Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 

Part I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 

A. Location and Setting ...................................................................................................................... 3 

B. Relationship to Other Plans and Relevant Statutes ......................................................................... 5 

1. BLM Resource Management Plans ............................................................................................. 5 

2. BLM Activity Level Plans .......................................................................................................... 5 

3. Relevant Laws and Statutes ......................................................................................................... 5 

4. Other Plans, Programs and Initiatives .......................................................................................... 8 

C. Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA Partners and Current Uses ............................................................... 9 

1. Administrative Responsibilities ................................................................................................... 9 

2. Key Dates Related to the Public Domain at Jupiter Inlet............................................................ 12 

D. Resources in the Outstanding Natural Area .................................................................................. 13 

1. Physical Resources.................................................................................................................... 13 

2. Natural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 21 

3. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 39 

4. Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 46 

5. Visual Resources....................................................................................................................... 47 

E. Current Management Strategies.................................................................................................... 48 

1. Weed Management ................................................................................................................... 48 

2. Prescribed Burn Program .......................................................................................................... 48 

3. Research ................................................................................................................................... 48 

F. Existing Facilities and Easements ................................................................................................. 49 

1. Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 49 

2. Easements ................................................................................................................................. 50 

G. Adjacent Land Uses ..................................................................................................................... 51 

H. Socio-Economic Conditions......................................................................................................... 51 

I. Nearby Destinations ...................................................................................................................... 52 

Part II. Management Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 55 

A. Mission Statement ....................................................................................................................... 55 

B. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 55 

C. Management Issues ...................................................................................................................... 56 

1. Public Access to Natural Areas ................................................................................................. 56 

2. Public Use of the Indian River Lagoon Bluff Area .................................................................... 56 

3. Re-creating Historic Structures ................................................................................................. 57 

4. Protecting Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 57 

5. Prescribed Burn Program .......................................................................................................... 57 

6. Invasive Plant Control ............................................................................................................... 57 

7. Interpretive Program ................................................................................................................. 58 

Part III – Standard Management Practices ............................................................................................ 59 

A. Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................... 59 

B. Prescribed Burns .......................................................................................................................... 59 

C. Herbicide Use .............................................................................................................................. 60 

D. Recreation and Visual Resource................................................................................................... 60 

E. Vegetation and Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 60 
Part IV. Management Actions .............................................................................................................. 63 

Part V. Environmental Assessment ...................................................................................................... 69 

A. Purpose and Need for the Action ................................................................................................. 71 

B. Description of the Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 71 

C. Description of the Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 71 

D. Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 80 

1. Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 80 

2. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 82 

3. Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 83 

4. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 85 

5. Native American Culture or Religious Concerns ....................................................................... 86 

6. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 87 

7. Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 89 

8. Special Status Species ............................................................................................................... 90 

9. Invasive, Non-native Species .................................................................................................. 100 

10. Wetland/Riparian Zones ........................................................................................................ 101 

11. Recreation and Public Use .................................................................................................... 102 

12. Visual Resources .................................................................................................................. 103 

E. Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................... 104 

1. Cumulative Impacts from the Preferred Alternative ................................................................. 104 

Part VI. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 107 

A. Public Law 110-229, Section 202 .............................................................................................. 109 

B. Master Species Lists .................................................................................................................. 117 

C. Palm Beach County Ordinances ................................................................................................. 135 

D. Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................... 151 

E. Natural Resource Monitoring Protocols ...................................................................................... 155 

F. Summary of Public and Regulatory Agency Comments .............................................................. 171 

1. Summary of Public Comments ................................................................................................ 173 

2. Regulatory Agency Comments ................................................................................................ 185 
1 

Executive Summary 

On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229 brought the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) into 

being, designating it a unit within the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s National 

Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Of the 886 units currently within the NLCS, the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse ONA is the first unit east of the Mississippi River. Designation of this “island of green” in heavily 

urbanized south Florida to the NLCS is very significant – indeed making the system truly national. 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA is home to a remarkable array of natural and cultural resources. It is one of the 

rare geographical points on the planet where these two sets of values intersect in such striking fashion. Perhaps 

this is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that today this 120-acre site provides habitat for 25 special status 

species (including four Federally-listed) and yet also has cultural resource values so rich that human occupation of 

can be documented over the last 5,000 years. 

There are few locations where history and the natural environment have so perfectly converged. This can be seen 

in the abundant fresh water and rich fisheries that lured Juan Ponce De Leon in 1513 to take respite at Jupiter Inlet 

for several days, or the bluff at the confluence of the Loxahatchee and Indian Rivers – a bluff that attracted 

indigenous people for thousands of years. This bluff also provided the optimal location to construct a lighthouse 

to safely guide ships past the treacherous reefs and sand bars off of Jupiter Inlet. The Jupiter Narrows (Indian 

River) with its meandering mangrove islands played a key role in concealing blockade runners in the civil war. 

Today, the same Indian River, which graces the eastern border of the ONA is one of the richest and most 

biologically diverse estuaries in North America. 

The Management Plan that follows was prepared pursuant to section 202(c)(1) of the designating Act. It 

describes the resources that currently exist within the ONA, past and present uses and how we arrived at the point 

we are today. Most importantly, it will guide the management of the ONA for the foreseeable future with over r 

40 actions that address a wide range of issues and needs. These actions were carefully and collaboratively 

developed by the Jupiter Inlet Working Group – a unique partnership of Federal, county, municipal and non-profit 

entities dedicated to this special site. The Plan strives to strike a balance between use and conservation, between 

public access and preservation of imperiled habitat, between recreational opportunities and protection of the 

sacred trust of the people that came before us. To meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, this document also contains an Environmental Assessment. 

Ideally all resource issues that pertain to the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA would be addressed comprehensively 

in this plan. However, there are certain issues that require more in-depth analysis. The issue with the highest 

profile and with the highest degree of public interest is the erosion occurring along the shoreline where the Indian 

River Lagoon meets the Loxahatchee River. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

BLM isfunding an engineering study to address the critical need for slope stabilization along this stretch of 

shoreline. Following analysis of public input and review by working group partners and permitting agencies, a 

shoreline stabilization design will be amended to this plan. An interpretive plan and prescribed burn plan are also 

in preparation. 

We encourage you to read this plan and get involved as we strive to manage this very special location for current 

and future generations. 
2 
3 

Part I. Introduction 

A. Location and Setting 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area is located on south Florida’s Atlantic coast in northern 

Palm Beach County. It sits at the confluence of the Loxahatchee River and the Indian River Lagoon (Intracoastal 

Waterway) approximately 1⁄2 mile east of the inlet and includes almost a mile of riverfront shoreline within this 

coastal estuary. The Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) is 14 miles north of West Palm Beach and about two hours 

north of Miami via U.S. Highway 1. 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA encompasses 120 acres of open space in the urbanized Treasure Coast area. 

The northern portion of the ONA is in the Village of Tequesta and the southern portion is in the Town of Jupiter. 

The eastern shoreline south of County Road 707 (County Road 707) is within the municipal limits of the Jupiter 

Inlet Colony. County Road bisects the ONA and provides access across the Indian River Lagoon to the Jupiter 

Inlet Colony and the southern reaches of Jupiter Island over a manned drawbridge (Cato Bridge). U.S. Highway 1 

runs along the western boundary, and the Indian River Lagoon and Loxahatchee River form the southern and 

eastern boundaries of the ONA. 

The legal description of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA is: 

 

Tallahassee Meridian 

Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Section 31 

Including those portions of Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 

within the Outstanding Natural Area boundary, as shown in Figure 2. 

 

Figure 1. Aerial view of Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area 
4 

Figure 2. Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area Map 
5 

B. Relationship to Other Plans and Relevant Statutes 

1. BLM Resource Management Plans 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM ) develops regional land use level plans, or Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs), to make general land use decisions on the management of BLM-administered lands and resources. The 

Florida RMP, developed by BLM in 1995, included the public land at Jupiter Inlet and has guided BLM’s 

management of public domain lands at the site. On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229, Section 202 designated 

the site as the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area. The language of that act included resource 

objectives and management guidelines which, while they are generally compatible with the original RMP goals, 

now supersede them. A new RMP is underway which will update the 1995 Florida RMP. The land use level 

decisions contained in Public Law 110-229, Section 202, will be incorporated into this new RMP, as will the 

resource objectives and management tools developed in this plan. 

2. BLM Activity Level Plans 

Once the broader land use decisions are made in RMPs, the BLM typically prepares site specific activity level 

plans to implement these decisions. The Jupiter Inlet Coordinated Resource Management Plan was written in 

1997 to provide that activity level planning for the public domain land at Jupiter Inlet. The goals of that plan 

were to develop local partnerships for the collaborative management of the public resources at Jupiter Inlet, 

manage for endemic species, remove non-native plant species, preserve cultural resources, reduce hazards to the 

public, provide recreational opportunities that promote a land and conservation ethic and focus on the natural and 

cultural resources, and establish partnerships to promote environmental education. The 1997 activity plan has 

been largely implemented, but continued to serve as the current management plan until this plan, the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area Comprehensive Management Plan, wascompleted. 

3. Relevant Laws and Statutes 

 The following are some of the most relevant laws and regulations that guide the BLM in the management of the 

ONA and which apply to projects on federal lands or receiving federal funds within the ONA. 

a. Public Law 110-229, Section 202 

On May 8, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated Natural Resources Act (PL-110-229) (Act) creating the 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA. The law also established the resource objectives and management parameters by 

which the new ONA would be managed, including the site as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation 

System. The Act also required that a comprehensive management plan be developed within three years of the 

designation and that the plan be developed with public participation, and in consultation with the Local Partners 

and the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

The following is a summary of those items in the law which specifically guides future management of the new 

ONA. For the complete text of Public Law 110-229, Section 202 see Appendix A. 

The Secretary, in consultation with the Local Partners and the Commandant, shall manage the 

Outstanding Natural Area as part of the National Landscape Conservation System in a manner that 

conserves, protects, and enhances the unique and nationally important historical, natural, cultural, 

scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational values of the Outstanding Natural Area, including an 

emphasis on the restoration of native ecological systems. 
6 

The purposes of the Outstanding Natural Area are to protect, conserve, and enhance the unique and 

nationally important historic, natural, cultural, scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational values of 

the Federal land surrounding the Lighthouse for the benefit of present generations and future generations 

of people in the United States while allowing certain recreational and research activities to continue in the 

Outstanding Natural Area; and ensuring that Coast Guard operations and activities are unimpeded within 

the boundaries of the Outstanding Natural Area. 

The enabling legislation specifically authorizes cooperative agreements to facilitate the implementation of 

the approved management plan and to continue to build on the successful partnerships with local 

communities and other partners. It directs the Secretary of the Interior through BLM, in accordance with 

section 307(b) of the Federal Land Management Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1737(b)), to enter into cooperative agreements with the appropriate Federal, State, county, other local 

government agencies, and other partners (including the Loxahatchee River Historical Society) for the 

long-term management of the Outstanding Natural Area; 

The Federal land and any interests in the Federal land included in the Outstanding Natural Area are 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, 

and patent under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and 

the mineral materials laws; 

The management plan shall include objectives and provisions to ensure the protection and conservation of 

the resource values of the Outstanding Natural Area; 

Restoration of native plant communities and estuaries in the Outstanding Natural Area, with an emphasis 

on the conservation and enhancement of healthy, functioning ecological systems in perpetuity; 

Objectives and provisions to maintain or recreate historic structures; 

An implementation plan for a program of interpretation and public education about the natural and 

cultural resources of the Lighthouse, the public land surrounding the Lighthouse, and associated 

structures; 

A proposal for administrative and public facilities to be developed or improved that are compatible with 

achieving the resource objectives for the Outstanding Natural Area and would accommodate visitors to 

the Outstanding Natural Area; 

Natural and cultural resource management strategies for the Outstanding Natural Area, to be developed in 

consultation with appropriate departments of the State, the Local Partners, and the Commandant, with an 

emphasis on resource conservation in the Outstanding Natural Area and the interpretive, educational, and 

long-term scientific uses of the resources; 

Recreational use strategies for the Outstanding Natural Area, to be prepared in consultation with the Local 

Partners, appropriate departments of the State, and the Coast Guard, with an emphasis on passive 

recreation. 

b. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agenciesuse their legal authorities to promote the 

conservation purposes of the ESA and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, to ensure that effects of actions they authorize, fund, or carry 

out will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely affect designated critical habitat. 
7 

c. National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of this act requires Federal agencies to review all actions which may affect a property listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places, or which may affect a property eligible for listing. 

d. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) 

For activities on Federal lands, NAGPRA requires consultation with "appropriate" Indian tribes to the intentional 

excavation, or removal after inadvertent discovery, of several kinds of cultural items, including human remains 

and objects of cultural patrimony. 

e. Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) 

For activities on Federal or Indian lands, ARPA prohibits unauthorized excavation, establishes standards for 

permissible excavation, requires agencies to identify archeological sites, and encourages cooperation between 

Federal agencies and private individuals. 

f. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 

Archaeological and Historic preservation statutes where any Federal or federally assisted or licensed project, 

activity, or program is involved and to protect and preserved in the public interest. 

g. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into 

their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and 

reasonable alternatives to those actions. 

h. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

This law established public land policy, guidelines for its administration, and provides for the management, 

protection, development, and enhancement of the public lands; and for other purposes. 

i. The Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements 

Commonly referred to as the Wyden Amendment, this legislation gives BLM the authority to use appropriated 

funds to enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, tribal, State and local governments, 

private and nonprofit entities, and landowners on projects that protect, restore, and enhance habitat or other 

resources, or that reduce risk from natural disaster where public safety is an concern, including those lands outside 

of the public domain. 

j. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 – Section 307 

This Act deals mainly with the coastal management plans developed by States and subsequently approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce. Public domain lands are specifically excluded from the operation of the Act because the 

Act’s definition of “coastal zone” excludes land with Federal jurisdiction. However, Section 307 (c)(1)(A) of the 

Act states: 
8 

 “Each Federal agency activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or 

natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved State management programs...” 

4. Other Plans, Programs and Initiatives 

The following non-BLM plans and initiatives have the potential to affect management of the Outstanding Natural 

Area and/or could be supported by future management actions taken within the Outstanding Natural Area. 

a. Loxahatchee River Preservation Initiative 

This project is the outgrowth of the watershed management effort that was spearheaded by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection in 1996. Annually the initiative identifies several key projects that are 

critical in preserving the long-term health of the Loxahatchee River. Projects include urban storm water 

improvements and the restoration of other tributaries and the estuarine potions of the river. The BLM and Palm 

Beach County Environmental Resources Management serve on the Council. 

b. Loxahatchee River Management Coordinating Council 

The Loxahatchee River Management Coordinating Council is comprised of federal, state, and regional agencies 

and local representatives. It advises the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida 

Water Management District on matters that affect administration of the Loxahatchee River National Wild and 

Scenic River, to identify and resolve inter-governmental coordination problems and to enhance communications. 

Furthermore, the Council is responsible for the development of the Loxahatchee River National Wild and Scenic 

River Management Plan. 

c. Indian River Lagoon Initiative 

The Indian River Lagoon borders the eastern boundary of the ONA and stretches 156 miles north across three 

inter-connected estuaries along Florida’s central east coast from Jupiter Inlet to Ponce Inlet. It has national 

significance as one of the more biologically diverse estuaries in North America with over 3,000 plant and animal 

species recorded. The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program is one of 28 National Estuary Programs, 

and was established in 1990 through the Environmental Protection Agency’s designation of the Indian River 

Lagoon as an “estuary of national significance” in response to the nomination forwarded to the agency by 

Florida’s Governor. The initial comprehensive management plan was written in 1996. The draft Indian River 

Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update released in 2008 outlines the following 

goals: 

 Goal 1: To attain and maintain water and sediment of sufficient quality to support a healthy estuarine 

lagoon ecosystem; 

 Goal 2: To attain and maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem which supports endangered and 

threatened species, fisheries, commerce, and recreation; 

 Goal 3: To achieve heightened public awareness and coordinated interagency management of the Indian 

River Lagoon ecosystem. 

 Goal 4: To identify and develop long-term funding sources for prioritized projects and programs to 

preserve, protect, restore and enhance the Indian River Lagoon system. 
9 

d. Indian River Aquatic Preserve (Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve) 

The Indian River - Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce Aquatic Preserve and Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve 

are part of southeast Florida’s Indian River Lagoon (IRL). The Indian River Lagoon is an extensive ecosystem 

spanning two biogeographic zones characterized by diverse land and water body formations. The lagoon is 

bordered mostly by intertidal mangrove fringes and salt marshes that are periodically sectioned by man-made 

mosquito impoundments and residential development. Much of its open waters are dotted by oyster bars, clam 

beds and spoil islands. The submerged lands are a mosaic of seagrass and algae beds, bare sandy areas, and deep 

water sites. All of these features combine to create the most diverse (species-rich) and productive estuary in North 

America. 

d. Loxahatchee River – Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve 

This state designated Aquatic Preserve is located immediately west of the ONA and encompasses 9,000 acres of 

submerged State owned lands. The Preserve includes three forks of the Loxahatchee River: North, Northwest, 

and Southwest (C-18). These three freshwater tributaries drain into the Loxahatchee River Estuary, which opens 

easterly to the Indian River Lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean. Lake Worth Creek lies south of the estuary. The 

Preserve is divided into two sections: the Wilderness and Urban Preserves. The Wilderness Preserve (National 

Wild and Scenic River portion) is upstream of river mile 5.5 along the Northwest Fork and is managed by 

maintaining the existing wilderness (animals and plants) condition. The remainder of the preserve, a designated 

Urban Preserve, is managed by restoring and enhancing the natural condition of the resources. 

5. Local Land Use Designation and Zoning 

The current Land Use for the ONA within the Town of Jupiter is Public/Institutional. While the Town's current 

zoning for the site is "Rural Residential", the Town intends to change it to "Public/Institutional" to be consistent 

with the Land Use. For the northern portion of the ONA within the Village of Tequesta, the area is zoned as 

“Recreation/Open Space”. The eastern shoreline within the Jupiter Inlet Colony is zoned Conservation. The 

surrounding areas are zoned residential and commercial. 

C. Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA Partners and Current Uses 

 1. Administrative Responsibilities 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area is unique in the collaborative nature of its administration. 

In addition to BLM, the Consolidated Resources Act (PL-110-229) identifies five entities as partners within the 

ONA. These include: the U.S. Coast Guard, Palm Beach County, the Town of Jupiter, the Village of Tequesta 

and the Loxahatchee River Historical Society (LRHS). The BLM and these partners are known collectively as the 

Jupiter Inlet Working Group. An additional entity, the Jupiter High School Environmental Research and Field 

Studies Academy, participates in the Working Group because of the key role they play in connecting the site to 

the local community. The Jupiter Inlet Colony has also been invited to participate as a member of the Working 

Group. 

a. U.S. Coast Guard 

The U.S. Coast Guard retains 45.60 acres of public domain land through withdrawal within the ONA. This 

includes 40.71 acres south of County Road 707 currently used for Coast Guard family housing, ancillary support 

and a post exchange. There are eleven houses in this area, plus a work shop and small garage. North of County 

Road 707, the Coast Guard retains 4.89 acres which is currently used for a high frequency radio tower, a remote 

location servicing Coast Guard installations in Miami and the Keys. ONA activities on lands retained by the U.S. 
10 

Coast Guard are generally handled under a special license administered out of the Civil Engineering Unit, Miami, 

Florida. Ongoing work is coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard Station Lake Worth commanding officer and his 

staff. 

b. Palm Beach County 

The County’s Department of Environmental Resources Management (ERM) has worked collaboratively at Jupiter 

Inlet with BLM on management of BLM-administered lands within the ONA since 1996 with ERM acting as the 

onsite manager through a series of cooperative agreements. The site is included in the County’s system of 35 

Natural Areas which are managed to preserve the rare and diverse native ecosystems, and the endangered, 

threatened, and rare species of plants and animals they support. ERM’s involvement has included invasive species 

control, implementation of the prescribed burn program, and habitat restoration and enhancement projects. In 

addition, they provide technical support in other areas of the ONA related to natural resource management. 

c. Town of Jupiter 

The Town of Jupiter received a Recreation and Public Purposes Act lease from BLM on November 23, 1998 

covering the 26.35 acres of Lighthouse Park and 8.55 acres of adjacent land. This was followed by a Recreation 

and Public Use Patent for 17.8 acres presented to the Town of Jupiter by the Secretary of the Interior on October 

20, 2004. The 8.55 acres included in the original R&PP lease was returned to BLM management for 

incorporation into the Jupiter Inlet Natural Area because of its high resource values. The current ball fields are 

used primarily for the city sponsored youth soccer program. There are also tennis courts, pavilion, and parking 

available to the public within the park. The former naval married officer’s housing (Station J Building) now 

houses the Loxahatchee River Historical Society’s Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Museum. 

d. Village of Tequesta 

The area of the ONA north of County Road 707 is within the incorporated limits of the Village of Tequesta. The 

Village’s management responsibilities have included personnel and equipment support during prescribed burns, 

support of volunteer events such as National Public Lands Day, and maintenance of the landscaping within the 

County Road 707 and U.S. 1 rights-of-way. 

e. Jupiter Inlet Colony

The eastern shoreline south of County Road 707 is within the incorporated municipal limits of the Jupiter Inlet 

Colony. 

f. Loxahatchee River Historical Society 

The Historical Society leases the Station J Building from the Town of Jupiter for the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse 

Museum. The Historical Society also has a thirty-year lease from the U.S. Coast Guard issued in April 1994 

which authorizes Historical Society to conduct guided tours of the lighthouse, as well as restore, rehabilitate, 

maintain and preserve historically significant structures, as approved by the Florida Historical Preservation 

Officer. The lease was modified on September 19, 2006 to include the relocation of the 1892 George Washington 

Tindall Pioneer House and the lease was expanded to include the “Lighthouse Keeper’s Workshop” located near 

the base of the lighthouse, and the maintenance of the grounds associated with these historic structures. 

g. Jupiter High School Environmental Research and Field Studies Academy 

The ONA has served as an outdoor classroom for the Jupiter High School Environmental Research and Field 

Studies Academy since 1996. The ONA is a designated “Hands on the Land” site, a Department of the Interior 
11 

program which links similar outdoor classrooms across the nation to share information about their local 

ecosystems; as well as creative teaching strategies. The program provides students with a site to practice field 

skills and test project designs in a realistic setting. Class instruction and more in-depth senior projects have 

included monitoring efforts in post-burn areas and in the constructed tidal wetlands. The students have been 

involved in building and testing custom nets for sampling the lagoon fisheries, and in designing a protocol for 

quantifying sand pine regeneration in two burn plots. They have established photo plots for both burn plots, as 

well as vegetation transect data. 

