (and subsequent policies) 

• Executive Order 13084 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(1998) 
IV. Biota 

Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Status(45)

FCREPAStatus (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Mammals (2) West Indian manatee 

Trichechus manatus latirostris 

Endangered Endangered Endangered G2? S2?

Southeastern beach mouse 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris 

Threatened Threatened Threatened G5T1, S1

Fishes (10) Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Species of

Special Concern 

Threatened

Opossum Pipefish Microphis brachyurus 

lineatus 

Threatened G5, S2

Bigmouth Sleeper Gobiomorus dormitor Threatened G5, S2River Goby Awaous tajasica Threatened G5, S1S2Slashcheek Goby Gobionellus 

pseudofasciatus 

Threatened G3G5, S1

Mountain Mullet Agonostomus 

monticola 

Rare G5, S3

Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Species of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S3 

Appendices 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Striped Croaker Bairdiella 

sanctaelu

ciae 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S2 

Spottail Goby Gobionellus 

stigm

aturus

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Common Snook Centropo

m

us 

undecimalis 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Amphibians and Reptiles (9) Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

3, S

2

Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

Eretm

ochelys 

imbricata 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

Lepidochelys kempii 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus 

polyphemus

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

3, S

3

Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

Caretta caretta 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

3, S

3

Eastern Indigo Snake 

Drymarchon corais copueri 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G4T3, S3 

158 Pelican Island 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Leatherback Sea Turtle 

Dermochelys coriacea 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

R

are

G

3, S

2

American Alligator Alligator 

mississippie

nsis 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G

5, S

4

Invertebrate (1) Mangrove Crab Aratus pisonii 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Birds (43) Wood Stork Mycteria americana 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

4, S

2

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

3, S

2

Eastern Brown Pelican 

Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

4, S

3

Magnificent Frigatebird 

Fregata m

agnificens 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

5, S1

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

5, S

3

S

4

Southern Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

4, S

3

Southeastern American Kestrel 

Falco sparverius paulus 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

5

T

3

T

4, 

American Oystercatcher 

Haematopus palliatu

s

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

5, S

3

Appendices 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Least Tern Sterna antillaru

m

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

4, S

3

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

R

are

G

4, S

2

Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

R

are

G

5, S

2

S

3

Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Threatened G4, S2S3 Short-tailed Hawk Buteo brachyurus Rare G4?, S3 Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor Rare Black-whiskered Vireo 

Vireo altiloq

us 

R

are

G

5, S

3

Louisiana Waterthrush

Seiurus m

otacilla 

R

are

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

R

are

Great White Heron Ardea herodias 

occidentalis 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5T2, S2 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S4 

Little Blue H

eron Egretta Caerulea 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S4 

160 Pelican Island 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S4 

Tricolored h

eron Egretta tricolor 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S4 

Black-crowned Night Heron 

Nycticorax nycticora

x

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S3? 

Yellow-crowned Night Heron 

Nyctanassa violacea 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S3? 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S4 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S2 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G4, S3? 

Wilson’s Plo

ver Charadrius wilsonia 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Royal Tern Sterna m

axima 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S3 

Appendices 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S2 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S2? 

Black Skimmer Rynchops niger 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

Species of Special Concern 

G5, S3 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 

S

p

e

cie

s

of

Special Concern 

G5, S3? 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Statu

s

Undetermined 

G5, SU 

Florida Prairie Warbler 

Dendroica discolor paludicola 

Statu

s

Undetermined 

G5T3, S3 

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris 

Statu

s

Undetermined 

Bachman’s Sparrow 

Aimophila aestivalis 

G

3, S

3

Snowy Plo

ver Charadrius 

alexandrinu

s

Short-billed Dowitcher 

Limnodro

m

u

s griseus 

Whimbrel Nu

menius phaeopus 

162 Pelican Island 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Florida Clapper Rail Rallus longirostrus 

scottii 

G

5

T

3

?, S

Mottled Duck Anus fulvigula Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

4, S

2

Plants (18) Giant Leather Fern Acrostichum 

danaeifolium 

C

o

m

m

ercially

Exploited 

Curtiss’ (Sandhill) Milkweed 

Asclepias c

urtissii E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

3, S

3

Hand Fern Cheiroglossa palm

ata

G

4, S

2

Christmas Berry Crossopetalu

m

ilicifolium

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Butterfly Orc

hid Encyclia tampensis 

C

o

m

m

ercially

Exploited 

Beach Creeper Ernodea littoralis 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Johnson’s Seagrass 

Halophila johnsonii 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

G

2, S

2

Crested Coralroot Hexalectris spicata 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Pineland Lantana Lantana depressa 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Simpson Stopper Myrcianthes fragrans 

(=Eugenia simpsonii) 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Shell Mound Prickly Pear Cactus 

Opuntia stricta 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Appendices 
Species on Various Lists Found at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (83) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status 

(14)

State Statu

s

(45)

FCREP

A

Status (54)*

FNAI Sta(54)**

Cinnamon F

ern Os

munda 

cinnam

o

m

e

a

C

o

m

m

ercially

Exploited 

Pepper (Unnamed) Pepero

mia hu

milis 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Inkberry Scaevola plu

mieri 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Inflated (Reflexed) Wild Pine 