In addition, Jupiter High School Environmental Research and Field Studies Academy (JERFSA) students 

participate in “Enviroservice” an environmental community service program for sophomores. Students contribute 

over 200 hours of environmental community service doing exotic plant removal, habitat restoration, water quality 

monitoring, fish population surveys, native nursery upkeep, plant surveys and the always-needed litter removal 

and general maintenance of local natural areas as part of their academic learning. 

Figure 3. ERFSA students monitoring fish populations in the Jupiter Inlet tidal lagoon. 
12 

2. Key Dates Related to the Public Domain at Jupiter Inlet 

The following are some of the key dates in the history of these public domain lands, which were originally ceded 

to the United States from Spain on February 22, 1819 under the Onís-Adams Treaty of 1819, ratified by the 

United States in 1821 (also referred to as the Transcontinental Treaty). 

October 22, 1854 – Sixty-one acres of the Jupiter Inlet tract were withdrawn from the Fort Jupiter reservation for 

lighthouse purposes by Executive Order dated October 22, 1854. Although delays in construction occurred due to 

the Seminole wars, construction of the lighthouse was completed in 1859. The light was first lighted on July 10, 

1860. However, the light mechanism was taken by Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. The light was 

relighted on June 28, 1866 (DuBois 1960). In 1973, the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse was placed on the National 

Register of Historic Places (Weed et al. 1982:52). 

1905 - The U. S. Navy acquired approximately 5.4 acres in 1905 for a wireless station (Weed et al. 1982:44). 

These holdings were later increased (Kennedy et al. 1995:44). 

1928 - The U. S. Navy formally requested transfer of properties within the Lighthouse Station to its jurisdiction. 

This included an additional 60.45 acres withdrawn by Executive Order Number 4254 dated June 12, 1925, 

bringing the total to 121.95 acres 

1939 - Jurisdiction over the entire lighthouse reservation was transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard. During World 

War II, both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard constructed additional buildings at various locations on the 

tract. The U.S. Navy had terminated its lease by the mid-1960s (Kennedy et al. 1995:45). 

1951-1987 - The U. S. Air Force leased approximately 30 acres in the northern part of the Jupiter Inlet tract. All 

buildings or remains of buildings in this area post-date 1956. This part of the tract has been extensively disturbed. 

In addition, most of the original structures, dating from the 1950s, have been removed (Weed et al. 1982:58). 

September 11, 1989 - U.S. Coast Guard notified the BLM that portions of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Station 

were no longer needed and that a board of survey was being initiated to excess 80.68 acres of the property. 

July 12, 1996 - Public Land Order No. 7202 partially revoked the reservation and 80.68 acres were relinquished 

to BLM. The U.S. Coast Guard retained 45.60 acres, which included installation housing, a post exchange, the 

lighthouse and associated buildings on the south side of County Road 707, and a 4.89 acre communication site on 

the north side. 

November 23, 1998 – The BLM issued a Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lease to the Town of Jupiter for 

Jupiter Lighthouse Park (26.35 acres). This was subsequently followed up with a Recreation and Public Use 

patent presented to the Town of Jupiter by the Secretary of the Interior on October 20, 2004 for 17.8 acres, with 

8.55 acres originally included in the lease returning to BLM management. 

May 8, 2008 - Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area was designated as a unit of BLM’s National 

Landscape Conservation Area in Section 202 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act (PL-110-229). The 

pertinent portion of the Act is provided in Appendix A. PL-110-229 states that any public domain no longer 

needed within the ONA by the U.S. Coast Guard will be returned to the Secretary of the Interior subject only to 

any environmental remediation that may be required by law. 
13 

D. Resources in the Outstanding Natural Area 

1. Physical Resources 

a. Topography 

The ONA is located on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, the remains of an ancient coastal dune system formed 

during the Pleistocene era. These low ridges stretch north along the eastern coast of Florida into Georgia. 

Within the ONA elevations range from sea level along the Loxahatchee and Indian River Lagoon to 31.4 

feet at the crest before falling back to 9 feet near the corner of County Road 707 and U.S. Highway 1on 

the western boundary. The top of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse mound stands at almost 60 feet, making it 

one of the highest points in this area of south Florida. In the southeast corner of the ONA, a 20-foot tall 

bluff stands along the bank of the Indian River in an area that has been progressively widened to 

accommodate boat traffic and, ultimately, the Intracoastal Waterway. Historically the inlet at Jupiter 

was only intermittently open to the sea. Between 1913 and 1922 the inlet was relocated approximately 

1,250 feet north to its present location, but it closed again from 1942 to 1947. Since 1947, biennial 

maintenance dredging has kept the inlet open for small-craft navigation. The ONA includes nearly a mile 

of shoreline along the banks of the Loxahatchee and Indian Rivers, which comprise the eastern and 

southern boundaries of the ONA. 

b. Air Quality 

Air quality in Palm Beach County is generally good. According to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Quality an average of 87.8 days per year were within the Good category for ozone, 

particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide during 2005 – 2007. During this 

time air quality was considered Moderate for an average of 11.7, and only 0.8 days of Unhealthy for 

Sensitive Groups were recorded in 2006 and 2007. 

c. Climate 

South Florida has a marked wet season from May through October and a dry season from November 

through April. The mean annual rainfall pattern averages 45-55 inches. The seasonality of the rainfall 

and high evaporation rates plays an important role in the ecosystems of the region. Because the 

abundant rainfall continuously leaches and translocates soluble minerals, most of the mineral soils 

contain only small amounts of organic matter and soluble plant nutrients. High percolation rates in these 

deep sands result in an arid conditions despite the high precipitation. 

The Atlantic hurricane season stretches from June 1 through November 30 according to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Jupiter’s coastal location is vulnerable to high winds and 

storm surges from the adjacent inlet. The site has been hit by several major hurricanes in the last 

hundred years. Jupiter was narrowly missed by the Great Miami Hurricane of September 1926, but two 

years later was hit hard when the eye of the Great Okeechobee/San Felipe Hurricane passed between 

Jupiter and Boca Raton on September 16, 1928 creating 10 foot storm surges with waves likely as high 

as 20 feet. Even more devastating, however, forty miles west of Jupiter, heavy rains filled Lake 

Okeechobee to the brim and the dikes crumbled, flooding the surrounding area in 6 to 9 feet of water. 

Almost 2,000 people, most African American agricultural workers, perished as a result of this storm. 

During the 2004 hurricane season, Jupiter experienced almost direct hits from Hurricane Frances, which 

made landfall at Stuart just twenty miles to the north as a Category 2 hurricane on September 5, 2004. 
14 

Three weeks later, on September 26, 2004, Hurricane Jeanne made landfall at almost the same location 

as a Category 3 hurricane. Just over a year later, on October 24, 2005, Jupiter received a direct hit from 

Hurricane Wilma a large Category 2 hurricane which crossed over the Florida peninsula from the west. 

In addition to the tremendous impacts on the residents of South Florida, these hurricanes are a major 

force in shaping the natural landscape. Therecent series of hurricanes decimated the remaining mature 

sand pines within the ONA, and the heavy seas undercut the banks along the Loxahatchee River and 

exacerbated erosion along the Indian River Lagoon. The shorelines continue to be vulnerable to storm 

damage. 

Figure 4. Sand pine snapped during 2004 hurricanes. 
15 
16 

 d. Soils 

Soils have been mapped according to the Palm Beach County soil map provided on-line by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. This soil map is used for a general 

soil overview of the ONA. Brown et. al (1990) urged caution when using soil maps in general because 

even at the county level soil properties are highly variable across the landscape. In addition, past 

disturbances can alter the native soils, for example the deposition of dredged spoil materials from the 

adjacent Intracoastal Waterway. 

Almost 89 acres or 74% of the ONA are mapped as St. Lucie-Urban land-Paola Association, which is 

described as nearly level to sloping, excessively drained soils that are sandy throughout. 

The St. Lucie series is excessively drained, deep sandy soils on long, narrow, dune-like ridges and 

isolated knolls near the Atlantic coast. They formed in thick beds of marine or eolian sand. The water 

table is below a depth of 6 feet. These white sands extend to a depth of 80 inches or more. Permeability 

is very rapid. The available water capacity, the organic content, and natural fertility are very low in all 

layers. Although mapped as an Urban Land association, the native vegetation within the series are 

typical scrub species including sand pine (Pinus clausa), scrub oak (Quercus spp.), saw palmetto 

(Serenoa repens), cacti, and lichens. 

According to the 1978 Soil Survey of Palm Beach Area, Florida (SCC) Paola sands occur on the lower 

slopes in Lot 15. These soils are also excessively drained, deep, sandy soils with origins similar to St. 

Lucie discussed above. These soils have a layer of yellow sands 4 inches thick beginning at a depth of 

21 inches, which is transitional to the sandy subsoils to a depth of 80 inches or more. Again, 

permeability is very rapid, and the available holding water capacity, organic content, and natural fertility 

are very low. 

Almost 26 acres or 21% of the ONA is mapped as a Quartzipsamments soil. This is not a naturally 

occurring soil type, but rather represents deposited dredged material primarily from the adjacent 

Intracoastal Waterway. 

Just over 5 acres or .04% of the ONA is mapped as Kesson Mucky Sand. These soils are located in the 

very northeastern corner of the tract along the Indian River Lagoon. The Kesson series consists of deep, 

very poorly drained, rapid to moderately rapid permeable soils that formed in thick marine deposits of 

sand and shell fragments in tidal swamps and marshes along the Gulf Coast of Peninsular Florida. Slopes 

range from 0 to 1 percent. This includes soils flooded by salt or brackish water during high tides. Shell 

fragments constitute up to 10 per cent of the subsurface layer in some places. Natural fertility is low. 

This series was formerly mapped as tidal swamp and typically these areas support mangrove swamps, 

including red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). 

The majority of soil deposition related to the adjacent Intracoastal Waterway was placed on Jupiter 

Island (Raymond Swanson, personal communication). If there was spoil material placed in the southern 

portion of the ONA, it seems to have been minor. Based on a 2006 survey and four soil borings, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service reported that the soils south of County Road 707 were 

“predominately natural..., and do not need to be truncated or reshaped.” “Soil surfaces have seen some 

heavy equipment and there are some minor disturbances possible due to tractor tires and leveling, but 

nothing that will alter the interpretations, or management of these soils.” According to NRCS, “some 

ridges were cut down and some material was spread over lower areas. This is of a minor extent and 

should not be confused with fill from construction or other unnatural sources, being brought in.” 
17 
18 

e. Hydrology 

The site is within the Loxahatchee River drainage basin, which presently covers an area of 

approximately 240 square miles. The basin consists of 12 drainage basins, ranging in size from 5 square 

miles to 100 square miles. The drainage basins form three watersheds, each forming a branch, or fork, 

of the river. The forks merge in a large estuary that drains through Jupiter Inlet to the Atlantic 

(SFWMD, 2006). All of the portions of the Loxahatchee River and the Indian River Lagoon adjacent to 

the ONA are tidally influenced. There are no permanent freshwater sources within the ONA, although a 

historic well has been located southeast of the lighthouse under the lighthouse keeper’s workshop. 

A tidal lagoon was constructed in Lot 15 along the Indian River Lagoon in 1999-2000. Its main outlet is 

a rock lined entrance in the middle of the project. There is also an outlet via an old mosquito ditch 

incorporated at the northern edge of the project, and tidal exchange through the existing mangrove fringe 

in the northern portion of the tidal lagoon and the Indian River Lagoon 

f. Fire History 

There are no available records of the fire history at Jupiter Inlet prior to 1941 but, based on aerial 

photographs taken intermittently since that year, there is no evidence of major fires within the ONA 

since that date. The lack of fire during this time is supported by the relatively even ages of mature sand 

pine which, based on sample coring done in 1996, were between 40 to 60 years of age at that time. By 

the mid-1990’s the mature sand pine were beginning to show signs of senesce with increasing numbers 

succumbing to wind and drought stress. 

The initial Jupiter Inlet management plan included a prescribed 

fire program to reintroduce fire as a tool to manage scrub 

habitats at Jupiter Inlet. Sand pine scrub is adapted to 

infrequent, catastrophic crown fires that typically result in 

complete stand replacement every 20-80 years. At Jupiter 

Inlet the prescribed fire program was designed to 

incrementally burn small 5-6 acre blocks to reduce the existing 

hazardous fuel load and to improve habitat conditions for the 

host of endemic species that require more open scrub 

conditions. 

Since 1998, there have been three prescribed burns conducted 

in scrub habitat north of County Road 707. The first burn (5.3 

acres in Prescribed Burn Management Block 1) was 

predominately scrub oak with a scattered mature sand pine. 

This block was pre-treated by chopping the standing scrub oak 

to reduce the spotting potential and flame heights, and was 

successfully burned on May 14, 1998. 

The second burn (5.8 acres in Prescribed Burn Management 

Block 2) had a mature sand pine canopy with a heavily shaded 

understory of scrub oaks and very few forbs. The sand pines 

in this area were mechanically cleared in September 2001 

using a feller buncher. All fuels over 4 inches were removed 

from the site to reduce the fuel load and spotting potential. The 

burn was postponed until February 11, 2002, when wind 

direction conditions finally came into prescription. 

Figure 5. Feller buncher cuts and removes 

sand pine prior to 2002 prescribed burn. 
19 

 

In September 2004 the remaining unburned sand pine scrub was heavily impacted by Hurricanes Frances 

and Jeanne. Over 90% of the remaining mature sand pine were killed by wind damage or died in the 

following months due to storm related stresses. Several hundred wind damaged trees were felled in 

November 2004 to hasten decomposition, and 17 tons of heavy fuels were removed from a 150-foot strip 

along the northern boundary of the ONA to provide a fire break for nearby homes and businesses. 

 In 2005, a third burn site was prepared along County Road 707 (6. 0 acres in Prescribed Burn Block 5). 

Larger down or standing logs were removed from the site to reduce the hazardous fuel load, but 

conditions for burning the remaining slash did not come into prescription until January 30, 2008 when 

this third burn was completed. 

These three burns have totaled 17.3 acres or 34 percent of the 51 acres of the intact scrub acreage within 

the ONA. 

In July 2010, most of the remaining sand pine snags from the 2004-2005 hurricanes were removed from 

Lot 19 to reduce the fuel load. The snags were removed by hand to avoid impacts to perforate lichen. 

The chipped material was mulched and provided for use in planting beds around the lighthouse. 

Figure 6. Smoke column during 2008 prescribed burn in Block 5 north of County Road 707.
20 
21 

2. Natural Resources 

a. Vegetation 

The natural habitats found within the ONA are predominately Florida scrub, including oak scrub and 

sand pine scrub, a fringe of mangrove swamp along the Indian River Lagoon and tropical hardwood 

hammock along the transition zone between these habitats. In addition, there are areas dominated by 

non-native invasive species and maintained landscapes. 

Scrub – There are 51 acres of intact Florida xeric oak scrub and sand pine scrub within the ONA. Scrub 

communities are associated with ancient coastal dunes formed along Pleistocene era seas. Remnants of 

these dunes form the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and the even older interior Lake Wales ridge. Because 

these ancient dunes occupied some of the highest and driest areas along the coast, they were among the 

first to be developed. As some of the oldest habitats in the state, scrub habitats support a high proportion 

of endemics. This coupled with the high rate of loss of scrub habitats has resulted in these areas 

supporting a relatively high number of special status species. According to the Florida Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (2007), the state-wide threat category is Very High with the primary stresses 

being fragmentation and insufficient size of remaining scrub tracts. Within the State of Florida 76% of 

scrub acreage (257,015 acres) is in existing protected or managed areas. Another 3% (11,311 acres) are 

in Florida Forever projects, while 4% (14,031 acres) are in Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas 

(SHCA). The remaining 16% (55,101 acres) are other private lands. 

Scrub habitats are fire-dependent and adapted to infrequent but intense fires. In the prolonged absence of 

fire, the structure and species composition of a scrub community can gradually change, often resulting in 

the succession to xeric hammock (FNAI and FDNR 1990). Alternately, where sand pines are abundant 

in the canopy, a dense sand pine forest may develop and shade out most of the other species that are 

typical of scrub (Fernald 1989). Regular fires occurring at intervals of every 20-80 years may return 

stands of mature scrub to a younger, more open state (FNAI and FDNR 1990). Periodic fire is one of the 

physical disturbances that may maintain the areas of open sand that characterizes typical scrub. Fire is 

probably necessary for the growth and proliferation of many of the rare and/or endemic species 

associated with scrub communities in Florida. In coastal scrubs hurricanes may also be responsible for 

maintaining scrub characteristics such as the periodic removal of the mature sand pine canopy. 

Figure 7. Saw palmetto 
22 

The density of sand pine within a scrub canopy is often a reflection of fire frequency. Individual sand 

pines are killed by fire, and the stand is replaced by new sand pines growing from seeds. Sand pines 

generally begin to produce cones at about 10 years of age (Austin 1976) and frequent fires reduce the 

capacity of sand pines to become reestablished. Conversely, long term fire exclusion may also lead to 

the elimination of sand pines. Myers (1990) estimated that sand pine stands may begin to break up after 

50-70 years, and that individual trees rarely reach 100 years of age. Without fire to create the bare soil 

seed beds and temporarily remove the competing canopy, sand pine regeneration is limited. Florida 

rosemary, like sand pine, succumbs to fire and is regenerated after burns by seeds stored in the soil. 

Most scrub shrubs resprout quickly from root stock, and many flower and fruit more prolifically 

following a fire. Many of the most rare scrub plants are dependent on the openings in the sand pine and 

scrub oak canopy created by fire. 

Tropical Hardwood Hammock – There are 5.3 acres of intact tropical hardwood hammock within the 

ONA, located generally west and upland of the mangrove swamp. These hardwood forests occur only in 

south Florida and are characterized by tree and shrub species on the northern edge of a range that 

extends southward into the Caribbean. These communities are sparsely distributed along coastal uplands 

south of a line from about Vero Beach on the Atlantic coast to Sarasota on the Gulf coast. They occur on 

many tree islands in the Everglades and on uplands throughout the Florida Keys. This is a cold-intolerant 

tropical community which has very high plant species diversity, sometimes containing over 35 species of 

trees and about 65 species of shrubs. Characteristic tropical plants include strangler fig, gumbo-limbo, 

mastic, bustic, lancewood, ironwoods, poisonwood, pigeon plum, Jamaica dogwood, and Bahama 

lysiloma. Live oak and cabbage palm are also sometimes found within this community. 

According to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2007) tropical hardwood hammocks’ 

conditions in the state are poor and declining. According to the best available GIS information at the 

time, 15,232 acres (6,164 ha) of Tropical Hardwood Hammock habitat exist, of which 71% (10,867 ac; 

4,398 ha) are in existing conservation or managed areas. Another 10% (1,470 ac; 595 ha) are Florida 

Forever projects and 5% (783 ac; 317 ha) are SHCA-identified lands. The remaining 14% (2,112 ac; 855 

ha) are other private lands. The state-wide threat category is High with the primary stresses including 

incompatible residential activities that include movement of fertilizer, herbicide, and invasive species 

from landscape maintenance, activities of people, their pets, and nuisance species, and disposal of yard 

and household waste. Feral or pet cats and roof rats were specifically identified as threatening species of 

conservation concern in this habitat. 
23 

Mangrove Swamp – There are 5.9 acres of intact mangrove habitat within the ONA. Mangroves form 

dense stands along the Indian River Lagoon north of County Road 707 and surround the tidal wetland 

constructed in 2000. These brackish-water swamps occur along low-energy shorelines and in protected, 

tidally influenced bays of southern Florida. This community type is composed of freeze sensitive tree 

species. With some limited exceptions, mangroves are distributed south of Cedar Key on the Gulf coast 

and south of St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast. These swamp communities are usually composed of red 

mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove. Depending on slopes and amounts of disturbance, 

mangrove swamps may progress in zones of single species from seaward (red mangrove) to landward 

(white mangrove) areas. Buttonwoods usually occur in areas above high tide. Often vines, such as rubber 

vines and morning-glory, clamber over mangroves, especially at swamp edges. According to the best 

available GIS information at the time 588,434 acres (238,131 ha) of Mangrove Swamp habitat exist, of 

which 88% (515,783 ac; 208,730ha) are in existing conservation or managed areas. Another 2% (10,376 

ac; 4,199 ha) are in Florida Forever projects and 3% (16,997 ac; 6,878 ha) are in SHCA-designated 

lands. The remaining 7% (45,278 ac; 18,323 ha) are in other private lands. The state-wide threat 

category is Very High with the primary habitat specific stresses being reduction in freshwater flows from 

dam operations, lack of tidal fluctuation caused by mosquito impoundments, loss of mangroves from 

inappropriate pruning by coastal property owners, and coastal development. 

Figure 8. Planted mangroves surround tidal wetland two years after tidal lagoon was completed in 2000. 
24 

Disturbed Habitats - Approximately 23 acres located primarily in Lot 17 are mapped as Disturbed 

Habitat because of the dominance of invasive plant species, primarily Brazilian pepper (Schinus 

terebinthifolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). The understory, and particularly the area 

along the western border along the Coast Guard housing, supports most of the exotic, invasive species 

known to occur at the site (see Appendix C, Master Species List). Dense stand of bowstring hemp 

(Sansevieria hyacinthoides) pose a particular management challenge in areas of know cultural 

sensitivity. The most effective removal technique is to pull or dig out the robust rhizomes which can 

damage or displace artifacts near the surface. Outside of the developed Lighthouse Park, Lot 17 and the 

Jupiter Lighthouse mound support the most extensive areas of invasive plants remaining in the ONA. 

There are vestiges of the native vegetation. Wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa) is relatively common in 

the understory and gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba) and strangler fig (Ficus aurea) are scattered 

through the eastern portion of the lot. There are two areas of scrub, covering approximately 3 acres, 

remaining in the upland areas, including a relatively intact area with open sand and scrub endemics, 

including state-listed nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua). 

Figure 9. Mulching Brazilian pepper as part of exotic removal program.
25 
26 

b. Wildlife 

Despite its urban setting, the 120 acres of the ONA provide habitat for a relatively wide array of wildlife 

species. See Appendix B. for a complete species list. 

Mammals - Mammals recorded on site include gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx 

rufus), and river otter (Lutra canadensis). Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and opossum (Didelphis 

virginiana) are common, and raccoon (Procyon lotor) numbers are likely artificially high because of the 

availability of urban food sources. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were seen onsite 

occasionally during the mid-1990s and tracks were recently observed again in April 2009, but use is 

expected to be sporadic at best. 

Reptiles/Amphibians - Common native reptile species include southern black racer snake (Coluber 

constrictor), coachwhip snake (Masticophis flagellum), six-lined racerunner lizard (Cnemidophorus 

sexlineatus), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Non-native 

species found on site include the brown anole (Anolis sagrei), northern curly-tailed lizard (Leiocephalus 

carinatus armouri), and fox gecko (Hemidactylus garnoti). These are discussed below under Non-native 

Wildlife Species. 

Birds – Eighty-eight bird species have been recorded at the ONA, and that list continues to be 

augmented by the diligent efforts of Dr. Jack Hailman and his wife Liz Hailman, ERM staff and others. 

Almost a quarter of the recorded species are associated with the mangrove tidal wetlands or shorelines of 

the Loxahatchee River or Indian River Lagoon, including Osprey, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, 

Reddish Egret, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron and Belted Kingfisher. Mottled Duck have nested within 

the ONA in native plantings along the bank of the Loxahatchee River. 

The resident birds associated with the upland habitats include Blue Jay, Fish Crow, Chuck-will’s-widow, 

Carolina Wren, Brown Thrasher and Northern Cardinal. Spring and fall migrants as well as winter 

visitors boost bird numbers and diversity, and include Yellow-rumped Warbler, Pine Warbler, Palm 

Warbler, Black and White Warbler, Northern Parula, and Painted Bunting. 

Birds recorded within the ONA that are included on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s list of Birds of 

Conservation Concern in this region include: Common Ground Dove, Chuck-wills-widow, Northern 

Loggerhead Shrike, Pine Warbler, and Painted Bunting. Bird species listed as Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need by the State of Florida include Florida Mottled Duck, Brown Pelican, Great White 

Heron, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, Tricolored Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Yellowcrowned Night Heron, White Ibis, Gray Kingbird, and Florida Prairie Warbler. 

Fish – Twenty-one species of fish have been recorded in the tidal lagoon since its construction in 2000 

by the Environmental Research and Field Studies Academy. The adjacent Indian River Lagoon, a 156-

mile estuary along Florida’s east coast, is perhaps the most biologically diverse estuarine system in the 

continental United States. According to the Final Indian River Lagoon-South Project Implementation 

Report and EIS Indian River Lagoon, Gilmore (1977, 1981) described over 800 species of fish collected 

in the southern IRL from the freshwater tributaries out to the deep reefs. Many of the fish spend part or 

all of their life in the estuary and include important recreational and commercial species such as the 

spotted seatrout, red drum, snook, tarpon, and gray snapper, and sheepshead. Mullet spend a majority of 

their life in the Indian River Lagoon and are an important forage fish for higher-level predators. 
27 

Insects/Arachnids

Although the ONA has not been systematically surveyed there have been a number of interesting insects 

and arachnids recorded at the site during field visits. One of these includes Aethecerinus hornii, 

identified by M.C. Thomas, Ph.D. of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Florida Department of 

Agriculture & Consumer Services. This species is typically found on decaying stumps and logs and was 

found a block burned one year previously. According to Dr. Thomas, this beetle is one of the rarest in 

Florida and likely a new record for Palm Beach County. A systematic survey of the site is warranted. 

c. Special Status Wildlife Species 

Three animal species recorded at the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA have been listed as Endangered (E) 

or Threatened (T) by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC). In addition, 15 other species are listed by either Florida Natural 

Areas Inventory (FNAI) as critically imperiled (S1), imperiled (S2), or rare (S3) in the state, or by FWC 

as a Species of Special Concern. 

Mammals 

Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) – This scrub endemic occurs in central Florida and along the east 

coast, with an isolated population in the Florida panhandle (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). It is most 

common in sand pine scrub and high pinelands dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), as well as 

scrubby flatwoods, sand hill and coastal scrub. This species is generally associated with gopher tortoise 

burrows (Cox et al. 1987). There was evidence that one individual was captured within the ONA in the 

oak scrub near the Intracoastal Waterway by Ecological Consultants in 1995. Retrapping of suitable 

open sand areas throughout the ONA was conducted over four days beginning on March 30, 2009. 

There were no Florida mouse captures after 523 trap nights1

. The Florida mouse is listed as G3/S3 by 

FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS; it is listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. 

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) - The Indian River Lagoon and Loxahatchee River bordering 

the ONA are designated critical habitat for West Indian manatee. Manatees are frequently observed in 

the area and have been documented within the constructed tidal lagoon north of County Road 707. The 

nearby Jupiter Sound has been identified as a seasonally important feeding area. The largest 

concentrations occur in October, December and January. The species ranges from North Carolina 

southward into the West Indies, and along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. Manatees are vegetarians 

and feed primarily on sea grasses. Repeated dredging and high boat traffic have prevented the 

establishment of any significant amount of sea grasses in the Intracoastal Waterway immediately 

adjacent to the ONA. Consequently, manatees primarily use the adjacent waters as a transit route 

between the Indian River and Lake Worth Lagoons. Manatee are protected by the Florida Manatee 

Sanctuary Act (§370.12(2), Florida Statutes) and are federally protected by both the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and Endangered Species Act and are listed as endangered by the USFWS. They are also 

protected by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978, which establishes the entire state as a refuge 

and sanctuary for manatees. The West Indian manatee is listed as G2/S2 by FNAI and is listed as 

Endangered by FWC. 

 

1

 trap nights equal the number of traps multiplied by the number of nights. 
28 

Birds 

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) – Brown Pelican frequently loaf and feed in the adjacent 

Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon. This species ranges from South America north to the south 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America. It is a Florida resident, and feeds on fish. In Florida, the 

brown pelican builds nests in colonies most often on mangrove islands surrounded by open water (Kale 

and Maehr, 1990). The ONA does not possess typical nesting habitat, i.e. appropriate mangrove islands. 

Historically the Brown Pelican suffered a decline due to insecticide uses. The brown pelican is listed as 

G4/S3 by FNAI and is listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. The Brown Pelican is considered 

recovered by the USFWS and was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife on November 17, 2009 (Federal Register 74:220, p. 59443). 

Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) - This wading bird is likely an occasional visitor to the tidal wetlands 

and adjacent shorelines where it forages for small fishes, crustaceans and insects, waiting motionless for 

an opportunity to strike. This species was nearly extirpated from the United States by the plume trade, is 

now recolonizing areas of former occurrence where nesting/foraging habitat still remains. Habitat loss 

and human disturbance are now the primary threats. Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data indicate declines 

in Texas, but increases in Florida. Reddish Egret is listed as G4/S2 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS; 

it is listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. 

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) – This wading bird has been observed feeding in the tidal wetland. Snowy 

Egrets are local residents feeding in many types of permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, 

streams, lakes, and swamps, and in manmade impoundments and ditches. They usually prefer calm 

waters. They have not been documented breeding within the ONA. According to FNAI, numbers have 

been declining since the 1950s, possibly faster than declines of other herons and egrets. In 1989, this 

species was found in only 22 percent of the colonies where it formerly occurred. Persistent patterns of 

wetland destruction and alteration are probably eliminating large areas of essential habitat. Most impacts 

appear to affect quality of foraging habitat rather than areas immediately surrounding nesting colonies. 

Figure 10. Reddish Egret
29 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental 

Protection have developed setback distances around wading bird colonies of 330 ft. (100 m) to prevent 

human disturbance. Snowy Egret is listed as G5/S3; it is not listed by USFWS; it is listed as a Species of 

Special Concern by FWC. 

Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) - This resident heron has been observed foraging 

along the shorelines of the ONA. This species is an opportunistic forager, feeding on primarily on fish, 

amphibians and invertebrates. Adults tend to be crepuscular, feeding during the evening or at night and 

roosting during the day, often in mangroves. Black-crowned Night Heron are listed as G5/S3 by FNAI; 

it is not listed by USFWS or FWC. 

Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) - This wading bird has been observed feeding in the tidal wetland. 

Little blue herons breed throughout much of North America, Mexico, and Central America and winter 

from North Carolina southward. It is a Florida resident, and feeds on small fish, amphibians, and 

invertebrates in both fresh and saltwater systems. Nesting occurs between late February and August in 

colonies composed only of little blue herons or mixed colonies with other wading birds, mainly at 

saltwater sites (Kale and Maehr, 1990). Kale and Maehr (1990) considered the general population trend 

of this species to be downward due to wetlands loss and, possibly, competition with the cattle egret 

(Bubulcus ibis) for nesting sites. The little blue heron is listed as G5/S4 by FNAI; it is not listed by 

USFWS; it is listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. 

Tri-colored Heron (Egretta tricolor) - This wading bird has been observed feeding in the tidal wetland. 

The tricolored heron breeds from North Carolina to the West Indies and Central America; it winters from 

California and South Carolina southward. It is a Florida resident, and feeds primarily on fish in saltwater 

marshes and swamps, and estuaries; it also feeds in freshwater wetlands. Platform nests are created in 

mangroves or other dense aquatic shrubs, and eggs are laid from late February through July (Kale and 

Maehr, 1990). Kale and Maehr (1990) considered this species to still be abundant throughout much of 

peninsular Florida, but suffering population declines due to wetland losses. The tricolored heron is listed 

as G5/S4 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS; it is listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. 

White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) – This resident wading bird is not known to breed on the site but forages 

along the shorelines, wetlands and park areas for primarily crustaceans, but also fishes, frogs, small 

snakes, slugs, snails, and insects. White Ibis is listed as G5/S4 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS; it is 

listed as a Species of Special Concern by FWC. 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) – This resident diurnal raptor feeds exclusively on fish and is common 

within the ONA, feeding in the tidal wetlands and adjacent waterways. Osprey are often found roosting 

in the taller mangroves and snags surrounding the tidal wetland. Ospreys typically build large stick nests 

both on living and dead trees, but also will use numerous man-made structures including telephone 

poles, wharf pilings, windmills, microwave towers, chimneys, and channel markers. Nesting typically 

occurs in winter and early spring in Florida and Mexico. The number of young successfully fledged 

increases with increased abundance of food resources, and large numbers may nest in a relatively small 

area when food resources are adequate and nesting sites are plentiful. Osprey nests are often used in 

successive years. Osprey is listed as G5/S3/S4 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS or FWC in Palm 

Beach County. 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) - This falcon is a winter visitor to south Florida, nesting in northern U.S. 

and Canada. Populations tend to be increasing after declines related to pesticide pollution, which is still 

an issue in South and Central America. In south Florida this species utilizes a wide range of habitats and 

could be expected to roost and forage across most of the ONA where it hunts predominately song birds. 

Merlin is listed as G5/S2 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS or FWC. 
30 

Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) – Although the ONA does not provide the open sandy beaches that provide 

typical nesting habitat for this species, Royal Tern could utilize the adjacent waterways to forage for 

small fish. Royal tern is listed as G5/S3 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS or FWC. 

Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) – Although not expected to nest within the ONA, the eastern 

population of painted buntings winters in southern Florida. Wintering Painted Buntings utilize a wide 

variety of habitats including shrub/scrub habitats and riparian thickets foraging for grass seeds and 

insects. Painted Bunting is listed as G5/S3 by FNAI; it is not listed by USFWS or FWC. 

Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) - The southern Florida population of Florida Scrub Jay has 

been in rapid decline and the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA scrub jay population has unfortunately 

followed that trend. In 1995 there were three Florida scrub jay families being monitored on the site 

(Iverson, unpublished data). The last pair, including a male banded as an adult on the site in 1992, was 

last seen in the spring of 2002 utilizing Lot 18 and 19. The presence of a scrub jay nest in Lot 19 in 

2003 provides evidence that this pair was still on the site that year, but jays have not occupied the site 

since. The reason for the decline is not known. The site continues to provide apparently suitable habitat 

and two of the burn areas have reached the optimal age and structure for scrub jays. Annual surveys 

during the breeding season continue on the site as part of the range wide volunteer “Jay Watch” program 

sponsored by The Nature Conservancy. 

In 2008, an epidemic resulted in documented losses of scrub jays at Archbold Biological Station and 

other areas of the state. Palm Beach County appears to have suffered dramatic declines. According to 

Jay Watch volunteers 2008 numbers in northern and mid-Palm Beach County were down to 11 

individuals, five families over five sites. In contrast, there were 122 birds recorded in this area in 1999 

and 144 in 1993. 

Figure 11. Banded Florida Scrub Jay.
31 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory recently developed 

Scrub Management Guidelines (FFWCC and FNAI, June 2009) as a basis for the restoration and 

management of scrub habitats in peninsular Florida (June 30, 2009). With the Florida scrub jay serving 

as the “umbrella species”, these management guidelines recommend actions that create a low, open 

structure that is favorable to scrub jays but also likely to benefit most other scrub-associate species, such 

as the Florida scrub lizard, Florida mouse, gopher tortoise, and a host of endemic plants and arthropods. 

The guidelines identify four primary indicators of optimal Florida Scrub-jay habitat: 1) at least 10% of 

each potential scrub-jay territory (25 acre unit) should have shrubs that average 4-5.5 feet high to 

provide cover and produce acorns. The rest of the vegetation should be shorter, with no more than 1 acre 

taller than 5.5 feet per unit, 2) If present at all, less than 1 tree per acre, 3) Maintain a 1,000 foot nonforested (<1 tree per acre) buffer between a scrub-jay territory and forest, and 4) 10-50% bare sand or 

sparse herbaceous vegetation. Currently, at least 20 acres within the ONA would be considered optimal 

habitat according to those guidelines, except that these scrub areas are all within 1,000 feet of areas with 

> 1 tree per acre on the western one third of the tract along U.S. Highway 1. Habitat conditions are 

generally more suitable for Florida Scrub-jay (i.e. shorter oak scrub, less sand pine coverage and fewer 

woody invasives) than in 1997, when the tract was supporting three scrub-jay families. The Florida 

Scrub Jay is listed as G2/S2 by FNAI and is listed as Threatened by both USFWS and FWC. 

Reptiles 

Eastern Indigo Snake ( Drymarchon corais couperi) – Although there are no confirmed sightings of 

eastern indigo snake in the ONA, it is nevertheless possible that that they could occur onsite, given that 

they are a commensal burrow species, a wide-ranging habitat generalist, are cryptic and not easily 

surveyed. 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) - The gopher tortoise population at Jupiter Inlet appears to be 

stable or increasing. Initial inventories of all suitable upland habitats in 1995 surveys identified 13 

active burrows, 30 abandoned burrows and 1 inactive burrow in Lot 15 and 19. Based on a standard Fish 

and Wildlife Commission formula2

, this indicates a population of 0.19 tortoises per acre. Subsequent 

tract-wide monitoring in 2005 located 35 active burrows, 98 abandoned burrows, and 58 inactive 

burrows, or an estimated 1.26 tortoise per acre. In 2007, based a representative survey of 9.83 acres or 

22% of the suitable upland habitat, the population was estimated to be 1.5 tortoises per acre. In 2009, a 

representative survey of 11.3 acres or 23% of the suitable habitat, the population was estimated at 1.7 

tortoises per acre. The FWC recommends no more than 2 tortoises per acre, so the Jupiter Inlet 

population is nearing carrying capacity. Habitat improvement in disturbed areas could support 

additional population growth in the scrub areas of Lot 17. 

The gopher tortoise is known as a keystone species in Florida natural areas because of the important role 

that this species plays in relation to other plants and animals in upland natural communities. At least 300 

species of animals are known to use gopher tortoise burrows (Moler 1992). Speake (1981) developed a 

list of 81 gopher tortoise burrow commensals. During monitoring efforts, no observations of Indigo 

snakes or gopher frogs have been made, but we will continue to make opportunistic observations for 

these and other commensal species. The gopher tortoise is listed as G3/S3 by FNAI; it is under Status 

Review by the USFWS; it is listed as Threatened by the FWC. 

Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) – This lizard is found in Florida scrub habitat in four disjunct 

populations in Florida. Scrub lizards have limited ability to move between scrub remnants because of 

their very specific habitat needs. Predation of females in these small populations may be an issue. Scrub 

 

2

 Tortoises per acre = (active + inactive) X 0.614 acres surveyed 
32 

lizards are largely restricted to evergreen oak scrub and young sand pine scrub with ample open space 

for nesting, basking, and foraging in close proximity to mature trees (Pinus or Quercus) that can provide 

shade and perch sites. Development of a closed canopy (e.g., in the absence of fire) results in 

increasingly unsuitable habitat. It never occurs in non-xeric sites. The species is mostly terrestrial but 

commonly perches low on tree trunks. The Florida scrub lizard prefers early successional scrub, where it 

feeds primarily on ants, adult beetles, and orthopterans (Jackson 1973b). It is listed as a common or 

characteristic species of coastal scrubs in the Treasure Coast Region by Fernald (1989). The Florida 

scrub lizard is listed as G3/S3 by FNAI, but it is not listed by USFWS or FWC. 

Fish 

Opossum Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus lineatus) – Although not technically occurring within the 

ONA, there is potential for this species to occur in the adjacent Indian River Lagoon and Loxahatchee 

River. 

d. Special Status Plant Species 

Nine plant species and one lichen have been recorded at the ONA and are listed by at least one of the 

following governmental agencies: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (FDACS); and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 

Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) - This endemic perennial 

forb is a long-lived perennial found almost exclusively in open 

white sandy patches in the sand pine scrub community and in the 

disturbed scrub edge community. Because of the small size and 

inconspicuous appearance of this plant when not in bloom (Ward 

1978); individuals in open sandy trails are often the only ones 

spotted, even though additional plants may be present in more 

vegetated areas. Management recommendations include 

maintaining open sandy habitats and by routing foot trails away 

from known plant locations. Curtiss’ milkweed is listed as 

endangered by FDACS. 

Four-petal pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) – This long-lived shrub is 

associated with scrub habitats and has a very limited distribution. 

According to the 5-year review for this species there are 

approximately 1,800 pawpaw plants located on 21 sites in 

Martin and northern Palm Beach Counties (FWS 2009b), 

although there is some discussion about the delineation of 

the populations. In all this species occurs across a 30-mile 

stretch of coastal scrub habitats in Martin and Palm Beach 

Counties, and with few populations containing 100 or more 

plants. One-third of the extant sites support 15 or fewer 

pawpaws (FWS 2009b). These small populations tend to lack 

genetic diversity and may not be self-sustaining over time 

(Ellstrand and Elam 1993). It is likely that these small populations 

are very. Most of these populations are thought to be 

reproductively isolated from each other, which could be limiting genetic diversity and recruitment, as out 

crossing is the primary breeding system for this species. Seedling recruitment is low or non-existent at 

most sites. The Jupiter Inlet population is typical in this regard with only 4 naturally occurring plants and 

Figure 12. Curtiss' milkweed
33 

no known recruitment in the last 15 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan outlines 

the need to introduce/augment populations of this species 

The Jupiter population was augmented in December 2008 when 134 one-year old four-petal pawpaw 

were planted north of County Road 707 in a management block burned in January 2008. These plants 

were provided with drip irrigation through the initial summer and fall, and are being monitored to assess 

their survivorship. Initial results were encouraging with 97% survival after four months, and five plants 

flowering and at least three fruiting the first summer. Future management recommendations include 

periodic burning to promote the robust growth and flowering needed to produce viable fruit, and 

additional planting. Four-petal pawpaw is listed as G1/S1 by FNAI and as endangered by both the 

USFWS and FDACS. 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) - Johnson's seagrass is a marine plant species found growing 

in lagoonal waters along approximately 200 km of coastline in southeastern Florida between Sebastian 

Inlet and north Biscayne Bay. The species often grows in a patchy, noncontiguous distribution at water 

depths extending from the intertidal down to 3 meters. Within its range, ten areas have been designated 

as critical habitat, including a portion of the Indian River Lagoon on the south side of Jupiter Inlet. 

Outside of critical habitat, a very small population occurs adjacent to the ONA in the Indian River 

Lagoon south of Cato Bridge. Johnson’s seagrass is listed as G2/S2 by FNAI and as endangered by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Marine Fisheries Service is the lead agency for this species. 

Perforate lichen (Cladonia perforata) - Florida Natural Inventory occurrence records, as of 2006, 

document 16 populations of this species in four separate populations in Florida, including Lake Wales 

Ridge, North Gulf Coast at Eglin Air Force Base, Manatee County on the west coast, and six sites in 

Martin and Palm Beach County (Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). The ONA is one of two populations 

Figure 13. Four-petal pawpaw Figure 15. Young four-petal pawpaw

planted in 2008.
34 

in Palm Beach County with the other population being at Jupiter Ridge Natural Area. This species 

grows slowly, branching once a year and reproduction appears to be primarily, if not exclusively 

vegetative with the thalli fragmenting due to trampling or natural breakage (Yahr 2003). In addition, 

Yahr suggested that the relatively large size of thalli, as well as barriers of dense leaf litter could be 

limiting factors (1997 and 2000). 

Fire shapes the scrub habitats of C. perforata, but lichens are destroyed by fire and recolonize slowly 

from unburned local sources. Following fires, lichen cover increases slowly. A study by Menges and 

Kihfeldt (1995) found Cladonia sp. began to recolonize burned sites within three to five years, but at 

lower densities than prior to the burn. Hawkes and Menges (1996) found that it did not reach more than 

10% until after more than 20 years. Menges and Kohfeldt (1995) found C. perforata increased between 

4 and 20 years after fires, but no thereafter. According to Johnson and Abrahamson (1990), "Cladonia 

and Cladina sp. are destroyed by fire and take 10 to 12 years to recover to preburn levels". 