Tillandsia b

albisiana 

T

hre

ate

n

e

d

Giant Wild Pine; Giant Air Plant 

Tillandsia utriculata 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

Coastal Vervain Verbena m

aritim

a

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G

3, S

3

Tampa Vervain Verbena tampensis 

E

n

d

a

n

g

ere

d

G1, S1

Communities and Sites (

5) 

Coastal Strand Community G3?, S2 Maritime Hammoc

k Communit

y G4, S2 

Shell Mound Community G3, S2 Bird

R

o

o

k

ery

c

o

nfirm

e

d

occurrenc

Manatee Aggregation Site confirmed 

occurrenc

* Although the FCREPA list includes 54 species found at Pelican Island N

WR, an additional 3 spe

cies have a

n 

** The FNAI list includes 54 species, 3 communities, and 2 sites. Notes: FCREPA = Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals FNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory WatchList = Audubon WatchList for Florida 164 Pelican Island 
Appendices 

2 mammals, 10 fishes, 9 amphibians and reptiles, 1 invertebrate, 43 birds, 18 plants, 3 communities, and 2 sitesSummary: 
166 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
V. Draft Compatibility Determinations 

These compatibility determinations were prepared for Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, and are 

contingent upon selection of this alternative and approval of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Ntroduction: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan process for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. Descriptions and anticipated 

impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the Uses through the Other 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies sections, the Literature Cited section, the Public Review 

and Comment section, and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations section apply to each use. If 

one of these uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, then those sections become part of that compatibility determination.

Uses:

Refuge Name:

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Executive Order 1014, January 26, 1909 

16 USC §1534 Endangered Species Act 

16 USC §742(f) Fish and Wildlife Act 

16 USC §668dd National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1903 “as a preserve and breeding ground 

for native birds” through an unnumbered Executive Order and expanded in 1909 by Executive Order 

1014. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge “shall be administered by him (the Secretary of the 

Interior) directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements and in accordance with such rules and 

regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its 

habitat thereon” [16 USC §664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)]. The Refuge shall “conserve fish,

wildlife, and plants, including those which are listed as endangered species or threatened species” 

[16 USC §1534 (Endangered Species Act)]. Further, the Refuge serves “...the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources... [16 USC 

§742(f)(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act)] ...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services....” [16 USC §742(f)(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act)]. Later, the 

Refuge Recreation Act was also applied to the Refuge “...for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered 

species or threatened species...” [16 USC §460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act)]. The existence of the 

Refuge serves the “...conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” [16 

I 

Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge System and mission

and purposes of the refuge: 1) fishing; 2) participating in environmental education; 3) participating in 

interpretation activities; 4) observing wildlife; 5) photographing wildlife; 6) participating in research 

activities; 7) controlling mosquitoes; 8) managing citrus groves; and 9) participating in commercial 

ecotour operations. 

Established by an unnumbered Executive Order on March 14, 1903 

Refuge Purposes:

Appendices 167
USC §668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)]. Finally, the Pelican Island 

Wilderness Area “...shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such 

manner as will leave them (wilderness areas) unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, 

and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, 

and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as 

wilderness....” [16 USC 1 1 21 (note) (Wilderness Act)]. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

As outlined in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Fishing

Fishing is a common public use within and around the refuge. Fishing within the refuge includes 

commercial and recreational fishing and shell fishing within the Indian River Lagoon. Several 

methods of fishing are employed, including boat fishing, wade fishing, and bank fishing. Bank fishing 

currently occurs from the spoil islands and is proposed for selected sites in the upland areas of the 

refuge (these sites would be identified on refuge maps). Bank fishing is prohibited from Pelican 

Island proper. No boat launch facilities are located on the refuge, therefore, all boat launch activities 

must occur off the refuge (e.g., parking and loading and unloading boats). The refuge will prepare, 

provide, and update brochures and maps detailing the designated locations for these and other public 

uses. 

Since the Indian River Lagoon portion of the refuge is managed by the refuge through an agreement 

with the State of Florida, this use is also governed by this management agreement that allows for 

traditional uses, as listed. 

Availability of Resources: The primary refuge resources required for this use involve the 

associated law enforcement needs. However, since this area is under management agreement with 

the State of Florida and since that agreement spells out the right of the public to use the area for 

commercial and sport fishing, the State of Florida also shares this law enforcement responsibility. 

Historic and current funding and staffing of the refuge have been insufficient to address this use. 