 

Virtually all of the C. perforata within the ONA is located south of County Road 707 (CR 707) in Lot 

19, with the exception of a small population, estimated at less than 20 thalli, in the southwest corner of 

Lot 15. The current number of individual thalli in the population is unknown, but probably exceeds 

1,000. The population extends over approximately 8 acres, although the majority is clustered in patches 

in the southern one third of Lot 19. There it tends to occur in areas occupied by several other lichen 

species, making detection difficult. In Lot 19, C. perforata is generally found in more sheltered 

openings and is atypically not found in the largest expanses of open sand. This may be a result of coastal 

winds or sheet flow during heavy storms. As a result C. perforata is often found in microsites that are in 

deep shade under sand pines and amongst dense leaf litter. In the northern two thirds of Lot 19 heavy 

fuel accumulations resulting from the killing of the sand pine canopy during the 2004 hurricanes 

degrades potential habitat and possibly dispersal of C. perforata. 

Figure 16. Perforate lichen
35 

There is potential for transplanting C. perforata into unoccupied suitable habitat within the ONA, both as 

refugia during prescribed burns and to provide a buffer against loss of the population due to wild fire or 

other natural disaster. Thirty thalli have been transplanted into open sand areas in Lot 15 on March 9-10, 

2009, and continue to be monitored to assess survivability (Consultation Code 41420-2009-F-0102). 

There is successful precedent for transplanting (Yahr 2000, Yahr and DePriest 2005). 

Perforate lichen is listed as G1/S1 by FNAI and as endangered by both the USFWS and FDACS. 

Large-flowered rosemary (Conradina grandiflora) - This endemic shrubby mint was recorded at Jupiter 

Inlet by Ecological Consultants in 1995. This small shrubby mint is restricted mainly to white sand 

scrub. Although this species requires periodic fire for survival, it is capable of persisting for long 

periods under a sand pine canopy. Wunderlin (1998) listed it as occasional in the central peninsula of 

Florida along the east coast. It was listed as a scrub indicator species in the Treasure Coast Region by 

Fernald (1989). Large-flowered rosemary is listed as G3/S3 by FNAI and threatened by FDACS. 

Nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua) - This endemic forb is relatively common in open sandy sparsely 

vegetated areas in the oak scrub and disturbed scrub natural communities and tends to be located in areas 

with past disturbance. It responds very quickly to burning. In 2002 nodding pinweed was estimated at 

ten times pre-burn numbers (Richardson, 2002). It will be protected by maintaining some open sand 

within the scrub community and also by routing foot trails away from known plant locations. Because 

this plant is often interspersed with opportunistic weeds such as natal grass, it is particularly vulnerable 

to unintentional damage during herbicide applications. Nodding pinweed is listed as G3/S3 by FNAI 

and threatened by FDACS. 

Wild pines (Tillandsia spp.) - Four species of wild pines have been recorded at the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse ONA. The four species of epiphytic bromeliads include the banded wild pine (Tillandsia 

flexuosa), giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata), in addition other species although recorded in the early 

1990’s have not been documented in subsequent inventories, including reflexed wild pine (Tillandsia 

balbisiana), and common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). Giant wild pine and reflexed wild pine are 

susceptible to the feeding activities of an imported bromeliad weevil that burrows through the central 

growing point of the plant. The burrowing can cause the growing point to die, which usually leads to the 

eventual death of the entire plant (Frank 1999). There is no known practical treatment for this bromeliad 

weevil, but it is not known to kill all the bromeliads in a given population. FNAI lists banded wild pine 

as G5/S3. FDACS lists giant wild pine and common wild pine as endangered, and banded wild pine and 

reflexed wild pine as threatened. 

e. Invasive and Non-native Plant Species 

Like many fragmented natural areas in southeastern Florida, the Jupiter Inlet ONA has been invaded by 

a number of non-native plant species. Past disturbances, an abundance of nearby seed sources and 

suitable growing conditions for a long list of non-native plants make control of these species a challenge 

across south Florida. A total of 46 non-native plant species have been recorded at the ONA, or about 

23% of the total number plant species. Of these, 15 species have been listed by Florida Exotic Pest Plant 

Council (FLEPPC, 2009) as Category I, or those plants that have shown the capacity to invade and 

disrupt native plant communities. Category I species recorded within the ONA include Brazilian pepper 

(Schinus terebinthifolus), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), 

Surinam cherry (Eugenia uniflora), sword fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia), asparagus fern (Asparagus 

densifolus), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), guava (Psidium guajava), woman’s tongue tree (Albizia 

lebbeck), laurel fig (Ficus microcarpa), schefflera (Schefflera actinophylla), torpedo grass (Panicum 

repens), natal grass (Rynchelytrum repens) earleaf acacia (Acacia aunculiformis), shrub verbena 

(Lantana camara), and seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea). 
36 

Eight non-native species identified by FLEPPC as potentially invasive, or Category II have been 

recorded in the ONA. These include bowstring hemp (Sansievaria hyacinthoides), creeping oxeye 

(Wedelia trilobata), life plant (Kalanchoe pinnata), lead tree (Luecaena leucocephala), mahoe (Hibiscus 

tiliaceus), Senegal date tree (Phoenix reclinata), oyster plant (Tradescantia spathacea), and burrnut 

(Tribulus cistoides). Of these, bowstring hemp and lead tree are particular challenges in Lot 17 and 18 

and will be given priority for treatment. Bowstring hemp occurs in monocultures on the lighthouse 

mound and across Lot 17. A thick waxy cuticle and robust rhizomes make this species difficult to 

control with herbicides. The most effective control requires excavation of the rhizomes; but this is 

complicated in the vicinity of the lighthouse by the presence of surface and near surface cultural 

resources. Lead tree, fast growing tree has the capacity to produce seed year round. It has reestablished 

itself along the banks of the Loxahatchee after two years without maintenance. 

In addition, aggressive native but invasive ruderal vines can degrade habitat values. Within the ONA 

these include, but are not limited to, love vine (Cassytha filiformis), muscadine (Vitis mumsoniana), 

coinvine (Dalbergia ecastophyllum), and grey knicker (Caesalpinia bonduc). Vines can pose a 

significant threat to the natural communities particularly following disturbances or in the absence of fire 

when they can shade out native trees, shrubs and forbs. Native love vine, while not wholly parasitic, does 

have the potential to severely damage or 

kill host plants and during heavy 

infestations can blanket large areas of oak 

scrub in the ONA. 

f. Integrated Weed Management 

Program 

The vast majority of non-native plants 

occur in untreated areas of Lot 18 and 

across most of Lot 17. In Lot 15 and 16, 

the initial removal of woody invasives, 

such as Brazilian pepper and Australian 

pine was completed by 2000 and in Lot 19 

in 2006. These areas are in maintenance 

mode with no more than 1% invasive cover 

in the canopy or understory layers. 

Lot #15 

The 54-acres in Lot 15 have been the focus 

of an invasive exotic removal program 

since 1997. Activities have included 

mechanical removal of larger Australian 

pine and Brazilian pepper, removal of 

deposited spoils which supported dense 

stands of Australian pine, basal bark 

herbicidal treatment of Brazilian pepper 

where it was intermingled with native oaks 

and sand pine, hand removal and stump 

treatment of Brazilian pepper where it was accessible, hand pulling of invasive vines and forbs, and spot 

treatment of invasive grasses using herbicides, where needed. This integrated pest management 

approach has been effective in removing the woody component of invasives and in suppression nonnative vines and forbs. Suppression activities towards native but invasive vines have been more 

Figure 17. Hemiparasitic love vine blanketing a scrub oak. 
37 

intermittent, relying on occasional contracted sweeps and volunteer labor to hand pull this vine which is 

widespread across Lot 15. 

Other habitat improvement projects have included the use of prescribed fire and fuel reduction activities. 

Although a vital component in the management of scrub communities, these fuel reduction activities 

prompt the germination and spread of opportunistic invasives, such as natal grass which is ubiquitous in 

natural areas throughout South Florida. 

Lot #19 

In 2005, 8.55 acres of undeveloped land east of Jupiter Lighthouse Park returned to BLM management. 

A well-established oak scrub and sand pine community dominated this tract, but the mature sand pines 

were heavily damaged by the 2004 hurricanes. This area had a substantial infestation of Brazilian 

pepper, particularly along the perimeter of the Lot with several large Australian pine in the interior. 

Rosary pea is prevalent across the tract. The initial invasive species removal effort in this area was 

completed in 2006. Sand pines felled or damaged during the 2004 hurricanes have provided a structure 

for non-native and native invasive vines. Annual sweeps have not been able to provide adequate 

suppression and additional sweeps have been conducted in this area over the last two years. In addition, 

watering of adjacent turf areas results in overspray that supports invasive grasses, forbs and vines along 

the perimeter of this scrub habitat, requiring more frequent sweeps and increasing the need for herbicide 

application. 

Lots #16, #17, and #18 (U.S. Coast Guard Administered Properties) 

In Lot #16, a 4.89-acre area used as an active communication site, the vegetation is currently being 

managed by BLM/ERM under a license issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. Natal grass is a particular 

problem in this area after the site was cleared of derelict buildings in 2003. 

Lot #17 is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. This 23-acre open space borders the Intracoastal 

Waterway/Indian River Lagoon. This site contains a few remnant scrub components (2.7 acres) on 

higher points on the western edge and hardwood hammock species across the lower elevations, but the 

majority of the area is dominated by a canopy of Brazilian pepper (17.3 acres) and large Australian pine 

(3 acres) 

 

Lot #18 is currently used for housing, a Post Exchange, and includes the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse. 

Outside of ornamental planting associated with the houses, this area contains several areas of native 

vegetation. Many of these areas contain substantial invasive components, particularly bowstring hemp 

and Brazilian pepper. A major effort to remove woody and perennial weeds within this area was 

undertaken in 2004-2005 along the bank of the Loxahatchee River and the scrub area between housing 

and Lot 19. These areas require regular maintenance. Lack of regular maintenance since 2008 has 

allowed lead tree to become reestablished along the Loxahatchee River bank. 

Herbicide Use 

Within the ONA, herbicide applications on BLM administered land are covered by a Pesticide Use 

Proposal, reviewed and renewed every three years by the BLM National Weed Coordinator, BLM State 

Weed Coordinator and management. The proposal identifies the target species, the intended herbicides 

and adjuvants, the rates of use, maximum rate of application, application techniques and constraints to 

protect sensitive resources. The current proposal approves the use of glyphosate for foliar application 

and triclopyr and imazapyr for cut stump treatments of woody stems. 
38 

g. Non-native Wildlife Species 

The following non-native wildlife species have been recorded within the ONA. 

Brown anole (Anole sagrei) – This species is a native to Cuba, the Bahamas, and nearby islands. The 

range of the brown anole in the eastern United States includes all of peninsular Florida (SREL). 

Curly-tailed lizards (Leiocephalus carinatus) – This species is a native of the islands of the Bahama 

Bank were imported in the 1940s, when twenty pair of curly-tailed lizards were brought to the island of 

Palm Beach. Within 20 years, they had spread 20 blocks. By 1968, researchers discovered that the 

lizards had spread to the mainland. A survey in September 2002 documented relatively contiguous 

occurrences along the Atlantic coastline from Lighthouse Point, Broward County to Hobe Sound, Martin 

County (Smith et al. 2004). There is documentation of this carnivorous lizard taking another exotic, the 

brown anole (Anole sagrei), and of shifts in populations of this species toward more arboreal habitats 

because of the curly-tailed lizard (Callahan (1982:51). This species is typically found in association with 

buildings or disturbed sites, however, there is concern that this species could displace or predate native 

species, including the scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi). 

Fox gecko (Hemidactylus garnoti) - This species is native to southeastern Asia, the East Indies, and 

many South Sea Islands (Conant and Collins 1991). . It is widely distributed in many urban and 

suburban areas of Florida, and it can even be found in natural habitats, such as mangrove, sand pine 

scrub and pine rocklands . It is often found on buildings, trees, fences, wooden and cement power poles, 

and bridge abutments. Of the 7 introduced gecko species in Florida, this one has the widest distribution 

in Florida (Conant and Collins 1991). This species is expanding its range rapidly and has apparently 

replaced the long-established Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus) in much of southern Florida 

(Meshaka 1995, Butterfield et al. 1997). However, the tropical house gecko (H. mabouia), a more recent 

arrival, is apparently out competing the Indo-Pacific gecko on buildings in some areas (Meshaka 2000). 

Domestic cat – Feral and domestic cats, which are observed regularly within the ONA, have the potential 

to be serious predators of nesting birds, including the Florida Scrub Jay, as well as reptiles, including 

Florida scrub lizard. Removal and ongoing control of feral cats would be prerequisite for Florida mouse 

reintroductions. Coordination with local residents is needed to exclude domestic cats from the ONA. 

Feral Hog (Sus scrofa) - Feral hogs have been documented within the ONA on two occasions over the 

last two years. Hogs cause considerable damage to natural systems through their rooting activities and 

efforts are made to remove hogs immediately once detected. 
39 

3. Cultural Resources 

Jupiter Inlet lies within the Atlantic Coastal Ridge which extends from entire north-south span of Palm 

Beach County along the eastern coast. Of the various ecosystems found within this important 

physiographic feature the Coastal Dune and Strand ecosystem, with ocean-facing dune slopes, tropical 

hammock, Florida scrub oaks and sand pines made an ideal spot for human settlers, both prehistoric and 

historic. The following is a generalized summary of prehistoric and historic cultural periods. For more 

comprehensive information on the cultural history of the Jupiter Inlet area see literature sited section for 

related documents by Ryan Wheeler, Jerald Kennedy and James P. Pepe and James Snyder, Jeannette 

Thurber Conner and Richard K. Murdoch. For older report references of Jupiter and Palm Beach County 

look at the reference sections in some of the literature. 

a. Prehistoric Periods (10000 B.C. – 1750 A.D.) 

Recent discoveries of fiber tempered pottery shards dating to c 4,000 BC at the site and across the inlet 

indicate occupation by people of the Late Archaic Period. Fiber tempered pottery, the oldest ceramic 

technology in the New World, was made by mixing clay with fibers from saw palmetto or Spanish moss 

before firing. This invention enabled early people to store food, cook stews and likely contributed to 

more permanent settlements, rather than the semi-nomadic lifestyle of earlier natives who may have used 

the site seasonally, but lived further up the Loxahatchee River. 

The following information details a tentative and general chronology of the East Okeechobee Area for 

Florida Native American cultural periods: 

Paleo Period (10000 B.C. – 8000 B.C.) 

Paleoindians lived in southern Florida in association with mammoths, bison and other types of 

megafauna. Deposits of fossilized Pleistocene bone have been uncovered by dredging operations from 

several locations in Southern Florida and from solution holes in south Dade County. These deposits 

indicate a presence of more extensive grasslands than present day. With the extinction of the megafauna 

by about 11,000 B.P., Paleoindians apparently adapted to the emerging wetlands of southern Florida, and 

began to establish the patterns of subsistence that were to provide the basis of resource procurement for 

the subsequent 10,000 years. Evidence of the Paleo period in southern Florida is now well established 

with the discovery of a late Paleo/Early Archaic sites which have yielded evidence of exploitation of 

deer and rabbit, some marine fauna, and some indication of hunting extinct horse and peccary. However, 

the majority of data from sites basically reflect Indian adaptation to the extinction of New World 

megafauna. 

Archaic Period (7500 B.C. – 750 B.C.) 

Florida archaeologists recognize three temporal divisions for the Florida Archaic: early, middle, and late. 

Although these divisions have traditionally been based on changes in projectile points and pottery types, 

new environmental and climatic data and increased knowledge of artifact assemblages and site types are 

now also used for dividing the Archaic (Milanich, 1994). 

Early Archaic (7500 B.C. to 5000 B.C.) 

To date, only a few sites are known in southern Florida that contain Early Archaic components. Other 

southern Florida sites from this time period may as yet be unidentified. If such sites are found they 

would be expected to be ancient cenotes or sinkholes which served as ponds or waterholes in the past 

(Milanich, 1994). 
40 

Middle Archaic (5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.) 

During the Middle Archaic more and larger areas of surface water were present in southern Florida. 

However, most known habitation sites are again located around ancient hydric sinkholes or around 

similar features, which would have been good sources of water in the past. One extremely interesting 

culture trait that seems to be peculiar to the Early and Middle Archaic of southern Florida is the 

mortuary pond. Preservation of organic materials from these pond burials is excellent because of the 

anaerobic condition of the ponds and the mucky soils that underlie them. Middle Archaic village 

middens are or were once located on the edges of these mortuary ponds. 

Late Archaic (3000 B.C. to 750 B.C.) 

By 3000 B.C., the climate and environments of Florida had reached essentially modern conditions. This 

allowed for a regionalization of cultures as individual societies throughout Florida developed adaptations 

specific to their local environments (Milanich, 1994). During the Late Archaic, the first pottery was 

produced by the aborigines of Florida. The development of ceramics is important as it suggests that the 

peoples of this time had adopted a more sedentary lifestyle. 

In southern Florida, two separate Late Archaic cultures can be identified archaeologically: the Orange 

culture and, for lack of a better term, the Glades Archaic culture. The Orange culture is known primarily 

from northeast Florida, including both the Atlantic coast and the St. Johns River drainage. The Orange 

peoples made a distinctive fiber tempered pottery. Site types are generally oyster and coquina shell 

middens along the coast and freshwater pond snail middens along the inland river sand stream. Some 

coastal shell rings have also been observed (Newman and Weisman, 1992). The Joseph Reed Mound 

(8MT13) on Jupiter Island may represent the remains of one of these Orange settlements. Although the 

Reed Mound has been damaged by storm surges, it was once probably a shell ring made up mostly of 

oyster shell. In this respect it seems quite similar to other Orange period shell rings located farther north 

(Newman and Weisman 1992). 

The other Late Archaic culture, referred to as the “Glades Archaic,” also was present in southern Florida 

and probably had only limited ties to the Orange culture. The presence of this culture is suggested by 

numerous non-ceramic bone middens now recognized as being present on almost all interior tree island 

or former tree islands and marshes or former marshes in southern Florida. Faunal remains from these 

sites are all dominated by freshwater species, such as turtle, fish and pond apple snail, which could have 

been easily obtained from the marshes that once surrounded most of these sites. 

The fact that these sites are non-ceramic suggests that they represent short-term hunting camps occupied 

temporarily by coastal inhabitants, or that they date to earlier mid-Archaic times. The extreme densities 

of some of these sites argue against tree islands as communities date back no farther than 5000 B.P., or 

3000 B.C. (Kremer and Spackman, 1981). 

The Glades Archaic is postulated as being a culture that was well adapted to life within that newly 

formed interior wetland of the Late Archaic. This adaptation was so complete that Glades Archaic 

peoples were able to remain relatively unchanged for over 2000 years. 

b. East Okeechobee Period (Ca. 750 B.C. to 1750) 

The recent research conducted by Florida Atlantic University makes it clear that previous chronology is 

not useful for the East Okeechobee Area. Therefore, a new chronology, specific to this area, is proposed. 

It must be noted, though, that the only radiocarbon dates recorded in the area have come from Jupiter 

Inlet I (8PB34) and the following chronology is based mainly on sites in the Jupiter area. Thus, the 

chronology will be most successfully applied to sites found along the Loxahatchee River. 
41 

The East Okeechobee I period (750 B.C. – ca. A.D. 800) is characterized by the use of undecorated sandtempered pottery from the numerous sites recently identified along the upper Loxahatchee River 

(Kennedy et al., 1991; Kennedy, Jester, Pepe, Sinks and Wernecke 1994; Kennedy, Jester, Pepe, Sinks, 

Wernecke and Flaherty 1994; Carr, et al., 1995), and in basal levels of Jupiter Inlet I (8PB 34) (Kennedy 

et al., 1993). Other types of pottery are absent or make up only trace amounts of total assemblages from 

this period. It is important to note that the transition results from the Glades Archaic rather than from the 

Orange culture. 

As with the Glades Archaic, sites seem to be concentrated in the interior wetlands rather than on the 

coast. However, the upper Loxahatchee River sites seem to demonstrate that, unlike the earlier Glades 

Archaic, East Okeechobee I sites may be found along the upper reaches of river and streams in the area. 

These sites probably represent camps that were occupied seasonally and not located in exactly the same 

place every year. This would explain the extended length and unevenly distributed middens of most of 

the upper Loxahatchee sites. Coastal sites such as Jupiter Inlet I were probably occupied seasonally as 

well during this time. 

The East Okeechobee II period (800 A.D. – 1000 A.D.) This relatively short period is marked by the 

appearance of St. Johns Plain ceramics as documented at Jupiter Inlet I (8PB43) and Suni Sands 

(8PB7718). The noticeable lack of St. Johns ceramics (a soft “chalky” plain or sometimes incised ware) 

in the interior sites testifies to a change in settlement patterns for the East Okeechobee II. It appears that 

permanent settlements in this period were concentrated along the coast for the first time (excepting 

earlier Orange settlements). 

Perhaps from about A.D. 950 to A.D. 1200, Jupiter Inlet I (8PB34) provides the radiocarbon date for the 

beginning of the next period, East Okeechobee III. The marker type for this period, St. Johns Check 

Stamped, makes its first appearance at about A.D. 1000. No date on the first appearance of this type has 

been obtained from the Spanish River Complex, but it may very well appear somewhat later, perhaps at 

around A.D. 1200, as it does in the rest of southern Florida. In all parts of the East Okeechobee Area 

though, this period is marked by a substantial increase in the St. Johns ceramic series, until St. Johns 

Plain and St. Johns Check-Stamped eventually become the dominant types. This can be seen at the 

Riviera Site (8PB30) (Wheeler, 1992). Before the St. Johns series becomes dominant in the Boca Raton 

area though, the increase in Sand-tempered Plain and decrease in Belle Glade Plain continues, so that, 

for a while at least, both the amounts of Sand-tempered Plan and the St. Johns wares are increasing 

simultaneously. This period ends with the appearance of European goods. A tentative date in line with 

other areas in southern Florida for sustained European contact is A.D. 1500. 