Therefore, additional fiscal resources are required to conduct this use at its current level and to 

address anticipated increases in this use. Primarily, additional funding is needed to hire a law 

enforcement officer. Funding and staffing are also needed to conduct inventory and monitoring 

projects associated with this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing activities are anticipated to have minimal impact on the 

resources of the refuge. The potential exists for wildlife to become entangled in monofilament fishing 

line (e.g., birds and juvenile sea turtles). The potential also exists for illegal take of fish (e.g., defined 

by species, size, and sex), accidental collision with wildlife (e.g., boat collisions with manatees, sea 

turtles, and dolphins), disturbance of wildlife (e.g., fish spawning areas and bird rookeries), and 

unintentional damage to seagrass beds (e.g., prop scarring), however, these incidents and impacts 

Description of Use: 

The right of the public to use the area for traditional navigation, boating, bathing, shell 

fishing, and commercial and sport fishing shall not be restricted with the exception of a 

410(-)foot buffer zone surrounding Pelican Island (Government Lot 3, Township 31 

South, Range 39 East, Indian River County). This buffer zone is measured from the 

mean high water line of said island and extending out into the Indian River. 

168 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
are anticipated to be minimal. Further, minor trampling of vegetation may occur as anglers access 

areas to bank fish, however, this impact is expected to be minor and short lived. And, unfortunately, 

littering is always possible. Recreational clammers may impact seagrass beds either by trampling, or 

by raking the bottom for clams. Restrictions on the use can help ensure minimal impacts. Further, as 

impacts become evident, additional measures can be taken to limit or eliminate these impacts (e.g., 

the creation of closed area buffers around key bird rookeries and fish spawning areas). Educational 

activities will be provided to encourage proper use and disposal of monofilament line.

Use is Not Compatible 

Determination (check one below):

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge will prepare, provide, and update 

brochures and maps designating these and other public uses and areas, along with associated 

restrictions. (Contact the Refuge Manager for details on these designated areas and any associated 

restrictions.)

Following completion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Fishing Plan will be revised. 

Fishing regulations and restrictions will be coordinated with the Refuge Biologist, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Southeast Regional Office, and the State of Florida. State of Florida game species, bag 

limits, seasons, and fishing methods apply on the refuge. 

Bank fishing from spoil islands shall be permitted only during daylight hours. Bank fishing is 

prohibited from all other areas except from the north dike of Bird’s Impoundment and from Paul’s 

Island. Once Paul’s Island is restored for use by wildlife, bank fishing would then be prohibited from 

Paul’s Island. Bank fishing shall be banned from Pelican Island proper.

Shellfish harvesting is restricted in those areas delineated by State regulations (generally south of

Spratt’s Point and Paul’s Island, east of the Intracoastal Waterway, and north of Wabasso Island). 

This area, designated as Conditionally Restricted, is only open to permit holders who are authorized 

to relay and purify shellfish and is only open when environmental conditions allow. Shellfish 

harvesting is permitted in the area designated as Conditionally Approved (north of Spratt’s Point and 

Paul’s Island, south of Coconut Point at Sebastian Inlet, and east of the Intracoastal Waterway) when 

environmental conditions allow. Harvesting clams by rakes in any seagrass bed is prohibited. It is 

unlawful to harvest shellfish from the commercial shellfish lease areas. (Contact the Refuge Manager 

for more information and details on the locations of these clamming areas.) 

Commercial shellfish leases are not considered compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

However, the lease with the State of Florida currently removes these areas from refuge management 

and restrictions. If at any time these areas are included under refuge management, all commercial 

shellfish leases will be terminated. 

All fishing tackle must be attended at all times. 

Law enforcement activities will help ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations and will 

help protect the resources of the refuge. 

Appendices 169
Vessel use by anglers will be restricted in accordance with the lease with the State of Florida in key 

areas to prevent damage to sensitive resources of the refuge (e.g., vessel use must occur outside of 

the designated buffer of Pelican Island proper to limit disturbance to the rookery). 

If the Refuge Manager determines that resources of the refuge are experiencing disturbance or 

damage or that the fishery resource is being damaged, the Refuge Manager will work with the State 

of Florida to enact necessary measures of protection (e.g., implement buffers of key areas and 

seasonally close key areas). 

Justification: Fishing is a priority public use, as defined under the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act. Further, fishing activities can enhance the public’s understanding and 

appreciation of wildlife and wild places and should enhance refuge management and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Further, commercial fishing and sport fishing are specifically 

spelled out as public uses of the Indian River Lagoon portion of the refuge in the management 

agreement between the refuge and the State of Florida. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:____________________________________ 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Description of Uses: 

Environmental Education, Environmental Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Wildlife 

Photography

Each of these uses is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Environmental education activities seek to increase public knowledge and understanding of the 

importance of wildlife, habitats, ecosystem functions, habitat protection, habitat management, and 

refuge management. Typical activities are expected to include field trips guided by refuge staff 

and/or a teacher/professor, offsite classroom programs (e.g., at the school and at the Environmental 

Learning Center), nature study at designated locations (e.g., in the public use areas around Jungle 

Trail), and programs at the proposed visitor center facility. 

Interpretation includes those activities and supporting infrastructure that translate refuge 

management activities, natural resources, and cultural history for the refuge visitor. Supporting 

infrastructure for interpretive programs includes the planned visitor facility, informational kiosks 

throughout and near the refuge, interpretive signs throughout the refuge, trails in the Jungle Trail 

area, boardwalks in the Jungle Trail area, the observation tower overlooking Pelican Island proper in 

the Jungle Trail area, and the wildlife drive in the Jungle Trail area. Showcasing the birthplace of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and honoring Paul Kroegel, proposed interpretive programs include 

habitat management, restoration activities, environmental processes, biodiversity, the water cycle, 

threatened and endangered species, and the history of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. The preferred site for the planned visitor center facility is at the 

Kroegel Homestead, while other potential sites include a refuge site on the barrier island in the Jungle 

170 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Trail area; the Environmental Learning Center, just south of the refuge on Wabasso Island; and a site 

in the Duck Point area. 

People visit national wildlife refuges to observe wildlife in their natural environments. Visitors to the 

refuge hope to see wildlife by driving and bicycling down Jungle Trail, driving along the wildlife drive 

in the Jungle Trail area (with no bicycling on the wildlife drive), boating in the Indian River Lagoon, 

walking on the designated trails and boardwalks in the Jungle Trail area, looking out from the 

observation tower in the Jungle Trail area, and visiting the Kroegel Homestead on the mainland for a 

view of Pelican Island proper and the Indian River Lagoon. 

Wildlife photography is an outgrowth of wildlife observation. Photographers hope to see wildlife by 

driving and bicycling down Jungle Trail, driving along the wildlife drive in the Jungle Trail area (with no 

bicycling on the wildlife drive), boating in the Indian River Lagoon, walking on the designated trails 

and boardwalks in the Jungle Trail area, looking out from the observation tower in the Jungle Trail 

area, and visiting the Kroegel Homestead on the mainland for a view of Pelican Island proper and the 

Indian River Lagoon. 

The associated visitor center, parking areas, restroom facility, wildlife drive, boardwalk, observation 

tower, trails, and other facilities outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the refuge 

support these wildlife-dependent, priority public use activities. The plan outlines a proposed visitor 

center facility to support these activities. The preferred site for this facility is at the Kroegel 

Homestead on the mainland, across the Indian River Lagoon from Pelican Island proper. The 

proposed wildlife drive is a 1⁄2-mile-long drive providing viewing opportunities of wildlife in different

habitats. This wildlife drive is planned to be located just west of Jungle Trail. Further, an observation 

tower will provide wildlife viewing opportunities of Pelican Island proper. A 170-meter-long boardwalk 

will slowly rise to the tower. This boardwalk and tower are planned to be located southwest of the 

wildlife drive in the Jungle Trail area. The restroom facility and parking areas planned at the northern 

and southern ends of the wildlife drive in the Jungle Trail area will support these public uses. 

Additional trails and trail connectors around the wildlife drive, east and west of Jungle Trail, are 

planned to further support these public use activities. The refuge will prepare, provide, and update 

brochures and maps detailing the designated locations for these and other public uses of the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge and Indian River County are partnering to provide visitor 

facilities at the refuge. Indian River County is constructing and maintaining the two parking areas and 

the restroom facility in the Jungle Trail area. Indian River County is also pursuing the purchase of the 

Kroegel Homestead, while the Fish and Wildlife Service has committed to managing the Kroegel 

Homestead. The refuge is responsible for funding, constructing, and managing a visitor center 

facility, the wildlife drive, trails, boardwalks, the observation tower, signs, interpretive lands, 

informational kiosks, and other visitor support facilities. However, the majority of the facilities is

currently unfunded. The refuge and its partners are pursuing various avenues for this funding, 

including agency funds, cost-sharing, and grants. Further, the refuge is increasing membership in the 

friends’ group, Pelican Island Preservation Society, to help with outreach activities, environmental 

education programs, guided tours (e.g., special bird tours), as well as to raise funds and provide staff 

for refuge programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: Construction of facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restroom 

facility, wildlife drive, boardwalks, and observation tower) would alter the habitats at those particular 

sites under construction. However, the existing habitat is primarily abandoned citrus groves and the 

alteration is minor, discrete, and limited to a particular location. Properly locating these facilities and 

properly implementing environmental protection measures during construction will limit any negative 

environmental impacts. Long-term impacts from proposed construction activities are not anticipated 

Appendices 171
to be significant. Further, most of the proposed facilities are to be located in disturbed habitats that

are undergoing restoration (e.g., restoring citrus groves). The preferred location of the proposed 

visitor center facility is on the mainland, in the developed landscape around the city of Sebastian, and 

at the Kroegel Homestead. No negative impacts are expected from siting the proposed visitor center 

facility at the Kroegel Homestead, while the historic features and structures of the Homestead will be 

protected along with its historic character and centuries-old vegetation. 

As a result of increased visitation and public use, some illegal activities have the potential to increase 

(e.g., littering and taking wildlife, including plants). Further, other uses not allowed on the refuge or 

not allowed in some areas of the refuge may also occur and have negative impacts (e.g., bicycling on 

the impoundment trails may cause wildlife disturbances and may potentially cause increased 

erosion). Minor temporary wildlife disturbances may result from the occurrence of the approved 

public use activities (e.g., temporary wildlife disturbances may result from an outdoor classroom 

activity and minor trampling of vegetation may occur during group bird watching tours) and minor loss 

of wildlife may occur as a result of collisions with vehicles on Jungle Trail or on the wildlife drive, but 

these impacts are not anticipated to be significant. 