Therefore, the next period, East Okeechobee IV, is marked by essentially the same ceramics as the 

previous period except that this period has the addition of European goods. The St. Johns series is 

dominant and the Riviera Site (8PB30 suggests that St. Johns Check-Stamped may actually be the most 

dominant ware. The tribe encountered in the East Okeechobee Area by Europeans at this time was called 

the Jeaga. It is possible that the Jeaga were under the political dominance of the Calusa, and tribe 

centered on the southwestern coast of Florida (Fontaneda in True, 1945). However, the large amounts of 

St. Johns pottery and other artifacts from the Indian River and St. Johns Areas in the East Okeechobee 

Area during this time suggest dominance by these northern areas instead. 

It has been estimated that there were about 20,000 Indians in south Florida when the Spanish arrived 

(Milanich and Fairbanks, 1980). By 1763, when the English gained control of Florida, that population 

had been reduced to several hundred. These last survivors were reported to have migrated to Cuba with 

the Spanish (Romans, 1962), however, it is likely that the so-called “Spanish Indians” (Sturtevant, 1953), 

who raided Indian Key in 1840, were the mixed-blood descendants of the Calusa and/or refugees from 

north Florida missions raided by the English in the early eighteenth century. The Spanish-Indians joined 
42 

the Seminoles, who had fled en masse into south Florida in 1838 after the Battle of Okeechobee, 

although some Creek groups apparently had migrated to south Florida earlier in the century. 

c. Historic Period (1750 A.D. – 1900 A.D.) 

It is believed Ponce de Leon sailed into the Jupiter Inlet in 1513, planted a cross at a fork in the river and 

declared it the Rio de la Cruz. Thus began the European Contact Period in Jupiter. Spanish contact with 

the local Jobe tribe occurred primarily due to shipwrecks and strandings. The San Miguel Archangel

wrecked off the inlet in 1659, and upon discovery in 1987, 11 cannon from the ship were temporarily 

stored in the water under the Coast Guard dock. Later accounts of Jonathan Dickinson’s capture in 1696 

by the Jobe Indians on Jupiter Island provide remarkable, though culturally biased, information. The 

DeBraham’s map of 1763 (the year the last 200 original Native Americans were transport to Cuba by the 

Spanish) indicates an English settlement or plantation (known as Grenville) may have been located at the 

site. The archaeology done at the lighthouse during restoration in 2000 unearthed English artifacts 

dating to that period. The recent recovery of British Period artifacts from the inlet by treasure salvors 

may also corroborate this brief era. 

Numerous Seminole sites have been documented along the Loxahatchee River, including locations of 

two Second Seminole War battlefields and Fort Jupiter. Delays in the construction of the Lighthouse in 

the late 1850s are attributed to the proximity of Seminoles. Present day Seminoles from the Brighton 

Reservation relate stories of their ancestors removing bricks from the lighthouse construction site during 

times when the workers left to avoid them, as well as the sickness-bearing mosquitoes. Early Lighthouse 

keepers told of regular friendly interactions with local Seminoles and photos taken of Seminoles at the 

site in the late 1880s attest to their visits. 

Figure 18. Jupiter Lighthouse Station showing 1860 original keeper's house (far left), the 1883 house built 

for Head Keeper and Weather Bureau building circa 1910. 
43 

The U.S. Light House Service operated the Jupiter Light Station from 1860 until 1939, when the USLHS 

became the responsibility of the U.S.C.G. By 1883, the Light Station consisted of the Lighthouse, Oil 

House, two Keeper’s Houses and associated buildings, and a dock. In 1887, the U.S. Signal Corps added 

a wireless telegraph station and one of the first U.S. Weather Bureau stations in Florida, which later 

moved to Miami to become part of the National Weather Service (NOAA.) In 1905, the U.S. Navy 

created a cutting-edge wireless radio station, another technological first. In 1907 a windmill and dock 

were added. By 1938 the Navy had acquired additional acreage and began building a top-secret base, 

known as Station J, which was operated by 95 Navy personnel and guarded by Marines throughout 

WWII. During the Cold War in the 1950s, the U.S. Air Force utilized the property for missile tracking. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has maintained a presence at the site since 1939. 

What follows is the successful 1973 Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places, recounting the early history of the Lighthouse. 

The earliest documentary evidence of Seminole settlement in South Florida is an account by John Lee 

Williams (1837) describing Snake Warrior’s Island at the headwaters of Snake Creek. This site was 

recently identified as probably being site 8BD1867 in Miramar in southern Broward County. 

Seminole Archaeology is a relatively new focus in South Florida archaeology, but recent work has 

contributed new data. Numerous Seminole sites have been documented along the Loxahatchee River as 

well as several U.S. military sites associated with the Seminole Wars including Fort Jupiter and the 

Loxahatchee Battlefield (Carr et al., 2003). 

Jupiter Inlet was an important locus of human settlement throughout the Historic Period. The 

DeBrahams map of 1763 indicates that an English settlement or plantation may have been located at or 

near the Inlet. 

In the Annual Report of the Lighthouse Board dated January 30, 1852, a recommendation was made for 

the construction of “a first-order lens light, with an elevation of 150 feet, near Jupiter Inlet, Florida.” A 

first class light for “the vicinity of Jupiter Inlet, Florida,” was authorized by Congress on March 3, 1853, 

“to serve as a seacoast light and also to guard mariners in approaching the dangerous shoal lying off that 

point.” The sum of $35,000 was appropriated for “preliminary steps ordered to be taken in regard to 

obtaining title to the proper site, plans to be prepared, etc.” Difficulties in constructing the lighthouse 

were anticipated from the outset, for the authorization stated that “this point being inaccessible for all 

useful purposes by land and difficult to be reached by sea for want of harbors in its vicinity, some delay 

may ensue in making the proper site and obtaining title to it. The act of Congress ceding swamplands to 

this and other states, “without making reservations for light-house purposes, renders this duty 

complicated and causes delays.” 

The tract selected in 1853 after an examination of the coast in the Jupiter Inlet area was part of the Fort 

Jupiter reservation established during the Seminole War period; the Lighthouse Board officially 

recommended the use of this site. Plans and estimates for the lighthouse were submitted for approval in 

1854 or early 1855. The chief of administrative affairs for the Seventh Lighthouse District, which until 

1890 included the Jupiter Inlet Light (transferred to the Sixth District in that year), was George G. 

Meade, then a lieutenant in the Bureau of Topographical Engineers and later a noted Civil War general. 

According to National Archives documents, the design for the lighthouse was submitted to the 

Lighthouse Board by Meade but was drawn and designed under Meade’s instruction by John W. 

Nystrem. Construction arrangements until May 31, 1856, the date when Meade’s appointment as chief 

administrator for that district ended, were supervised by Meade. This does not mean that he was 

constantly in attendance on the site, however; his duties included administering two lighthouse districts 
44 

(the Seventh and the Fourth) and his office was in Philadelphia. Whether or not Meade actually visited 

the site while the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse was under construction is not documented. 

61.5 acres of the reservation were reserved by the Executive Order of President Franklin Pierce signed 

October 22, 1854. (In 1925, a topographical survey indicated that the lighthouse reservation had not 

been properly located; the new area of the reservation was fixed by Executive Order on June 12, 1925, at 

121.95 acres.) All was in readiness for construction to begin, but it would be almost six years before the 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse was ready for operation. 

The major reason for this delay was the fact that Jupiter Inlet sanded shut in 1854, forcing the use of an 

alternative route for transporting building materials to the site. The pattern of opening and closing of the 

entrance to the intercoastal waterway areas by drifting sand had often been repeated over the years. The 

Inlet was open briefly in 1853, but soon reclosed. In 1855, the commander of Fort Jupiter, a Major 

Haskins, made an unsuccessful effort to open it; however, in the next year Captain Capron of the same 

installation did open the inlet. For roughly a decade it remained open, but in the period between 1853 

and 1856, the problem of access to the lighthouse site was a difficult one. 

In spite of the inconveniences presented by the situation, construction of the lighthouse progressed. 

Supplies had to be sent down the Indian River and Jupiter Narrows, a procedure which involved some 

overland carriage and lightering of around five hundred tons of construction materials. The expenses 

mounted and in 1856, Congress appropriated another sum ($19,522.90) for purposes of “continuing and 

completing the Jupiter light.” 

Congressional records indicate that little of this new sum was expended in 1857 and 1856; the major 

expenditures did not come until 1859. The cause of this gap in progress was the hostilities 

accompanying the Third Seminole War. The Annual Reports of the Lighthouse Board of those years 

refer to Indian troubles in 1856 and 1857 which continued into the winter working season of 1858. The 

1857 Report anticipated that work would begin at the end of 1858 and be completed by 1859; this was 

not the case. In 1859 work had to be halted because of problems of heat, moisture, and insect 

molestation. However, the work was completed during the 1859 – 60 working season as was predicted 

in the 1859 Annual Report. Before the work was finished, more money for the project had to be found; 

funds totaling $6,336.08 were transferred from balances remaining from appropriations made for other 

lighthouses. The combined expenditure for the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse from 1854-1859 amounted to 

$60,858.98. 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse was first placed in operation on July 10, 1860. The events of the Civil War 

in the area precipitated an action on the part of civilians in the area in 1861. The coast of Florida was 

patrolled by ships of the U.S. Navy whose duty was to blockade the coast and prevent supply ships from 

reaching Confederate shores. The Jupiter Inlet, which was open at the time, was a useful point of entry 

for blockade runners. In order to make it more difficult for the U.S. Naval force to apprehend the 

Confederate supply ships, a group of men from the Jupiter Inlet area, in August 1861, rendered the 

Jupiter Lighthouse inoperable by removing and carrying away the lighting apparatus so that the light 

could not be used to aid U.S. Naval pilots on the coast of Florida. The Lighthouse Board Report of that 

year reported that “lawless persons visited the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse on the coast of Florida and 

removed there-from the illuminating apparatus.” 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse has continued to function since 1866 with its routine activities enlivened by 

occasionally at sea. A Life Saving Station was established there in 1886, after which rescue activities 

occurred in the area as would be typical for any coastal lookout and rescue unit. Shipwrecks occurred in 

the area before and after the Life Saving Station was put into service. During World War II, enemy 
45 

activities off the Atlantic coast of the U.S. resulted in a submarine alert in which the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse was involved; American vessels were torpedoed off nearby Hobe Sound in 1942. 

The decision to establish a lighthouse at Jupiter Inlet Sound in the 1850’s was made as part of a general 

plan for lighting the Florida reef on the east coast as an aid to commerce and transportation. The 

determined effort to complete the lighthouse at great cost of effort and money indicates that it was 

thought to be essential to the protection of naval commerce and transportation in that area. The 

difficulties which beset the construction of the lighthouse, with the exception of the Indian hostilities 

which ceased to be a major problem after the Third Seminole War, are illustrative of the kinds of 

problems continually faced in the development of the south Florida area. 

Since so much of the activity in Florida during the Civil War centered on the question of naval control of 

access by water to Florida, the local civilian action at Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse indicated the degree to 

which this was a concern to the residents of Florida. The later activities at the lighthouse typify the 

value of a coastal station to transportation and commerce. All of the points illustrate the significance of 

the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse. 

Figure 19. Looking up stairs to Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and oil 

house. 
46 

4. Recreation 

Outside of the organized sports associated with Jupiter Lighthouse Park, public recreation facilities are 

primarily associated with the Loxahatchee River Historical Society’s interpretive facilities and docent 

guided tours. Public visitation to the lighthouse is permitted only as part of a LRHS guided tour. From 

October 2008 through September 2009, the LRHS provided tours, programs, etc, for 64,150 visitors, 

which included national and international visitors. During the same fiscal year, docents and other 

volunteers donated 7,880 volunteer hours in support of this organization’s public outreach, education, 

facility maintenance, and protection mission. LRHS has installed new interior interpretive exhibits 

which are expected to increase the quality of the visitor’s experience and appreciation of the rich history 

of the ONA. There is a need to extend the visitor’s experience along the corridor leading to the 

lighthouse, incorporate other historic features and include natural history as part of the interpretive 

message to the public.

There have been increases in public use behind the Station J historic building which houses the LRHS 

museum. The Town of Jupiter has adopted Palm Beach County’s Parks and Recreation Ordinance for its 

parks. These ordinances apply to the area behind Station J, a midden listed on the Florida Master Site 

File, although there is need for posting and enforcement to protect historical and archaeological 

resources from damage resulting from trampling, digging, boat mooring and unauthorized fires. 

Unguarded swimming poses public safety issues due to the swift current in the inlet and boat traffic.

The other primary recreational use within the 

ONA is the unauthorized public use along the 

Indian River Lagoon, discussed under 

Management issues. This use has occurred for 

decades, but has contributed to erosion along the 

bank as people climb the bank and excavate 

sand caves. Rope swings placed on Australian 

pine eventually dislodge trees at the top of the 

sand bank. This bank has lost over 100 feet in 

places within the last 50 years. The adjacent 

Indian River Lagoon is well known for its high 

water quality during incoming tides and 

provides excellent snorkeling and swimming 

opportunities, but very swift currents and high 

boat traffic are issues for public safety. The 

adjacent waterway is a No Wake zone south of 

Cato Bridge.

There is some use by walkers, bird watchers and 

for geocaching (there were two geocache 

locations listed on the national web site as of 

February 20, 2009) within the scrub and 

hardwood hammock areas of the ONA. These 

uses tend to be casual and most visitors utilize 

the existing management road network north of 

County Road 707 to access the site. Use of the 

natural areas are expected to increase due to 

increased media attention and as more people 

become aware of the ONA status. There is some 

kayaking in the tidal lagoon. Figure 20. Visitors returning from guided lighthouse tour.
47 

5. Visual Resources 

The ONA is rated as a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III zone. The objectives for this zone 

are to partially retain the characteristics of the natural landscape. Actions can be noticeable but should 

not dominate the view of a casual observer. The VRM class applies to BLM actions on the public 

domain lands within the ONA, which includes lots 15, 17, and 19. The class is based on the 

characteristics of the form, texture, and color present in the landscape, the scarcity of those 

characteristics in the region, and the amount and nature of manmade change to the natural landscape, as 

seen from the most commonly visited locations on the site or in the surrounding area. For the ONA, 

these observation points are traveling north or south on US 1, where the property is visible for about 0.25 

miles, and east and west on County Road 707 for approximately 0.4 miles, on the several public access 

points across the Indian River, and from recreational boats on the Indian and Loxahatchee Rivers for 

about .7 miles total, and from the top of the lighthouse itself. From the observation points, the scrub 

habitat is the most prominent, appearing as fairly long stretches of green 3-6 feet tall along the roadsides, 

with small areas of pines 10-30 feet tall. Along the waterways, the dense mangrove stands present a wall 

of green to recreation boaters. Depending on tides their interesting buttress roots are occasionally 

visible. Iconic views of the lighthouse are from the public access points along the Loxahatchee and 

Indian Rivers looking north. A common theme from all the observation points is that the site represents 

an oasis of green vegetation and white sands which provides a variety and relief from a boat or vehicle 

trip through dense but tidy commercial and residential neighborhoods along the coast of Palm Beach 

County. Over the years the non-native Australian pines near the lighthouse in Lot 17 have reached a 

height where they are beginning to compete vertically with the dominance of the lighthouse over the site. 

Figure 21. Looking northeast across the Loxahatchee River.
48 

 E. Current Management Strategies 

1. Weed Management 

The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA is managed as a Cooperative Weed Management Area to facilitate 

collaborative efforts between agencies across administrative boundaries to control non-native, invasive 

plants; this includes Jupiter Lighthouse Park and the U.S. Coast Guard properties. The weed program 

within the ONA uses an integrated pest management program to restore native plant communities, 

including mechanical and hand removal, prescribed burning, the targeted application of approved 

herbicides, and native plantings. On BLM administered land, weed control is conducted under a 

Pesticide Use Proposal, which addresses the specific herbicides and adjuvants to be used and the 

application methods and timing related to the use of those materials. These Pesticide Use Proposals are 

prepared every three years and require agency review and approval. Weed work conducted by BLM or 

with BLM funding incorporates appropriate best management practices and guidelines from the BLM 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (November 

2005,) and subsequent updates. 

2. Prescribed Burn Program 

The prescribed burns at Jupiter Inlet have been conducted under a prescribed burn plan developed as part 

of the initial management plan in 1996. That burn plan was developed to restore a more natural fire 

regime to the fire dependent scrub communities at Jupiter Inlet where fire had been excluded for at least 

60 years. The prescribed burn objectives were to improve wildlife habitat, and reduce hazardous fuel 

loads. To accomplish those objectives, the scrub areas north of County Road 707 were divided into 

seven blocks (5.8 to 1.5 acres) to be burned incrementally over eighteen years. An additional two 

blocks were identified south of County Road 707 where only mechanical manipulation would be used. 

To date three burns have been completed totaling 17.3 acres or 34 percent of the 51 acres of the intact 

scrub acreage within the ONA. The 2004 hurricanes drastically altered the sand pine stand at Jupiter 

Inlet killing most of the mature sand pine and substantially modifying the fuel loads within the ONA. An 

updated burn plan is needed to address the current resource objectives. 

3. Research 

There is a biological research permit system in place for the ONA. Appropriate state and federal permits 

are required to work on listed species, and projects are coordinated with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the State, if there is a potential to affect listed species or their habitat. 

The Bureau of Land Management issues Cultural Resource Use Permits in order to authorize cultural 

resources studies or research, for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 

and for compliance with the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and to authorize 

paleontological research. When specific projects are proposed, applicants who already possess a Cultural 

Resource Use Permit must also obtain a Field Use Authorization. When a proposed project involves 

ground disturbing work at an archeological site the project must be reviewed by the State Historic 

Preservation Office before work begins. 
49 

F. Existing Facilities and Easements

1. Facilities 

a. Fencing 

Fencing has been installed along the perimeter of the area north of County Road 707, security fencing 

around the Coast Guard managed areas and along the eastern border of the soccer fields. 

North of County Road 707 the perimeter of ONA is delineated with a two rail, three-foot high split-rail 

fence (totaling 3,898’). Behind the residences on the northern boundary 1,096’ of the split-rail fence has 

been backed with 4-inch square hog wire. A total of 284’ of 6' green chain link fence has been placed 

behind commercial property in the northwestern corner of the property. There is a 15’ long steel swing 

gate on the northern access road off County Road 707. These facilities were installed in 1997 and 

continue, with occasional maintenance, to be serviceable. 

There is a 4x4 fence along the eastern boundary of Lighthouse Park ball fields. This fence has worked 

well to visually separate the ball fields from the natural area to the east, but it does not exclude stray 

balls or trash. The fence also does not exclude public access to adjacent areas supporting perforate 

lichen (Cladonia perforata), federally listed as endangered, a ground lichen which is difficult for a lay 

person to identify and highly susceptible to trampling. 

The Coast Guard managed properties are surrounded by a chain link fence with gates off County Road 

707, the post exchange and adjacent to the Loxahatchee River Historical Society/Museum. The 

communication site north of County Road 707 is also fenced in chain link, portions of which are in need 

of maintenance. 

b. Trails 

Outside of the paved path to the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse, there are no developed or designated trails 

within the ONA. North of County Road 707 the management roads, which also serve as fire breaks for 

the prescribed burn program, provide access through the area. These fire breaks/management roads 

provide no interpretation or directional signage for the visiting public. 

 

c. Parking 

Public parking within the ONA is currently available only at Lighthouse Park and in front of the 

Loxahatchee River Historical Society/Museum (Station J Building). There are approximately 50 parking 

spaces available at the entrance to Lighthouse Park, another 100 in front of the Loxahatchee River 

Historical Society/Museum (Station J Building) and 113 combined along the soccer fields. This parking 

capacity is generally exceeded on Saturdays during soccer season. 

There is no parking available for the portion of the ONA north of County Road 707 and visitors must 

either leave their car at Lighthouse Park and cross County Road 707 (no designated crosswalk) or park 

outside the gate off County Road 707. There is considerable traffic traveling from both directions of 

County Road 707 to Jupiter Island and visibility is obscured by a slope rising to the east creating a 

potential hazard for the public entering and leaving this undesignated parking area. 
50 

d. Roads 

The only public road in the ONA is Captain Armour Way; a paved county maintained road providing 

access to Jupiter Lighthouse Park and the Loxahatchee River Historical Society/Museum. The other 

roads include a loop road into the U.S. Coast Guard housing and Post Exchange, and an asphalt road to 

the U.S. Coast Guard communication site on the north side which branches inside of the compound. The 

sand management roads on the north side are open for agency use only. 

c. Station J 

This historic WWII vintage building originally served as married officer’s housing. The building was 

included in lands patented to the Town of Jupiter in 2004. Restored in 2006 after heavy damage by the 

2004 hurricanes, the building now houses the Loxahatchee River Historical Society Museum, gift shop, 

and Jupiter Lighthouse tour office on the first floor, and administrative offices upstairs. The LRHS 

leases the space from the Town of Jupiter. 

 

d. Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse 

Still an active aid to navigation, this iconic lighthouse is on withdrawn public domain land managed by 

the U.S. Coast Guard. The Loxahatchee River Historical Society has a lease agreement with the U.S. 

Coast Guard to maintain the lighthouse tower, oil house and associated property. The lighthouse 

underwent an extensive restoration from 1999-2000. The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse houses a First Order 

Fresnel lens, one of only 13 still in operation in the country. The Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and associated 

oil house were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973 

e. Coast Guard housing 

There are eleven U.S. Coast Guard houses, plus outbuildings, in Lot 18 east of Jupiter Lighthouse Park 

ball fields. This housing is used by families of active service members serving at Station Lake Worth 

Inlet. 

 

f. Lighthouse Park 

This 17.8 acre park provides ball fields, tennis courts, a shelter, parking, and restrooms. 

g. Communication Site 

This 4.89 acre tract (Lot 16) is in the center of the property north of County Road 707. The tract is 

public domain withdrawn for use by the U.S. Coast Guard as a remote unmanned high frequency radio 

communication site which services U.S. Coast Guard installations in Miami and Key West. 

 

h. ONA Signs 

The Jupiter Inlet Natural Area sign off County Road 707 is obsolete and should be replaced as part of the 

coordinated signing program for the new ONA. 

2. Easements 

The following right-of-ways have been recorded within the ONA 

Easement deed dated October 11, 1955, filed December 8, 1955, and recorded in Deed Book 1117 at 

page 156, an easement to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of the State Road Department for 
51 

the purposes of relocating, widening, constructing and maintaining a portion of State Road 5 (U.S. 