If impacts are determined to be significant, then refuge management will further restrict or eliminate 

the associated use(s). 

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: These uses are limited to daylight hours. Public 

access is limited to only those so designated areas. The refuge will develop, provide, and update 

brochures and maps designating these and other public uses and areas, along with associated 

restrictions. (Contact the Refuge Manager for details on these designated areas and any associated 

restrictions.) Bicycling is limited to only Jungle Trail (bicycling is not allowed on the wildlife drive, on 

any of the trails, on the impoundment dikes, off-road or off-trail, or anywhere else on the refuge). 

Adaptive management will address any negative impacts to wildlife and habitats from these uses to

limit or eliminate these negative impacts. If human impacts are determined to be detrimental to 

resources of the refuge, the Refuge Manager may implement measures to limit or eliminate these 

impacts, including the closure of an area either completely or limited by season, time of day, type of 

access (e.g., by foot and by vehicle), or other factor. This would include all areas associated with

these uses, such as the wildlife drive, observation tower, trails, boardwalks, and spoil and lagoonal 

islands. Further, to ensure public safety, the Refuge Manager will close access to the wildlife drive 

and other areas during incidents of high water (e.g., during flooding events and hurricanes) or for 

other safety reasons. Prior to all construction activities, the refuge will obtain all necessary permits. 

Law enforcement and education are key components to ensure continued compatibility of these uses. 

Refuge staff will monitor and document any negative impacts of these uses, taking corrective 

measures as necessary to limit or eliminate impacts to the resources of the refuge. 

Justification: Environmental education, environmental interpretation, wildlife observation, and 

wildlife photography are priority public uses, under the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Not only do these uses enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation of 

wildlife and wild places, but these uses also further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

172 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:_____________________________________ 

Description of Use:

Research

Research is the planned, organized, and systematic gathering of data to discover or verify facts. In 

principle, research conducted on the refuge by universities, co-op units, non-profit organizations, and 

other research entities furthers refuge management and serves the purposes and vision of the 

refuge. All research activities, whether conducted by public agencies, public research entities, 

universities, private research groups, or any other entity, shall be required to obtain special use

permits from the refuge. All research activities will be overseen by the Refuge Biologist and Refuge 

Manager. 

Availability of Resources: Other than the administration of associated special use permits, no 

refuge resources are required for this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Generally, impacts from research are minimal. Occasionally, 

slight or temporary wildlife or habitat disturbances may occur (e.g., minor trampling of vegetation may 

occur when researchers access monitoring plots). However, these impacts are not significant, nor 

are they permanent. Also, a small number of individuals might be collected for further scientific study, 

but these collections are anticipated to have minimal impact on the populations from which they 

came. 

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All research conducted on the refuge must 

further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. To ensure 

that research activities are compatible, the refuge requires that a special use permit be obtained 

before any research activity may occur. Research proposals must be submitted for special use

permits in advance of the activity to allow for review by refuge staff to ensure minimal impacts to the 

resources of the refuge. Each special use permit may contain conditions under which the research 

will be conducted. Each special use permit holder will submit annual reports to the refuge updating 

the refuge on research activities, progress, findings, and other information. Further, each special use 

permit holder will provide copies of findings, final reports, and/or other documentation at the end of 

each project. The refuge will deny permits for research proposals that are determined to not serve 

the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will 

also deny permits for research proposals that are determined to negatively impact resources or that 

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the refuge. All research activities are subject 

to the conditions of their permits. 

Appendices 173
Justification: Research activities can provide important benefits to the refuge and to the natural 

resources supported by the refuge. Supporting management, research conducted on the refuge can 

lead to new discoveries, new facts, verified information, and better management decisions. Research 

has the potential to further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:_____________________________________ 

Description of Use: 

Mosquito Control

The Indian River Mosquito Control District conducts mosquito control activities on the refuge around 

Bird’s and Pete’s Impoundments based on Rotational Impoundment Management and Integrated

Pest Management in pursuit of four management objectives:

• enhancement of fish and wildlife resources through marsh integration to the Indian River 

Lagoon; 

• enhancement of water quality in the impoundments and the Indian River Lagoon; 

• enhancement of wading bird feeding opportunities; and 

• reduction of the sources of mosquitoes, minimizing the need for pesticide applications. 

Basically, the emphasis of mosquito control management is on source reduction (i.e., to prevent or 

limit mosquito breeding). These mosquito control activities include monitoring and modifying water 

levels in the impoundments (through water control structures and pumping activities), maintaining 

these water control structures and pumps, and maintaining the dikes. As needed, integrated pest 

management activities include seasonal flooding, larviciding, open marsh water management, and 

ground ultra low volume adulticiding. Larviciding mosquito control activities are conducted 10-15 

times per year. Adulticiding mosquito control activities are generally not conducted, unless unusual 

circumstances occur (e.g., extremely large hatches or documented human health threats). The 

mosquito control trucks and all-terrain vehicles access the impoundments through an unpaved road 

and the impoundment dikes. Additional activities include periodic/occasional water quality 

monitoring, vegetation monitoring, and wildlife monitoring. Various flooding strategies have been 

explored and implemented during the winter to maximize production of wading bird foraging sources. 

Availability of Resources: The Indian River Mosquito Control District funds and implements these 

mosquito control activities. Thus, no refuge resources are required to administer this use, other than 

reviewing management plans and being aware of operations and pesticides to be used. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Mosquito control activities have the potential for a variety of 

impacts. Potential impacts of chemicals on non-target organisms are a concern and are considered 

prior to mosquito control operations. Potential negative impacts to invertebrates from chemical 

174 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
applications may result in decreases in density and diversity of insects, arachnids, and/or 

crustaceans, thus negatively impacting food sources for various birds. Mosquito control activities also 

have the potential to decrease functionality of the impoundment for shorebirds, depending on the

flooding and drawing down of the impoundment. The potential also exists to flood out ground nests 

during rotational impoundment management. Further, temporary wildlife or habitat disturbances may 

occur during actual operations (e.g., wildlife disturbance and temporary trampling of vegetation during 

pesticide application by all-terrain vehicle). 

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Mosquito control management plans were 

developed for all impoundments of the refuge. These management plans provide conditions under 

which mosquito control operations are approved. Additional stipulations to ensure compatibility of 

this use are listed. 

• A Refuge Special Use Permit is required and must be renewed annually. 

• Larval control may only be conducted when breeding is widespread, as documented by 

sampling conducted by the Indian River Mosquito Control District. 

• Priority for treatments will be given to those chemicals with the least effect on non-target 

organisms (e.g., BTI). 

• The Refuge Manager has final approval for all pesticide treatments. 

• Indian River Mosquito Control District shall submit to the refuge a final report at the end of 

each year. 

• No flights shall be conducted over the Wilderness Area (i.e., Pelican Island proper), nor over 

the 410-foot buffer of the Island. 

• Indian River Mosquito Control District shall notify by phone the Refuge Manager of all 

pesticide applications, including areas and acreages to be treated, pesticide to be applied, 

date and time of planned treatment, method of application, and data supporting the need for 

treatment. 

• In developing approaches to specific treatments, consideration will be given to avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to the resources of the refuge. 

• Refuge staff shall be allowed to inspect operations at any time. 

• All pesticides used must be included in the refuge’s Pesticide Use and Disposal Management 

Plan. If a pesticide proposed for use is not included in this step-down plan, the Refuge 

Manager must review and approve its use before any application occurs. 

• The Indian River Mosquito Control District shall immediately notify the Refuge Manager of any 

chemical spills, threats to human safety on the refuge, human disturbance, or wildlife 

disturbance that may occur as a consequence of its mosquito control operations. 

Justification: Under the right environmental conditions, the impoundments of the refuge are 

productive habitats for population explosions of saltmarsh mosquitoes. The abandoned citrus groves 

are also potential breeding sites for freshwater-inhabiting mosquitoes. The refuge exists in a

developed human landscape, where mosquitoes represent a potential disease threat to public health 

(e.g., West Nile Virus), as well as to wildlife. Mosquito control activities address health safety issues 

for the refuge and the community. Further, these mosquito control management activities support 

wildlife and habitat management activities by providing key foraging sources and areas for wading

Appendices 175
birds. The use, with the listed stipulations, does not materially interfere with the purposes of the 

refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:_____________________________________ 

Description of Use: 

Managing Interim Citrus Groves

Portions of the refuge, especially new acquisitions, are citrus groves. Until restoration activities are 

underway, these groves continue to be managed and harvested under a special use permit. 

Management activities by the grove operator include controlling exotics in the groves, benefiting 

adjacent native habitats of the refuge. If these groves were left fallow and un-managed, exotics 

would easily invade these disturbed agricultural areas, creating footholds and spreading into native 

habitats. The grove operator continues to manage the citrus grove, using irrigation and approved 

pesticides. Citrus is harvested by handpicking during the months of November through January. 

This saves the refuge from leaving these lands fallow and from the burden of trying to manage these 

agricultural lands until funds are available for restoration to native habitats. As these groves are 

scheduled for restoration by the refuge, exotics and citrus are removed from the site. 

Availability of Resources: Other than the management of special use permits and agreements, no 

refuge resources are required to administer this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Active grove operations have the potential to spread exotic plants 

(e.g., guinea grass) and to contribute nutrient and pesticide laden runoff to the Indian River Lagoon 

and adjacent native habitats. However, under specific conditions imposed under a special use

permit, these negative impacts can be minimized. Without management of these lands by grove 

operators and before restoration by the refuge, these lands would have a greater potential for 

negative impacts on refuge habitats and wildlife through increased exotics (plants and animals) and 

the spread of these exotics into native habitats. This use is a short term, interim use in anticipation of 

future native habitat restoration activities. 