Highway 1). 

Easement deed dated January 31, 1958, filed on March 18, 1958, and recorded in Official Record Book 

169, page 585, an easement to the State of Florida for the purpose of relocating, widening, constructing 

and maintaining a portion of State Road 5 (U.S. Highway 1). 

Easement deed dated October 19, 1967, filed on November 9, 1967, and recorded in Official Record 

Book 1614, page 131, to DiVosta Construction Company, an easement for a six inch sanitary sewage 

force main from the island portion of the Village of Tequesta, Florida to the sewage main along U.S. 

Highway 1. (Assigned to the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District on July 16, 1980) 

Easement deed dated December 19, 1967, filed January 16, 1968, and recorded in the Official Record 

Book 1634, page 529, an easement to the State of Florida for the purpose of relocating, widening, 

constructing, and maintaining a portion of State Road 707. 

Easement deed dated March 16, 1979, and recorded December 4, 1979 and recorded in the Official 

Record Book 3187, page 215, to the State of Florida for the purpose of widening, construction and 

maintenance of State Road ALT A-1-A. 

 G. Adjacent Land Uses 

The ONA is located in an urban setting and straddles the border between the Town of Jupiter and the 

Village of Tequesta. The eastern shoreline south of County Road 707 is within the municipal limits of 

the Jupiter Inlet Colony. U.S. Highway 1 is on the western border and the area west of U.S. Highway 1 

is zoned commercial with retail, restaurants and office buildings. The northwest corner is also bordered 

by commercial property. The residential community of Coconut Cove borders the ONA on the northern 

boundary. County Road 707, which bisects the ONA, provides the major access to the Jupiter Inlet 

Colony and the southern reaches of Jupiter Island across Cato Bridge, a manned drawbridge. The ONA 

is bordered on the south and east by the Indian River Lagoon and the Loxahatchee River. Dubois 

County Park is located across the inlet to the southeast and commercial properties, primarily restaurants, 

are located immediately to the south across the Loxahatchee River. 

H. Socio-Economic Conditions 

The Town of Jupiter has grown from a small village at the turn of the century where employment was 

focused on agricultural/fishing and tourism, to an incorporated township in the 1925, to a bedroom 

community in the post World War II era. Recent growth has been tremendous with the population 

expanding from 9,868 in the 1980 census to 44, 087 in 2003 and is projected to be just over 50,000 in 

2010. The incorporated area totals 23.53 sq. miles. Racial demographics in the Town of Jupiter in 2000 

were Caucasian (94.9), Hispanic (7.3%), Other (2.5%), African American (1.2%), Asian (1.1%), and 

American Indian (.02%). The median age is 42.4, with almost 19% being over the age of 65. Over 34% 

of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

The Village of Tequesta was incorporated in 1957 and occupies 2.28 square miles. The population as of 

April 1, 2008 was 5,898, according to the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business 

Research. The Village is over 95% developed and does not anticipate significant population growth. 

Tequesta is a bedroom community with 38% residential housing and 38% residential canals, water 

bodies, recreation and open space. Route U.S. Highway 1 is a commercial corridor that runs through it, 

connecting the Town of Jupiter to the south and Martin County to the north. The corridor supports 
52 

almost all of Tequesta’s 5% commercial uses, along with Cypress Drive South and the Village Center. 

Racial demographics in the Village of Tequesta in 2000 were 97.97%, Caucasian (95.8% were NonHispanic White,) 0.47% African American, 0.09% Native American, 0.70% Asian, 0.02% Pacific 

Islander, 0.13% from other races, and 0.61% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race 

were 2.43% of the population. The median age is 47.5, with almost 27% being over the age of 65. Over 

36% of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

The Jupiter Inlet Colony was incorporated in 1959 and occupies 140 acres, or 0.2 acres. The Colony is 

solely residential and is essentially built out. The population is less than 400. According to the 2000 

census 99.7% of the population was Caucasian. The median age was 60.5 years. Over 56% of the 

population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

I. Nearby Destinations

Northern Palm Beach County has a wide variety of managed natural areas and parks. Many of these are 

included in the Northeast Everglades Natural Area system. Palm Beach County hosts NENA as a forum 

for land managers to coordinate issues of cross-boundary access, complementary facilities, visitor 

registration, signage and protection of historic landscapes. 

The following are examples of sites within five miles of the ONA. 

· Jupiter Ridge Natural Area is managed by Palm Beach County Department of Environmental 

Resources Management as part of its Natural Areas Preserve System. The 271-acre site is primarily 

scrub and depression marsh, and has a parking area, bike racks, interpretive kiosk, 2.5 miles of trails and 

boardwalks, and an overlook. 

· Juno Dunes Natural Area is managed by Palm Beach County Department of Environmental 

Resources Management as part of its Natural Areas Preserve System. The 576-acre site is split between 

a western scrub dominated site and a 42-acre oceanfront section that includes a maritime hardwood 

hammock. The preserve offers an accessible nature trail, bike rack, interpretive kiosk, overlook and 

hiking trails. This site will soon provide boater access day dockage with an observation tower and picnic 

tables. 

· Delaware Scrub Natural Area, totaling 15.8 acres, was a collaborative purchase by the Town of 

Jupiter and Palm Beach County completed in 2005. The site is managed by Palm Beach County 

Department of Environmental Quality as part of its Natural Areas Preserve System. The site contains 

upland scrub and scrubby flatwoods habitats, and one of the county’s few cypress swamps. There are 

no public use facilities yet at this site. 

· Limestone Creek Natural Area is owned and managed by Palm Beach County Department of 

Environmental Resources Management. It is currently comprised of 22.8 acres of county owned lands 

north of the C-18 canal, and a long-term management lease over an additional 30 acres of the C-18 Canal 

right-of-way by way of a linear park permit from South Florida Water Management District is in place. 

The site contains four native ecosystems: mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, hydric hammock, and 

tidal swamp. 

· The Nature Conservancy manages the 73-acre Blowing Rocks Preserve on nearby Jupiter Island. 

The site spans this barrier island and includes the Atlantic Ocean’s largest formation of Anastasia 

limestone formation with exposed rock consists of coquina shells, other seashells and sand for which it 
53 

was named. It also includes mangrove shoreline along the Indian River Lagoon. Facilities include an 

interpretive center, trail, and wetland boardwalks. 

· Dubois Park is located south of Jupiter Inlet and is managed by Palm Beach County Parks. The 

18.69- acre park includes guarded swimming areas, saltwater fishing, and picnicking. A sheltered 

snorkeling area has been proposed and day slips for boaters are being added. 

· Riverbend Park is a regional park located west of Interstate Highway 95. It encompasses 680 

acres with five miles of waterways, 15 miles of trails and access roads, bicycle rental, canoe and kayak 

rental and ride-to-only equestrian access. 

· The Loxahatchee River District’s River Center has a combination of static displays, interactive 

exhibits, live tanks which trace the Loxahatchee River system from a freshwater cypress swamp to 

seagrass-dominated estuary to marine ecosystems. The center provides an opportunity for school 

children, adults, visitors, and long-time residents an opportunity to learn about Florida's first federally 

designated Wild and Scenic River. 

· Jonathan Dickinson State Park covers 11,500 acres in southeastern Martin County. The park 

supports 13 natural communities, including sand pine scrub, pine flatwoods, mangroves, and river 

swamps. The Loxahatchee River, Florida's first federally designated Wild and Scenic River, runs 

through the park. Ranger-guided tours of the 1930s pioneer homestead of Trapper Nelson are available 

year-round. The park provides off-road biking, equestrian, and hiking trails, and boating, canoeing, and 

kayaking along the river. Anglers can fish along the riverbank or from a boat. The Elsa Kimbell 

Environmental Education and Research Center provides interpretive exhibits. The park also offers two 

full-facility campgrounds and a youth/group primitive campground. 
54 
55 

Part II. Management Guidelines

A. Mission Statement 

The following language, excerpted from the Act, establishes the overall mission for the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area. 

“The Secretary, in consultation with the Local Partners and the Commandant, shall manage the 

Outstanding Natural Area as part of the National Landscape Conservation System in a manner that 

conserves, protects, and enhances the unique and nationally important historical, natural, cultural, 

scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational values of the Outstanding Natural Area, including an 

emphasis on the restoration of native ecological systems.” 

B. Purpose and Need 

The Act requires that the Secretary of the Interior develop a management plan for the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse ONA within three years and that the plan be developed in consultation with appropriate 

Federal, State, county, and local government agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, the Local 

Partners, and other partners; and in a manner that ensures full public participation. 

The following is a summary of those items in the Act which provide specific guidance on management 

of the ONA and requirements related to this planning effort. For the complete text of the Act see 

Appendix A. 

The Federal land and any interests in the Federal land included in the ONA are withdrawn from 

all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws 

and the mineral materials laws. 

The management plan shall include objectives and provisions to ensure the protection and 

conservation of the resource values of the Outstanding Natural Area, including; 

Restoration of native plant communities and estuaries in the ONA, with an emphasis on the 

conservation and enhancement of healthy, functioning ecological systems in perpetuity; 

Objectives and provisions to maintain or re-create historic structures; 

An implementation plan for a program of interpretation and public education about the natural 

and cultural resources of the Lighthouse, the public land surrounding the Lighthouse, and 

associated structures; 

A proposal for administrative and public facilities to be developed or improved that are 

compatible with achieving the resource objectives for the ONA and would accommodate visitors 

to the ONA; 

Natural and cultural resource management strategies for the ONA, to be developed in 

consultation with appropriate departments of the State, the Local Partners, and the Commandant, 

with an emphasis on resource conservation in the Outstanding Natural Area and the interpretive, 

educational, and long-term scientific uses of the resources; 
56 

Recreational use strategies for the Outstanding Natural Area, to be prepared in consultation with 

the Local Partners, appropriate departments of the State, and the Coast Guard, with an emphasis 

on passive recreation. 

C. Management Issues 

There a number of issues that were considered in the development of this plan, including those raised 

during the public scoping process, by the ONA Partners, or that were indicated by past management 

experience at the site. The following provides background on these issues. 

1. Public Access to Natural Areas 

Providing for public access to the Outstanding Natural Area was a key issue raised during the public 

scoping meetings. During the time the site was administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, public access to 

most of the site was restricted. The community perception lingers that the natural areas of the ONA are 

not available for public use and it is reinforced by the lack of public access points, trails and sufficient 

signage. Over the last two years the media and community attention on the NLCS designation has 

generated a sense of public ownership and raised expectations within the communities that access points 

will be developed. The legislation language provides for passive recreational experiences. The issue is 

enhancing the public’s access and experience on the site with facilities that are compatible with the 

maintenance and enhancement of the natural and cultural resources for which the area was designated, 

while meeting security needs of the U.S. Coast Guard residents and facilities. 

2. Public Use of the Indian River Lagoon Bluff Area 

There is a long history of public use, albeit unauthorized, along the Indian River Lagoon south of the 

County Road 707 Bridge. The sand bluffs and clear water provide a destination for boaters from across 

the county and beyond. The site has been popular for decades, in fact it was repeatedly described as a 

“right of passage” for local kids who installed and used rope swings from trees leaning over the bluff. It 

is also a popular anchoring spot for people using the shallow beach. Exacerbated by public use, 

dredging, storms and boat traffic these 20 foot bluffs have been substantially eroded losing over 100 feet 

of land in some areas along this shoreline over the last fifty years. The steep unstable slope currently 

poses a public safety hazard for persons climbing the bluff and for boaters anchored below. The U.S. 

Coast Guard, despite limited manpower and personnel, has repeatedly signed and patrolled the area; but 

without the availability of full-time enforcement or citation authority the problem has overwhelmed their 

capacity. The issue is how to support the Act’s direction to provide for passive recreation while 

concurrently protecting the resources along the bluff, and reducing the public hazard. 

Please note that this plan will only present conceptual alternatives to address this issue. The feasibility 

of these alternatives will be dependent on an in-depth engineering design being funded by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act initiated in 2009. This study will develop the alternatives based on 

objectives outlined in this plan. These alternatives will be presented to the Jupiter Inlet Working Group 

and to the public for additional comment and coordination. The final design once approved by BLM in 

coordination with the ONA partners and successful completion of the permitting process will be 

amended to this plan. 
57 

3. Re-creating Historic Structures 

The Act requires that this plan include objectives and provisions to maintain or re-create historic 

structures. The objectives will be established to guide future opportunities, including collaborative 

efforts between the partners to recreate historic buildings for use either by the U.S. Coast Guard, for 

interpretive purposes, or both. 

4. Protecting Cultural Resources 

The ONA is estimated to receive over 60,000 visitors per year. Providing for this level of visitation, and 

the expected increases, requires that an infrastructure be installed to protect the historic and prehistoric 

resources. One vulnerable area is immediately south of the Station J building where a prehistoric midden 

is exposed to regular foot traffic. The site was capped with additional sand, geofabric and sod in 1998, 

but the fabric has been exposed and lost in many areas with continuing public use. Another area is at the 

base of the lighthouse where visitors gravitate to the shade of the iconic council fig, which covers the site 

of the original lighthouse keeper’s house. There is a need in this location to provide an area for groups 

waiting to climb the lighthouse, accommodating those who are unable to climb, while protecting the 

historic location and providing opportunities for interpretation. 

Due to the sensitive security issues of past military installations at the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA, 

archaeological research has been minimal to date. This limited research has only scratched the surface 

of the cultural significance of the ONA and its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 

There is the need for a full archaeological survey and evaluation to understand the extent of the 

substantial prehistoric occupation and use. This information would guide enhancement and educational 

projects, as well as contribute significantly to the limited understanding of southeast Florida’s original 

Native Americans. 

5. Prescribed Burn Program 

Although fire is the preferred tool in maintaining the scrub habitat characteristics that are needed by 

most of the special status species occurring in the ONA, the site’s urban location requires that prescribed 

burns be conducted only during a very narrow window of wind direction, wind speed, ambient humidity 

and fuel moisture levels. Mechanical manipulation of the vegetation, such as chopping or using other 

heavy equipment, while it does not produce all of the habitat benefits, can mimic some of the affects of 

prescribed fire without these restraints. The issue is how to balance the use of these methods and where 

they would be used to meet resource objectives. 

6. Invasive Plant Control 

All of the ONA partners have policies or laws that support control of invasive weeds in their areas of 

responsibility. The ONA has been managed in the past as a Cooperative Weed Management Area and 

collaboration across administrative boundaries has resulted in increased efficiencies. This plan will 

continue with this coordinated approach. The primary issue raised by the public regarding invasive 

species issues was the removal of woody invasives in Lot 17. The concern was that the removal of the 

woody structure would result in loss of wildlife habitat and visual resource impairment. The issue is 

what options are available to meet the resource objective of removing exotic woody vegetation within 

the ONA while mitigating these impacts. 
58 

7. Interpretive Program 

The Loxahatchee River Historical Society is currently the primary nexus for the visiting public within 

the ONA. The Lighthouse Museum is housed in the Station J Building. Palm Beach County Department 

of Environmental Resources Management has interpretive programs being used in nearby natural areas 

with similar habitats, primarily through interpretive kiosks and brochures. There is a need to incorporate 

these existing programs into a cohesive interpretive program addressing the unique combination of 

cultural, historic and natural resource values of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA. 

Figure 22. Giant wild pine at Jupiter Inlet
59 

Part III – Standard Management Practices 

The following management practices are standard for all activities within the ONA. 

A. Cultural and Historic Resources 

1. Cultural resource surveys, analysis, and evaluation of historic properties will be completed prior to all 

surface disturbing activities and cultural resource monitoring will be employed during these activities. 

All work will be conducted to the professional archeological guidelines and standards for the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Florida Division of Historical Resources. 

2. Consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Native American tribes will continue to be 

conducted, addressing any concerns regarding cultural and religious issues. 

B. Prescribed Burns 

1. All prescribed burning conducted on the Jupiter Inlet tract will comply with BLM Manual 9214 

Prescribed Fire Management, Chapter 590, Florida Statutes for Forest Protection, Chapter 5I-2, Florida 

Administrative Code (FAC) for Rural Open Burning, and Chapter 17-256, FAC for Open Burning and 

Frost Protection Fires. Copies of the BLM regulations may be obtained by contacting the BLM. Copies 

of the referenced Florida Statutes administrative codes may be obtained by contacting the Florida 

Division of Forestry. 

2. No prescribed burning will be conducted without an approved prescribed burn plan. A Go/NoGo 

checklist would be completed prior to ignition of the prescribed fire to ensure that all conditions and 

smoke management considerations specified in the prescribed burn plan have been met. 

3. The Clean Air Act (as amended) requires compliance with Florida's Air Quality regulations. 

Compliance with Florida's state or local smoke management laws and regulations will require that close 

communication be maintained with air quality authorities prior to and during prescribed fire applications. 

4. Prescribed burning will only be conducted when atmospheric conditions are favorable for rapid smoke 

dispersion (sufficient transport wind speed, direction and mixing height). 

5. Prescribed burning will not be conducted if there is a temperature inversion that will prevent smoke 

dispersion. No burning will be conducted if there is a potential, identified by the Florida Division of 

Forestry, for smoke to be transported into populated areas. 

6. The fire management plan will include coordination with adjacent municipalities on all aspects of the 

operational burn plans, as well as notification and coordination with adjacent landowners and businesses. 

7. Burn sites may be hand or mechanically prepared, as needed, to reduce the standing live fuel loads and 

remove larger diameter fuels. Longer burning fuels will be suppressed following completion of the burn 

to reduce residual smoke problems. Special status species including four-petal pawpaw, gopher tortoise, 

and others vulnerable to disturbance will be flagged prior to mechanical treatments. 

8. A thorough inventory of potential indigo snake refugia (i.e. stumps, debris piles, etc.) will be 

conducted prior to prescribed burns, briefing of the burn crew on identifying and protocol if seen, as well 
60 

as avoiding use of ring fires that could trap wildlife will help to reduce the potential to adversely affect 

this species. 

C. Herbicide Use 

 

1. The use of herbicides will be done in accordance with the standard operating procedures provided in 

the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Sept. 2007. 

2. Only chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be used. Of these, only 

chemicals approved for use on BLM-administered lands or approved by BLM for limited research 

purposes will be used. 

3. Control of exotic (non-native) plants will be in conformance with the BLM's mandates in the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (3 U.S.C. 1700 et seq.); and Management of Undesirable 

Plants on Federal Lands, 1990; and the Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-583), as well as the current 

BLM strategy plan " Partners Against Weeds, An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management." 

4. Herbicide application will be by hand and backpack sprayers only. 

5. Effective nonchemical methods of vegetation control will be applied where feasible, including hand 

pulling, girdling, prescribed fire and mulching. 

6. Chemicals may be used where benefits will meet or exceed those of other control methods. The 

application of chemicals shall meet BLM and EPA label requirements. 

7. A pre-treatment survey will be conducted to identify target plant species, as well as associated plant 

species, and proximity to sensitive resources. 

8. Herbicides with a non-aquatic label will not be used within 10-foot of the upper tidal zone or other 

body of water. If treatments are needed within the buffer zone, only those herbicides and adjutants 

formulated for aquatic situations may be used. No treatment of aquatic species is anticipated at this time, 

so there will be no direct application of herbicides to water or intertidal areas. 

8. A pesticide application record will be completed. This record documents site conditions at the time of 

application and initiates monitoring to determine effectiveness of treatment. 

D. Recreation and Visual Resource 

1. Placement of signs and fencing on the Jupiter Inlet tract will comply with related ordinances and 

regulations of the Town of Jupiter, the Village of Tequesta, and the BLM. 

2. Motorized vehicle use will be permitted only on maintained surfaced roads. The Jupiter Inlet ONA 

will be closed to off-highway vehicle use. Travel on non-surfaced management roads and all off-road 

travel will be allowed for emergency or authorized vehicles only. 

E. Vegetation and Wildlife 

1. No mechanized equipment will be allowed to operate within 25 feet of gopher tortoise burrows, or in 

accordance with the current federal and state best management practices for this species. 
61 

2. Construction of nest boxes, roost sites, and platforms will be incorporated where needed to meet 

wildlife needs. Suitable snags, that do not pose a public hazard, may also be retained as roost and nest 

sites. 

3. All activities with potential to affect Federally listed species will require the appropriate coordination 

under the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Figure 14. Giant leather fern 
62 
63 

Part IV. Management Actions 

The following section provides the goals and objectives for the future management of the ONA and 

describes a range of implementation actions to meet those goals and objectives. 

A. Goal: Promote public understanding of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area 

as a unit of the National Landscape Conservation System.

 

1. Objective: Identify the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area as a component of the 

National Landscape Conservation System and inform the public of the National Landscape 

Conservation System designation, the mission and purpose of the designation, and the role the ONA 

plays in this national system . 

 

Actions: 

· Install 4’ X 8’ standard format National Landscape Conservation System portal signs on both the 

north and south corners of County Road 707 and on the west side of Cato Bridge. This alternative would 

“brand” the new ONA and most accurately identify its full extent. 

· Pursue installation of tourist destination signs for the ONA at Indiantown Road north and south 

I-95 exits to promote the unit and assist visitors. This action would require updating the existing tourist 

destination signs to include the ONA. 

· Use the National Landscape Conservation System designation as a unifying theme for public 

interpretive facilities and materials, including kiosks, interpretive signage, brochures and exhibits. 

· Install split rail fencing around the perimeter and along interior roads of unfenced areas of the 

ONA to identify the boundary and to unify the site. 

B. Goal: Enhance the public experience and access to the natural areas and historic properties of 

the ONA site with facilities that are compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of the 

natural and cultural resources for which the area was designated. 

1. Objective: Develop a cohesive interpretive program to provide the visiting public and national 

audience a multi-layered story of the interrelated history and ecological significance of this strategic 

location. 

Actions: 

· Contract for the development of a comprehensive interpretive plan, based on specific themes and 

highlighting key periods in the history of the ONA, in close coordination with the ONA Partners. 

· Coordinate with ONA Partners to incorporate interpretive themes across administrative 

boundaries, where it supports the mission and goals of the Partners. 