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Special use permits for citrus cultivation shall 

only be for temporary management or demonstration purposes. These permits may contain 

additional restrictions or conditions under which the permit holder must operate. Citrus cultivation 

shall use best management practices. Further, only those pesticides approved by the refuge shall be 

used on these groves. Grove operators shall control exotic plants in the groves. All irrigation 

systems shall be retained on the site after the close of the permit. As these groves are scheduled for 

176 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
restoration, the permit holder shall remove all citrus trees at the close of the permit. The refuge will 

charge the permit holder a nominal fee if the value of the services provided by the permit holder is not 

commensurate with the value of the harvest. 

Justification: This use does not detract from or materially interfere with the purposes of the refuge. 

Further, this interim use serves refuge management goals. Without some type of management, these 

groves would end up serving as a source of exotics for the native habitats of the refuge. This interim 

management activity controls these exotics until restoration activities begin. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:_____________________________________

Description of Use: 

Commercial Ecotour Operations

Ecologically based commercial boat tours currently operate in the Indian River Lagoon offering 

wildlife viewing opportunities, especially of Pelican Island proper. These tour boats provide a service 

to Refuge visitors by providing opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and limited 

interpretation. Currently, three tour boats operate year-round in the refuge. These tour boat 

operations generally run 7 days a week during the busy season (i.e., winter) and 5 days a week 

during the off season. Each of the tour boats can carry about 40 passengers, however, trips average 

about 15 passengers. Generally, each trip runs about 1.5 hours. 

Since the Indian River Lagoon portion of the refuge is managed through an agreement with the State 

of Florida, this use is also governed by this management agreement that allows for traditional uses, 

as listed.

The right of the public to use the area for traditional navigation, boating, bathing, shell 

fishing, and commercial and sport fishing shall not be restricted with the exception of a 

410(-)foot buffer zone surrounding Pelican Island (Government Lot 3, Township 31 

South, Range 39 East, Indian River County). This buffer zone is measured from the 

mean high water line of said island and extending out into the Indian River. 

However, since this use is not one of these traditional uses outlined in the lease agreement with the 

State of Florida and since this use is not a use that was customarily being pursued within this leased 

area on or before May 23, 1968, it is subject to refuge regulations and restrictions by the Fish and

Wildlife Service. (May 23, 1968 is the date of the original lease between the Service and the State of 

Florida.) 

Availability of Resources: Other than the administration of associated special use permits and the 

possibility of intervention by law enforcement, no Refuge resources are required for this use. 

Appendices 177
Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Under certain restrictions, this use is anticipated to have minimal 

impacts. Occasionally, slight or temporary wildlife or habitat disturbances may occur. Tour boats 

sometimes can have negative impacts to seagrasses from prop scarring and anchoring. They can 

also disturb birds on the Pelican Island rookery or on other islands by approaching too fast or too 

near to an island. Measures should be implemented to limit or eliminate these impacts, including 

establishing mooring buoys in deeper waters to prevent damage to seagrasses and extending the 

closed area around Pelican Island or other key islands to provide a better buffer zone for wildlife on

an island. The possibility exists for a collision between a tour boat and aquatic wildlife (e.g., West 

Indian manatee), however, education of tour boat operators and specific restrictions will help limit this 

possibility. 

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure that commercial activities on the 

refuge are compatible, a special use permit will be required before any commercial activity subject to 

regulation by the Fish and Wildlife Service may occur. Each special use permit may contain 

conditions under which that particular activity will be conducted. All tour boat operators must be 

oriented by refuge staff (e.g., to provide these operators with background information on the refuge

and information about key needs of some wildlife, such as nesting birds), with an annual refresher to 

be conducted by refuge staff. Further, the refuge shall supply educational and informational materials 

to the tour boat operators for distribution to participants. Refuge staff will spot check operations to

monitor any impacts. One condition of the special use permit will address the requirement that the 

tour boat operators cover key points during their presentations (e.g., wildlife disturbance). Special 

use permits will also address a variety of other topics, such as areas of operation for these activities, 

areas to be avoided by these activities, speed limits (if necessary), water depths approved for these 

operations, and noise level limitations (e.g., from speakers or other amplifying devices). 

Generally, all ecotour operations must avoid wildlife collisions, operate at or below posted speed 

limits, provide educational information, and stay outside the posted closed areas of Pelican Island 

proper or any other posted closed areas. Any violation of these or other applicable federal, state, or 

local regulations may lead to additional restrictions on the permit holder or revocation of the special 

use permit. The Refuge Manager may revise, amend, or revoke the permit of a commercial operation 

if that operation is in violation of the permit conditions (e.g., if the commercial operation is negatively 

impacting refuge wildlife and habitats or if the commercial operation is in violation of applicable state 

or federal laws). 

Justification: Ecotour operations, under the right conditions, can help further the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and can enhance public appreciation and understanding of the 

refuge and the resources it protects. Further, ecotour operations can provide educational materials to 

the participants, further enhancing the understanding, appreciation, and experience of the ecotour 

operators and the participants. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_____Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

178 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:_____________________________________ 

Literature Cited:

Indian River Mosquito Control District. 1992a. Management Plan for Indian River Impoundment #2 

(Birds). Vero Beach, FL. 35 pp. 

Indian River Mosquito Control District. 1992b. Management Plan for Indian River Impoundment #3 

(Pete’s). Vero Beach, FL. 48 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999. Pelican Island: Honoring a Legacy. Washington, DC. 

14 pp. 

Public Review and Comment: During the public scoping process for the Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment, five public 

meetings were conducted (during May and June 2000). Verbal and written comments were recorded 

regarding a variety of subjects, including uses of the refuge. Further, during the public comment and 

review period, opportunity was provided to the public to submit comments during a 60-day review 

period. 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations: 

The signature of approval covers all the compatibility determinations considered within the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the 

descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the plan, the approval signature becomes 

part of that determination. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager Date

Review:

Regional Compatibility Coordinator Date 

Appendices 179
Review:

Refuge Supervisor Date

Concurrence:

Regional Chief

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Southeast Region 

Date 

180 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
VI. Avoidance And Minimization Of Impacts 

To Federally Listed Species 

The implementation of all goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the CCP will follow the 

Refuge’s best management practices and will pursue avoidance and minimization of impacts to 

federally threatened and endangered species, to the extent possible and practicable. Whenever and 

wherever prudent, the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Appendix VI will be 

incorporated into the implementation of the CCP to minimize the effect to federally threatened or 

endangered species. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

All federally 

threatened and 

endangered species 

on the Refuge 

Earthmoving Activities

All earthmoving activities on the Refuge will obtain all applicable 

permits before commencement. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to minimize any impacts that may be 

anticipated from proposed earthmoving activities. The Refuge 

provides orientation information regarding federally threatened and 

endangered species found on the Refuge to all new employees, 

volunteers, and contractors involved in earthmoving activities. The 

Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit long-term 

wildlife impacts of earthmoving activities. 

For example, during the shoreline stabilization activities already 

conducted for the Pelican Island proper rookery, several measures 

were taken to limit impacts to the birds using the Island, including 

scheduling work around nesting season and other periods of

increased wildlife activity. Similar measures are proposed for future 

shoreline stabilization projects. 

During earthmoving activities associated with exotic plant control, 

measures to limit wildlife impacts include preliminary assessments by 

qualified individuals to avoid burrows, nests, and other obvious signs 

of wildlife activity. 

During earthmoving activities associated with habitat restoration, 

measures to limit wildlife impacts include preliminary assessments by 

qualified individuals to avoid burrows, nests, and other obvious signs 

of wildlife activity. 

Appendices 181
SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Fire Management Activities

Fire management is a tool employed for the benefit of wildlife, 

including improving habitat, controlling wildfires, and controlling or 

removing exotic plants. The Refuge will make all efforts possible and 

practicable to limit long-term wildlife impacts of management 

activities. Measures employed to limit wildlife impacts related to fire 

management activities include scheduling fire prep and burns around 

nesting seasons and other periods of increased wildlife activity. 

Exotic Plant Control and Removal Activities

Refuges regularly and commonly use Garlon to control exotic plants 

with no measurable effects on federally listed threatened and

endangered species. The Refuge provides orientation information 

regarding federally threatened and endangered species found on the 

Refuge to all new employees, volunteers, and contractors involved in 

controlling and removing exotic plants. All pesticides and herbicides 

are applied in accordance with label directions. 

The Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit longterm wildlife impacts from management activities. Measures to limit 

wildlife impacts during the control and removal of exotic plants include

preliminary assessments by qualified individuals to avoid burrows, 

nests, and other obvious signs of wildlife activity.

Research Activities

All researchers on the Refuge must obtain all applicable permits, 

including a Refuge special use permit before the commencement of 

research activities on the Refuge. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to eliminate or minimize any impacts that 

may be anticipated from a research proposal. The Refuge provides 

orientation information regarding federally threatened and 

endangered species found on the Refuge to all researchers.

Increased Visitation

The Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit 

wildlife impacts related to increased visitation. Measures to limit 

wildlife impacts related to increased visitation include establishing and 

enforcing closed areas (e.g., for bird rookeries), controlling access 

(e.g., open only certain hours, open only certain seasons, and open to 

limited numbers of visitors), conveying ethical wildlife viewing 

messages (e.g., through brochures, interpretive talks, and 

presentations), and controlling or eliminating inappropriate and 

incompatible uses. 

182 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 
SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Construction Activities

All construction activities on the Refuge will obtain all applicable 

permits before commencement. During the application for permits, 

conditions may be imposed to eliminate or minimize any impacts that 

may be anticipated from proposed construction. Future construction 

activities would be expected to require future consultations, once 

specific sites and structure footprints have been identified (e.g., 

another §7 would be required for the siting and building of a visitor 

center). The Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to 

limit long-term wildlife impacts of management activities. 

Impoundment Management

With over a decade of the same management operations for the 

impoundments, no conflicts or impacts to federally threatened and 

endangered species have been identified. In fact, managing the 

water levels has proven to have foraging benefits for wood storks. 

The Refuge will make all efforts possible and practicable to limit longterm wildlife impacts of management activities. 

Appendices 183