2. Objective: Provide an infrastructure of parking, trails and signage to accommodate public visitation 

to representative areas within the ONA in manner that protects historic, cultural and natural 

resources, as well as the security of U.S. Coast Guard installations. 
64 

Actions: 

· Construct additional public access to natural areas within the ONA, a small parking area on the 

north side of County Road 707 straddling the existing asphalt road. 

· Include bike racks at public access points. 

· Install interpretive kiosks at major public access points and destinations within the ONA to 

provide an overview of the natural, historic and cultural resource values. These kiosks would be 

constructed at each public parking area and overlook and would include a map and general information 

on the ONA, as well as components of the interpretive program. 

· Construct a trail system, compliant with American with Disabilities Act (ADA), to an elevated 

boardwalk and an overlook at the tidal wetland. 

· Construct a soft trail system north of County Road 707 incorporating existing management roads 

and approximately 2,000 feet of new soft trail. 

· Replace the existing asphalt road on the north side of County Road 707, when needed. 

· Replace the existing chain-link fence and gates, install irrigation and native tree planting along 

public access route. 

· Install an ADA compliant ramp at the Tindall House. 

· Extend electric service to historic lighthouse fig tree and Tindall House. 

· Move utility lines underground in the vicinity of the Tindall House. 

· Install additional interpretive signage/kiosks, Native American replica shelter/displays, and 

pioneer outbuildings along the lighthouse public access route. 

2. Objective: Protect the integrity of cultural and historic resources in high public use areas. 

Actions: 

· Re-cap the midden behind the Station J building. Level area with clean sand, install geofabric 

and re-sod the site. Install pavers in high use areas to protect midden. 

· Construct a deck beneath the lighthouse fig tree, the site of the original lighthouse keeper’s 

house. The deck would serve to protect the site from foot traffic, provide an interpreted area for groups 

waiting to climb the lighthouse, and would be constructed in a manner to discourage climbing the iconic 

council fig. 

· Restore the Jupiter lighthouse mound, remove exotic plants, and install a new irrigation system 

and native plantings. Archeological monitoring would be required during these projects to identify 

particularly sensitive areas and to ensure that exotic removal and replanting efforts do not damage 

cultural areas. 
65 

C. Goal: Enhance the integrity of prehistoric and historic properties in the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area to reflect the rich Native American and maritime history of 

this strategic location. 

1. Objective: Maintain, restore and recreate historic structures within the ONA. 

Actions: 

· Restore the historic keeper’s workshop for use as living exhibit and interpretive center to 

demonstrate the working life of the lighthouse keeper in the 1920’s. Work will be conducted as per “The 

Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings.” This will include the sympathetic rehabilitation and stabilization of the building, including 

updating the electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems without interfering with the historic fabric of 

the structure. This also includes abatement of all asbestos and lead paint. 

· Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of the Interior and the Florida 

Division of Historical Resources, BLM and the ONA Partners to establish consistent monitoring, 

reporting and curation protocols for ensuring the protection of historic resources, cultural and prehistoric 

artifacts and human burial remains. 

· Actively pursue recreation of historic structures, such as the original weather station and 

lighthouse keeper’s residence, if/when sites become available. 

· Maintain, restore and stabilize the Jupiter Lighthouse First Order Fresnel lens. This restoration 

work will include assessment, cleaning, repair, painting and stabilization of lens apparatus by certified 

lens preservationists, and digital archival documentation of lens and revolving apparatus. 

· Repair, prepare and repaint the interior and metal components of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse, as 

needed. This would include the removal of oil based paint from the interior of the Lighthouse and 

repainting with paint suitable for the long term maintenance of the structure. 

D. Goal: Restore native plant communities and estuaries in the Outstanding Natural Area, with an 

emphasis on the conservation and enhancement of healthy, functioning ecological systems in 

perpetuity. 

1. Objective: Remove all woody invasive plant species from the ONA, and control regrowth and 

herbaceous invasive plant species so that they represent no more than 1% of the vegetation cover in 

the natural areas of the ONA within five years. 

Actions 

· Coordinate all ONA invasive weed control efforts into BLM pesticide use proposal program. 

This process would be updated every three years and would consider integrated weed management 

techniques that would reduce or minimize the use of herbicides throughout the ONA. Standardizing 

application techniques would reduce the need for parallel environmental review on Federal land and 

federally funded projects, and would simplify contracting requirements across administrative boundaries. 

· Remove, mulch and stump treat woody invasives with herbicides as needed in Lot 17 and 18 in 

stages over at least three years, treating the eastern third of the acreage along the Indian River Lagoon 

slope only after the shoreline has been stabilized. Australian pine snags in strategic locations may be 
66 

retained as roosts where they do not pose a public hazard. Reestablishing natives through plantings or 

seeding will be used to augment vegetation where needed. All ground disturbing work in culturally 

sensitive areas would be monitored by an archeologist. 

· In conjunction with the removal of woody invasive species in Lot 17 and 18, removal of 

herbaceous invasive plants will require multiple techniques, including hand pulling, mechanical removal, 

and selective use of herbicide. Herbicides would be used to stump treat woody stems of shrubs and 

mature vines and for hand held foliar applications on target species. Excavation may be used on some 

rhizomatous plants, such as bow string hemp, if compatible with protection of cultural resources. Areas 

with potential for near surface cultural resources may require special techniques to avoid disturbance, 

such as temporary matting. All ground disturbing work in culturally sensitive areas would be monitored 

by an archeologist. 

· Incorporating early and more frequent invasive plant sweeps in areas in a maintenance mode are 

planned, particularly in areas of new disturbance and following all prescribed fires. Vigilant hand pulling 

can be effective during this window before invasive plants have an opportunity to produce seed. This 

approach will also assist in reducing the amount of herbicide needed to suppress invasive plants. At least 

annual sweeps will be conducted across the ONA in areas in a maintenance mode. During these sweeps, 

hand pulling and bagging will be the primary mode of removal, selective use of herbicides would be 

used to stump treat woody vines or trees, and in areas where invasive species have established a 

monoculture stand. 

· Invasive native vines will be controlled where they pose a threat to habitat values; this includes 

love vine (Cassytha filiformis) and coin vine (Dalbergia ecastophyllum). Love vine would be hand 

pulled, while other invasive vines would typically be cut at the base and stump treated with herbicide. 

2. Objective: Implement a prescribed burn program that maintains fire dependent plant communities, 

assists with restoration of disturbed areas, adequately addresses smoke management issue and the 

control of hazardous fuels in this urban wildland interface. 

Actions 

· Develop a fire management plan for the ONA in coordination with Palm Beach County 

Department of Environmental Resources Management and other ONA Partners. 

· Use prescribed fire as the preferred management tool for scrub habitats within the ONA. Fire 

interval and preparation techniques would be adapted to maintain approximately 50% of the scrub 

habitats as suitable for those scrub endemics that require earlier successional scrubs. In general those 

characteristics are described by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory on June 30, 2009. It is anticipated that sand pine would be reduced in these 

areas. The remaining areas would be managed with longer fire rotations to support perforate lichen, 

ephiphytes, and other species requiring more mature scrub communities, including sand pine. It is the 

goal of this plan to adapt implementation, as needed, to reflect the most current research. Where the use 

of fire is not prudent mechanical manipulations may be used to maintain scrub characteristics. Specific 

burn plans will be developed prior to each burn establishing the burn prescription based on fuel 

conditions and resource objectives. 

3. Objective: Support the recovery of Federal and State-listed species within the capabilities of the 

ONA, and manage and enhance habitats to support other declining and at risk species. 
67 

Actions 

· Utilize planting and seeding to augment the population of endangered four-petal pawpaw 

(Asimina tetramera) to create a self-sustaining, genetically diverse population within suitable habitat of 

the ONA. 

· Explore relocation of endangered perforate lichen (Cladonia perforata) to suitable habitats 

within the ONA to expand the current population. 

· Continue to maintain habitat values for Florida Scrub Jay, and participate if opportunities for 

reintroduction become available. 

· Utilize existing asphalt roads within the U.S. Coast Guard communication site to access northern 

management road via a new locked gate. Eliminate sections of sand management road south of 

communication site and south of “buffer” area on northern boundary. 

· Maintain between 10 and 30% open sand in oak scrub areas to benefit endemic forbs utilizing a 

combination of root raking or hand clearing to expand existing open areas within scrub. 

· Replace existing ball field fence with a 3-4’ chain link fence and native, drought tolerant hedge 

to reduce trash, trampling, and deflect irrigation overspray into the adjacent scrub vegetation, and to 

provide increased protection for federally endangered perforate lichen. 

· Lock gates and install a net over the northern side of the tennis courts to reduce the need to 

retrieve stray balls from the adjacent scrub areas and provide increased protection for federally 

endangered perforate lichen. 

4. Objective: Control or remove non-native wildlife species with the potential to adversely affect native 

species.

Actions 

· Live trap all feral cats and remove from the ONA. Work to place cats with local support groups. 

Alert adjacent homeowners to policy and of the risks domestic cats pose to wildlife in the ONA. 

· Explore options for control of curly-tailed lizard, brown anole and other exotic wildlife species 

as methods become available. 

· Continue to monitor for feral hogs, removing them as quickly as possible once detected. 

5. Objective: Ensure that the shorelines bordering the ONA are functioning properly and are capable 

of withstanding anticipated uses, and natural forces. 

Actions 

· Design a shoreline stabilization project which addresses active erosion issues along the Indian 

River Lagoon and Loxahatchee River, reducing or eliminating migration of material into the Intracoastal 

Waterway, stabilizing the shoreline and banks to curtail loss of soil and establishing a stand of native 

vegetation. The design would also establish a mangrove shelf along active shoreline areas to buffer the 

shore from storm surges, provide enhanced wildlife and fisheries habitat along these shorelines, and to 
68 

protect water quality within West Indian manatee critical habitat, and visually screen the shoreline 

stabilization structures. 

· A separate project would reestablish the 1995 shoreline along the area of active erosion along 

the Loxahatchee River. 

E. Goal: Provide consistent public use guidelines for public safety and for the protection of 

natural, historic and cultural resources. 

Objective: Establish supplementary rules for the ONA. 

Actions 

· Adopt as supplementary rules Palm Beach County’s Natural Area Ordinance No. 94-13 for Lots 

15, 16, 17 and 19 and adopt as supplementary rules Palm Beach County’s Parks and Recreation 

Ordinance for Lots 18 and 20. These ordinances are provided in Appendix C. 

· Develop a law enforcement memorandum of understanding that would authorize enforcement of 

the supplementary rules by the Palm Beach County Sheriff Department, Town of Jupiter Police, Village 

of Tequesta Police, Jupiter Inlet Colony, and Florida State law enforcement officials and other entities, 

as appropriate. 

Figure 24. Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse’s First Order Fresnel lens
69 

Part V. Environmental Assessment 
70 
71 

A. Purpose and Need for the Action 

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act (PL-110-229) which designated the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse 

Outstanding Natural Area requires that the Secretary of the Interior develop a management plan within 

three years and that the plan be developed in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, county, and 

local government agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, the Local Partners, and other partners; 

and in a manner that ensures full public participation. When approved, this plan will guide BLM and its 

partners in the future management of the ONA. 

B. Description of the Affected Environment 

Refer to the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area Management Plan for a description of the 

physical, natural and cultural resources found within the ONA. 

C. Description of the Proposed Action 

This environmental assessment addresses actions within the ONA that would be initiated by BLM or 

where Federal funding support is anticipated. Other projects, not addressed in this management plan 

where Federal support is needed, may need additional environmental analysis to meet Federal NEPA 

requirements. The plan includes a list of standard management practices that would be implemented 

across all Federal actions within the ONA. This are listed in the management plan under Part III – 

Standard Management Practices. 

While this document addresses the impacts associated with implementation of most actions included in 

Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area Management Plan there are several important 

components that will require additional analysis and environmental review. For instance, the final 

design for the Indian River Lagoon shoreline stabilization project has not been selected and the 

environmental effects from the implementation of that project are dependent on the design selected. The 

project will require a separate, more in-depth NEPA analysis, as well as regulatory review and 

permitting before the project would be approved for construction. This would include coordination as 

required with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Army Corps of 

Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and South Florida Water Management 

District. Also, the installation of a new water line and fire hydrant to provide fire protection for the 

Station J building has been proposed. This project is anticipated to be located within Lot 20, Jupiter 

Lighthouse Park, and would be constructed at the discretion of the Town of Jupiter. 

In addition, the prescribed burn program is handled programmatically in this document and additional 

environmental review is expected for the completed prescribed burn plan, and may be required for 

individual prescribed burns. Prescribed burn best management practices for areas supporting perforate 

lichen are being developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These best management practices 

would be incorporated into the prescribed burn program. This could alter the planned action and require 

additional NEPA analysis. 
72 

Summary of Proposed Actions 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Public Access and Passive Recreation Facilities

North Side Parking Construct small 

parking on north side 

of County Road 707. 

Construct 8 car 

parking on north 

side of County Road 

707. 

Install traffic light 

and pedestrian crosswalk across County 

Road 707. 

Continue off street 

parking on north 

side of County Road 

707. 

North Side Hard 

Trail 

Construct a concrete 

nADA compliant 

trail from parking 

area to wetland 

boardwalk. 

Construct concrete 

trail (ADA 

compliant) from 

parking area to 

wetland boardwalk. 

Construct shell rock 

trail from parking 

area to wetland 

boardwalk. 

No trail 

construction. 

North Side Wetland 

/Boardwalk 

Overlook 

Construct elevated 

boardwalk along 

wetland lagoon to a 

single story wetland 

overlook. 

Construct elevated 

boardwalk along 

wetland lagoon to 

two story wetland 

overlook. 

Construct elevated 

boardwalk along 

wetland lagoon to 

single story wetland 

overlook. 

No trail 

construction. 

North Side Soft Trail Construct soft loop 

trail to link 

management roads 

to parking area on 

north side of County 

Road 707. 

Construct soft loop 

trail linking 

management roads 

to parking area on 

north side. 

Utilize sections of 

existing management 

roads as soft trails, 

no new trail 

construction. 

No trail 

construction. 

Portal Signage Install ONA portal 

signs on north and 

south side of County 

Road 707 at U.S. 

Highway 1 and at 

Cato Bridge. 

Install ONA portal 

signs on north and 

south side of County 

Road 707 at U.S. 

Highway 1 and at 

Cato Bridge. 

Portal sign off 

County Road 707 

only. 

No portal sign.

Recreational and 

Cultural Interest 

Area Signs 

(brown highway 

sign) 

Apply for tourist 

destination sign for 

ONA at Indiantown 

Road north and 

south I-95 exits and 

Florida Turnpike. 

Apply for tourist 

destination sign for 

ONA at Indiantown 

Road north and 

south I-95 exits and 

Florida Turnpike. 

Same as Alternative 

I 

No highway sign.

South Side ADA 

Trail 

On hold until Lot 17 

restoration 

completed. 

Construct concrete 

ADA trail from 

Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse to the 

Inlet overlook and to 

wetland boardwalk 

south of Cato 

Bridge. 

Construct shell rock 

loop trail from 

Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse and 

another from new 

trailhead south of 

Cato Bridge. 

No trail or overlook 

construction. 

South Side 

Boardwalk 

On hold until Lot 17 

restoration 

completed. 

Construct boardwalk 

along Indian River 

Lagoon 

No boardwalk or 

overlook 

construction 

No boardwalk or 

overlook 

construction. 

South Side Soft Trail On hold until Lot 17 Construct soft loop Construct shell rock No trail 
73 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

restoration 

completed. 

trail section off 

concrete ADA trail. 

loop trail along 

Indian River. 

construction.

Connect Trail 

System 

On hold until Lot 17 

restoration 

completed. 

Construct elevated 

boardwalk with rails 

under County Road 

707 Bridge for 

public use. 

Direct public use 

under County Road 

707 Bridge with 

signage only. 

No boardwalk 

construction. 

Bike Racks Provide bike racks at 

new parking area. 

Provide bike racks at 

both new parking 

areas. 

Install bike rack at 

new north side 

parking area and 

south side trail head. 

No bike rack 

installation. 

Management Roads Utilize existing 

asphalt road in U.S. 

Coast Guard 

communication site 

to access northern 

blocks for 

management roads. 

Utilize existing 

asphalt road in U.S. 

Coast Guard 

communication site 

to access northern 

blocks for 

management roads. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Continue to use and 

maintain existing 

management roads. 

Management Roads Eliminate “buffer 

management road” 

and management 

road south of U.S. 

Coast Guard 

communication site 

(maintained as 

firebreak only). 

Eliminate “buffer 

management road” 

and management 

road south of U.S. 

Coast Guard 

communication site 

(maintained as 

firebreak only). 

Eliminate “buffer 

management road” 

only, continue to use 

management road 

south of U.S. Coast 

Guard 

communication site. 

Continue to use and 

maintain existing 

management roads. 

Non-motorized Boat 

Access 

No new wetland 

construction. 

Extend the existing 

mangrove wetland to 

the south to provide 

additional access for 

non-motorized boats. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

No lagoon 

extension. 

New South Side 

Parking 

On hold until Lot 17 

restoration 

completed. 

Construct parking 

area and trailhead. 

Construct trailhead 

only. 

No new 

construction. 

Access Road North 

of County Road 707 

Replace existing 

road, when needed. 

Repave existing 

asphalt road. 

Replace existing 

road with permeable 

surface road. 

No improvements to 

existing road. 

Historic Structures

Historic Keeper’s 

Workshop 

Restore historic 

Keeper’s Workshop 

to Secretary of the 

Interior Standards 

for interpretive use. 

Restore historic 

Keeper’s Workshop 

to Secretary of the 

Interior Standards 

for use as a historic 

workshop and 

workroom. 

Restore as storage 

building to Secretary 

of the Interior 

Standards as 

workshop only, no 

public access. 

No reconstruction of 

historic structures. 
74 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Lighthouse Keeper’s 

House and Weather 

Station 

Recreate historic 

structures for Coast 

Guard housing, if it 

does not adversely 

affect U.S. Coast 

Guard mission. 

Recreate historic 

structures for public 

interpretation, if it 

does not adversely 

affect U.S. Coast 

Guard mission. 

Recreate historic 

structures for Coast 

Guard housing, if it 

does not adversely 

affect U.S. Coast. 

Guard mission. 

No recreation of 

historic structures. 

Bridge Tender’s 

Building 

On hold until Lot 17 

restoration 

completed. 

Build kiosk near 

original Bridge 

Tender’s building 

site for public 

interpretation. 

Recreate Bridge 

Tender’s building 

near original site for 

public interpretation. 

No construction 

associated with 

Bridge Tender’s 

building. 

Station J midden 

protection 

Re-cap and sod 

midden area behind 

Station J building, 

install limited pavers 

in high use area. 

Re-cap and sod 

midden area behind 

Station J building, 

install limited pavers 

in high use area. 

Same as No Action No construction or 

additional capping 

behind Station J 

building. 

Water Taxi Dock No water taxi dock 

construction at this 

time. 

Construct dock for 

use by authorized 

water taxi. 

No water taxi dock 

construction. 

No water taxi dock 

construction. 

Lighthouse Keeper’s 

house cap 

Construct a deck 

over Lighthouse 

Keeper’s house 

location (under 

council fig). 

Construct a deck 

over Lighthouse 

Keeper’s house 

location (under 

council fig). 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

No construction of 

deck. 

Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse Mound 

Remove exotic 

plants, cap mound, 

as needed, install 

new irrigation 

system, and native 

plantings. 

Remove exotic 

plants, cap mound, 

as needed, install 

new irrigation 

system, and native 

plantings. 

Install new irrigation 

at lighthouse mound 

and reduce mowing 

to establish more 

vigorous bahia grass 

coverage, but leave 

eastern mound area 

as is. 

Continuation of 

existing 

management. 

Tindall 

House/Native 

Garden Facilities 

Maintenance/Improv

ement 

Install sidewalkbrick paver 

connections, 

irrigation and native 

tree planting, ADA 

ramp for Tindall 

House, and 

extension of electric 

service to lighthouse 

fig tree and Tindall 

House, and move 

utility lines 

underground 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

No improvements or 

maintenance actions. 

Exterior Educational Install interpretive Same as Preferred Same as Preferred No improvements or 
75 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Displays Native American 

shelter and other 

interpretive signage 

along Lighthouse 

public access path 

Alt. Alt. maintenance actions.

Lighthouse 

Maintenance 

Remove oil based 

paint and repaint 

inside of Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse and 

repair and repaint 

metal components, 

including rust 

remediation. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

No improvements or 

maintenance actions. 

Lighthouse Lens 

Repair and 

Maintenance 

Conduct condition 

assessment, clean, 

stabilize and repair 

First Order Fresnel 

lens and pedestal. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

No improvements or 

maintenance actions. 

Erosion Control

Indian River Lagoon 

Bluff 

Stabilize slope and 

reduce migration of 

material into 

Intracoastal 

Waterway. 

Stabilize slope and 

reduce migration of 

material into 

Intracoastal 

Waterway, establish 

native vegetation 

cover, provide 

opportunities for 

snorkeling, no 

access to uplands 

from the water. 

Stabilize slope and 

reduce migration of 

material into 

Intracoastal 

Waterway, provide 

opportunities for 

boat mooring, and 

public access to 

uplands from water. 

Continue to exclude 

public use, but no 

erosion control 

measures taken. 

Loxahatchee River Stabilize actively 

eroding northern 

shoreline backfilling 

as needed to return 

to 1950 shoreline. 

Stabilize actively 

eroding western 

shoreline backfilling 

as needed to return 

to 1950 shoreline. 

Stabilize actively 

eroding western 

shoreline at current 

location. 

No shoreline 

stabilization. 

Shoreline Mangrove 

Planter 

Construct a 

mangrove planter 

along southern 

portion of the Indian 

River Lagoon 

Construct a 

mangrove planter 

along eastern 

shoreline of 

Loxahatchee River 

and southern portion 

of Indian River 

Lagoon. 

Utilize mangrove 

balls in shallow 

areas on western 

shoreline of 

Loxahatchee River 

and Indian River 

Lagoon. 

No mangrove 

plantings. 

Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Actions

North Side 

Use prescribed fire 

as primary tool to 

Combine current 

blocks into four 

Combine current 

blocks into four 

Continue with 6 

burn blocks. 
76 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Prescribed Burn 

Program 

maintain scrub 

habitats, mechanical 

manipulations 

permitted when and 

where fire is not 

prudent. Goal to 

maintain the optimal 

height of shrub layer 

in blocks 1, 2 and 5 

at a height of 4 to 5.5 

feet. Blocks 3, 4 and 

6 would be managed 

for longer burn 

rotations to maintain 

mature scrub 

character, generally 

every 15 to 30 years. 

units. Eastern units 

on 15-year burn 

cycle, mechanical 

manipulation only 

on western burn 

blocks. 

units. Eastern two 

units on 15 year burn 

cycles and western 

units on 30-year 

burn cycles. 

South Side 

Prescribed Burn 

Program 

Use prescribed fire 

as primary tool to 

maintain scrub 

habitats, mechanical 

manipulations 

permitted when and 

where fire is not 

prudent. 

Utilize prescribed 

burn program to 

reduce fuel loads 

and improve habitat 

in scrub habitat on 

30-year rotation. 

Mechanical 

manipulation only 

on south side scrub 

habitat. 

No fuel reduction or 

burn program in 

scrub habitats on 

south side. 

Invasive Control 

Use integrated pest 

management tools to 

eradicate woody 

invasives and control 

herbaceous invasive 

plant species. 

Conduct at least 

annual sweeps 

across natural areas 

within ONA. 

Provide additional 

sweeps as needed 

after burns, or other 

disturbance to 

control spread of 

herbaceous exotic 

and invasive plant 

species. Hand 

pulling is preferred 

method with hand 

application of 

herbicide allowed 

Conduct semiannual invasive 

sweep of ONA and 

quarterly sweeps of 

natural areas in 

Coast Guard housing 

area. 

Continue annual 

invasive sweep of 

BLM administered 

lands only. 

Continue annual 

summer sweep of 

invasive plant 

species and quarterly 

sweeps of natural 

areas in Coast Guard 

housing area. 
77 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

where there is low 

risk to non-target 

species. 

Invasive Control 

Phase the 

mechanical removal 

of all woody 

invasives in Lot 17 

over 3 years, with 

herbicide follow-up 

and planting of 

natives, as needed. 

Phase the 

mechanical removal 

of all woody 

invasives in Lot 17 

over 3 years, with 

herbicide follow-up 

and planting of 

natives, as needed. 

Mechanically treat 

all woody invasives 

in Lot 17, with 

herbicide follow-up 

as needed. 

No invasive removal

Wetland 

Construction South 

Side 

No new wetland 

construction. 

Construct an 

additional wetland 

lagoon south of 

County Road 707. 

Same as No Action No new wetland 

construction. 

Open Sand Areas Root rake and/or 

hand clear woody 

shrubs/pine to 

maintain 10-30% 

open sand. 

Root rake and/or 

hand clear oak scrub 

to maintain 10-30% 

open sand. 

Same as No Action Do not actively 

create open areas in 

scrub habitats. 

Roosting and cavity 

opportunities 

Install osprey 

platforms, bat roosts, 

and bird boxes 

where appropriate. 

Install osprey 

platforms, bat roosts, 

and bird boxes 

where needed. 

Same as No Action No installation of 

nest boxes, roosts or 

platforms. 

Feral Cats Actively trap and 

remove feral cats 

and other non-native 

species. 

Actively trap and 

remove feral cats. 

Same as Alternative 

1 

No feral cat 

trapping. 

Four-petal pawpaw Continue to pursue 

population 

augmentation to 

sustain genetically 

diverse population. 

Augment existing 

four petal pawpaw 

population up to 500 

plants over ten years. 

Augment existing 

pawpaw population 

with seeding from 

onsite plants only up 

to 300 plants over 

ten years. 

No further 

augmentation. 

Perforate lichen Schedule burn 

intervals to sustain 

perforate lichen 

populations in the 

ONA, and utilize 

current best 

management 

practices developed 

in coordination with 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Prior to burning 

occupied habitat, 

move perforate 

lichen from 

vulnerable locations 

to suitable habitats, 

including 

unoccupied habitat 

in ONA. 

Move perforate 

lichen from 

vulnerable positions, 

but only within 

currently occupied 

habitat. 

No moving of 

perforate lichen. 
78 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Florida Scrub Jay Continue to manage 

habitat to meet 

Florida Scrub Jay 

requirements. 

Explore options for 

future 

reintroduction, if it 

supports regional 

recovery efforts. 

Continue to manage 

habitat to meet 

Florida Scrub Jay 

requirements. 

Explore options for 

future 

reintroduction, if it 

supports regional 

recovery efforts. 

Same as Alternative 

I 

Manage scrub 

habitat for general 

wildlife values. 

Florida Mouse Pursue 

reintroduction of this 

rare Florida species 

Same as No Action 

Alt. 

Same as No Action 

Alt. 

No reintroduction of 

Florida mouse. 

Soccer Field Fencing Replace existing 

fence with 4’ black 

chain link and 

native, drought 

resistant hedge. 

Replace existing 

fence with 4’ black 

chain link and 

native, drought 

resistant hedge. 

Same as Alternative 

I 

Maintain existing 4 

x 4 fences. 

Tennis courts Restrict access to 

adjacent scrub and 

install overhead 

screen to reduce 

number of stray 

balls. 

Restrict access to 

adjacent scrub and 

install overhead 

screen to reduce 

number of stray 

balls. 

Install overhead 

screen but keep 

doors unlocked. 

Continue with 

unlocked gates and 

no tennis course 

screen. 

Security

Perimeter Fencing Install split rail 

fencing around the 

perimeter and along 

interior improved 

roads to identify the 

boundary and to 

unify the site. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

No improvements or 

maintenance actions. 

Fencing Replace chain link 

fence between Post 

Exchange and 

Loxahatchee River. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Fire Hydrant Install adequate 

water lines and fire 

hydrant in vicinity of 

the Station J 

building 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Same as Preferred 

Alt. 

Law Enforcement 

Agreements 

Establish Law 

Enforcement MOU 

between ONA 

partners. 

Establish Law 

Enforcement MOU 

between ONA 

partners. 

Same as Alternative 

I. 

No coordinated law 

enforcement effort. 
79 

PROPOSED 

ACTION 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

Supplementary 

Special Rules 

Adopt Palm Beach 

County Natural Area 

Ordinance as 

Supplementary 

Rules for Lots 15, 

16, 17 and 19, and 

County Parks and 

Recreation 

Ordinance for Lot 18 

and 20. 

Same as Preferred 

Alternative 

Establish new set of 

Supplementary 

Rules. 

Establish no 

Supplementary 

Rules. 
80 

D. Environmental Impacts 

The following elements are not expected to be significantly affected by the implementation of this plan, 

and will not be discussed further. 

Environmental justice 

Floodplains 

Hazardous or solid waste 

Prime or unique farmlands 

National wild and scenic rivers 

Wilderness 

The following elements would be affected or have the potential to be affected by the implementation of 

this plan, and will be discussed further in this document. 

Water quality 

Air quality 

Cultural resources 

Native American culture or religious concerns 

Wildlife 

Threatened or endangered species 

Invasive, non-native species 

Wetland/riparian zones 

1. Water Quality 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

Most projects proposed in this plan, such as public access facilities and protection and restoration of 

historic resources, would take place in upland situations and would not affect surface or subsurface water 

quality. There is potential, however, to affect water quality in the adjacent waterways as a result of 

proposed shoreline stabilization projects along both the Indian River Lagoon and the Loxahatchee River. 

While the selection of the preferred design for slope stabilization along the Indian River Lagoon is 

beyond the scope of this document, in general the maintenance or improvement of water quality is a key 

project goal to be accomplished through the control of erosion and reduction of sedimentation into the 

adjacent rivers, and through the use of a mangrove shelf along portions of the shoreline to capture 

sediments and further buffer the shoreline. There is the potential to adversely affect water quality 

temporarily during construction of these shoreline stabilization projects. Alternatives which install 

riprap, sheet piling, and include the construction of a mangrove shelf would increase suspended 

sediments and could add sediments to nearby sea grass beds. Use of turbidity curtains during all phases 

of the shoreline construction projects would be required to contain suspended sediments. In all cases, 

the environmental affects would be dependent on the design of the project and would require a separate 

more in-depth NEPA analysis, as well as regulatory review and permitting, before the project would be 

approved for construction. This would include coordination as required with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, and South Florida Water Management District. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no new tidal wetland construction projects and therefore 

no impacts associated with the construction of these projects. 
81 

There is the potential to affect surface and subsurface water through the use of herbicides. The selective 

use of herbicides and the method of application would reduce the risk. Management practices common 

to all alternatives require that herbicides with a non-aquatic label not be used within a 10-foot buffer 

from the upper tidal zone or other body of water. If treatments are needed within the buffer zone, only 

those herbicides and adjutants formulated for aquatic situations may be used. No treatment of aquatic 

species is anticipated at this time, so there would be no direct application of herbicides to water or 

intertidal areas. Herbicides used to treat woody material are typically applied to cut stump, which 

reduces the amount of product applied, increases efficacy and avoids the potential for accidental drift, 

further reducing the potential to affect adjacent water bodies. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, more frequent sweeps to control invasive plants are planned, 

particularly following surface disturbance and prescribed burns, in newly disturbed areas when hand 

pulling herbaceous plants is more manageable. Early intervention, before the plants go to seed, can be 

effective in reducing the spread of these species and is expected to ultimately reduce the need for using 

herbicide during follow-up sweeps. 

The removal of exotics in Lot 17 over at least three years would extend the period when herbicides are 

being used and may increase the need for follow-up treatments because of the remaining seed sources. 

Impacts to subsurface water from the targeted use of herbicides are not expected. The water table is 

typically over 6 feet below the surface. Glyphosate (Round-up) is the primary herbicide used in foliar 

applications within the ONA, and its application is very targeted using a backpack or hand sprayer. 

Glyphosate quickly bonds with soil particles preventing it from leaching into ground water. This affinity 

remains until the product degrades through microbial action. 

Additional techniques and products may be included in future Pesticide Use Proposals and analyzed in 

associated NEPA documents to ensure that the safest and more effective techniques are used to control 

and eradicate exotic invasive plant species within the ONA. 

b. Impacts from the Alternative 1 

Same as Preferred Alternative expect that this Alternative includes the construction of a new tidal lagoon 

and extension of the existing tidal lagoon. During construction of additional tidal lagoon there is 

potential to adversely affect water quality in the adjacent Indian River Lagoon, although the use of 

standard best management practices, including the use of silt screens is expected to mitigate those 

impacts. The creation of duel outlets to tidal lagoons could compromise the flushing ability of the 

lagoons, allowing sediments to drop out shortening the functional life of the lagoon and reducing the 

viability of the wetland to support aquatic species. 

 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Same as Preferred Alternative, except that a single tidal wetland would be constructed south of County 

Road 707 under this alternative, and there would be no extension of the existing tidal wetland. There is 

the potential for temporary impacts to water quality related to construction activities, however prudent 

use of silt screens is expected to mitigate those impacts. 

Invasive sweeps would be conducted annually under this Alternative. These longer intervals allow 

invasive plants to go to seed requiring additional effort, expense, and increase the need to use herbicides 

where monoculture stands develop. Invasive vines may become too large to hand pull, necessitating the 

need to treat cut stumps with herbicide. 
82 

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Same as the Preferred Alternative, except there would be no shoreline stabilization project along the 

western bank of the Indian River Lagoon. Portions of this bank have lost over 100 feet of land over the 

last 50 years. Without stabilization, the erosion of this bank into the Indian River Lagoon is expected to 

continue to contribute sediments along this reach of the estuary, adding to local turbidity and 

contributing to dredging needs. 

As under Alternative 2, longer intervals between invasive sweeps would increase the level of effort, and 

expense in invasive removal, and increase the need to use herbicides. 

2. Air Quality 

a. Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

Under this Alternative prescribed burning would be the preferred tool to manage scrub habitats within 

the ONA, with mechanical manipulation being used when burning cannot be conducted due to public 

safety or resource issues. In general, no more than one incremental prescribed burn would be conducted 

per year and that rotation schedule could be extended up to ten years between each 5-6 acre burn. 

The prescribed burning program has the potential to negatively impact air quality during the day of the 

burn, and affect individuals living, working or visiting in the Jupiter Inlet area during that time. Smoke 

from prescribed fires can release five of the six "criteria air pollutants" identified by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, including aerosols of organic acids and hydrocarbons, and particulate matter of 

various size fractions. The type of pollutants varies with the type of fuel, its moisture content, the 

temperature of the fire, and the length of time materials continue to smolder after the fire. There are a 

number of facilities within a mile of the ONA, such as schools, assisted living facilities and hospitals, or 

medical clinics that are considered to be smoke sensitive. In addition, the relatively high number of 

older residents, with potential breathing difficulties, increases the critical need for smoke management 

during all prescribed burns. The proposed prescription would carry smoke over the Jupiter Inlet out to 

sea without affecting the inland air quality. Pre-treating burn blocks to remove larger diameter fuels 

would reduce the burn duration and the potential for the wind shifting. Completing mop-up of residual 

burns within six hours would also limit the potential for smoke exposure. 

Prescribed burning of Lot 19 in particular has the potential to affect Coast Guard housing and should be 

closely coordinated with residents, so that smoke sensitive persons are given the opportunity to leave the 

site until all smoke has dissipated. 

Some minor negative impacts to air quality could include generation of fugitive dust from ground 

disturbance and hydrocarbon emissions from vehicles during the clearing of invasive plants in Lot 17. 

Use of mechanized equipment, such as mulchers or chain saws could also increase suspended 

particulates in the air. However, these impacts would be minimized by ensuring use of appropriate and 

properly installed mufflers on all equipment. Any increases in dust would be particularly noticeable 

under dry conditions when offshore winds could transport dust towards the adjacent Coast Guard 

housing. These impacts are expected to be localized and of short duration. 

Other actions proposed are not expected to affect air quality. 
83 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Same as Preferred Alternative, expect that this Alternative would utilize mechanical manipulations to 

manage the scrub habitat on the western portion of the ONA, reducing the number of prescribed burns. 

Because the burn rotation for these areas is expected to be 30 years this has the potential to result in two 

less prescribed burns over the life of this plan. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Same as the Preferred Alternative, except could be more opportunity for dust as all woody exotics would 

be removed from Lot 17 at the same time. 

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative there would be no additional burning within the ONA and as a result no adverse 

affects to air quality. There would also be no mechanical removal of woody invasives in Lot 17, 

eliminating the minor emissions and dust created by that activity. 

3. Soils 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

Impacts to soils could occur 1) mixing of the soil surface by heavy equipment, 2) soil compaction, 3) soil 

erosion and 4) use of prescribed fire. The first impact would be caused by the maneuvering of 

mechanized equipment on the soil surface, particularly in the mechanical manipulation of scrubs in the 

western management blocks, removal of invasives in Lot 17, and annual root raking to maintain fire 

breaks. This could cause a mixing of soil horizons and cause a short term loss of soil productivity in the 

scrub sites though the loss of soil cryptobiotic soil crusts, which fix nitrogen which can be passed to 

vascular plants. The second impact, soil compaction, would be caused by vehicle and machinery travel 

on the soil surface. Compaction decreases air and water infiltration into the soil profile thus reducing 

soil productivity. Because sandy soils are not highly susceptible to compaction and the total area 

affected would be small in a given year, impacts to soil productivity from compaction are expected to be 

negligible. The third impact, soil erosion occurs within the ONA where the vegetation cover on slopes is 

inadequate, and as a result of wave, storm surge and public use. There are actions proposed in this 

alternative to remediate active soil erosion along the banks of the Loxahatchee River and Indian River 

Lagoon, as well as areas vulnerable areas of the Jupiter Lighthouse mound. Under this alternative the 

most eroded section of shoreline along the Loxahatchee River would be returned and stabilized at its 

1995 location. As in Impacts to Water, discussed above, additional assessment will be required to 

analyze the impacts, both positive and negative, of the final design of these shoreline projects. 

The impacts of prescribed fire on soil productivity are complex. After fire large quantities of nitrogen, 

phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium and sulphur become readily soluble (Wright, 

1982). Fire is beneficial for incorporation of woody materials (nutrients) in areas where the soils are 

well drained (sandy soils) and decomposition of woody material generally takes longer. This rapid 

increase in nutrients in the soil would help stimulate new growth in areas that have been treated using 

fire. If vegetation is removed by a means other than by the use of prescribed fire, a measurable change 

in available nutrients is not anticipated because of the slow rate of decomposition of woody material on 

sandy well-drained soils. However, studies have shown that it may take 10 to 15 years or longer for soil 

crusts to recover from fire, depending on the soil crust species composition, area of the burn and distance 

from intact crusts (http://www.archbold-station.org/abs/ABS/research/plantecol/plantecolsoilcrusts.htm). 

These impacts maybe mitigated in more opens scrubs with scattered fuels. 
84 

Under this Alternative, new public access facilities, including a small parking area, trail and boardwalk 

would be constructed only north of County Road 707. Public access facilities south of County Road 707 

would be addressed after habitat restoration activities in Lot 17 are completed, as part of an additional 

planning effort. 

Under this Alternative an estimated 0.435 acres of soil disturbance would occur as the result of the 

construction of visitor access facilities north of County Road 707. This includes approximately 1,120 

feet of ADA trail, a boardwalk and wetlandoverlook. An additional 0.1 acre would be disturbed 

temporarily during the construction of the ADA trail and associated facilities. Virtually all disturbances 

would occur in St. Lucie-Paola sands with 0 to 8 percent slope. Compaction is not expected to be a 

significant problem in these deep sandy soils. However, the construction activities would disturb soil 

crusts and could result in the short term loss of soil productivity due to loss of cryptobiotic soil crusts, 

which fix nitrogen which can be passed to vascular plants. 

Additional minor soil disturbances are expected as a result of the installation of new or replacement 

fencing, pavers, burying utilities and new irrigation systems. All of these activities may result in very 

local mixing of these deep sandy soils but are not expected to result in any erosive actions. Capping the 

lighthouse mound and midden behind the Station J building would require additional fill material. Clean 

fill similar to the native sands would provide the best chance for reestablishment of native plant species. 

b. Impacts from the Alternative 1 

Under this Alternative 1.1 acres of soil disturbance would occur as a result of visitor access facilities on 

both the north and south side south side County Road 707. The additional areas (0.695 acres) of 

disturbance are located in predominately Quartzipsamments soils and in previously disturbed areas. 

These are sandy soils where compaction is not expected to be a significant problem and where 

cryptobiotic soil crusts are less likely to be well established. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 there would be a total of 0.735 acres disturbed with approximately half of the soils 

being St. Lucie-Paola sands and remainder Quartzipsamments, plus an additional 0.37 acres of 

temporary disturbance in those soil types. 

There could also be some additional soil disturbance of approximately 0.11 acres of sand pine scrub 

associated with the construction of a temporary fire break between the western burn blocks. This fire 

break would be needed only once during the life of this plan. 

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

There would be no impacts to soils related to trail construction, other visitor access facilities or 

prescribed fire. There would be ongoing impacts to soils related to the unresolved erosion along the 

Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon. Both shorelines have areas of active erosion. Soil will 

continue to be lost incrementally due to wind and tidal factors. These areas could experience 

catastrophic loss during hurricanes and other storm surges. Ongoing public use along the Indian River 

Lagoon is exacerbating soil loss as people climb and excavate the bank. 
85 

4. Cultural Resources 

Standard Management Practices would require that all ground disturbing activities be monitored by a 

qualified archaeologist. 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

All restorative, reconstruction to historic buildings and ground disturbance actions are considered 

adverse effects. These actions also have the potential to adversely affect undisturbed cultural deposits. A 

systematic archaeological survey of the 120 acres will allow for delineating areas devoid of cultural 

deposits and direct those ground disturbing activities to those areas. Consultation with the 106 Review 

and Compliance section of the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Department of State of the State of 

Florida will take place before the commencement of any work of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse 

Outstanding Natural Area. 

All planned work on the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area must be submitted to and 

approved by the Florida Division of Historical Resources, before such work can begin. The 106 Review 

and Compliance section of the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Florida's State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), will have oversight responsibility for all compliance activities with Federal 

and State of Florida historic preservation laws, regulations, and guidelines for all actions, or 

undertakings, by the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Natural Outstanding Area administrators. These laws 

include, but are not limited to, the following: the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as amended (ARPA); the Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act, as amended; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), as 

amended; and Florida Statutes 267. In addition, implementing regulations of these laws will also be 

followed, including, but not limited to, 36 CFR 800 (Advisory Council regulations) and 36 CFR 60 

(National Register of Historic Places regulations). Project specific guidelines, such as The Secretary of 

the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (available from the National Park 

Service) and other Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines, such as, but not limited to, the 

National Park Service's Preservation Brief series including those with guidance on the abatement of lead 

paint and asbestos, which will have an effect (see 36 CFR 800.9). 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Impacts to sites and structures under Alternative 1 would be similar to the preferred Alternative.

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Impacts to sites and structures under Alternative 2 would be similar to the preferred Alternative.

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action alternative, the projects would not proceed. The No-Action alternative would 

result in surface disturbances from soil erosion and heavy visitor traffic especially to site PB35-B, 

continued weather erosion to the Lighthouse mound and further deterioration to the historic structures. 

Also without a complete cultural resources survey of the entire 120 acres important prehistoric site 

elements could be inadvertently lost during management activities. 
86 

5. Native American Culture or Religious Concerns 

While the existence of cultural resources is known at the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural 

Area sites associated with Native American religious practices have not been located on these public 

domain lots. In addition, no known historic properties (36CFR800) have been identified as being of 

concern to any federally recognized Native American tribe. However, Jupiter Inlet is considered to be 

within an area of interest by the Seminole Tribe of Florida, while other Native American tribes have 

expressed interest in NAGPRA issues. 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

This area is within the traditional area of interest by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Even though the area 

has a limited survey for cultural resources, unknown Native American sites could be damaged by 

implementation of ground disturbing activities. However, a stipulation covering accidental discovery, a 

systematic archaeological survey of the 120 acres will allow for delineating areas devoid of cultural 

deposits and direct those ground disturbing activities to those areas, impacts to any discovered site 

should be minimized. Also, during all ground disturbing activities, even after survey, will be monitored 

by an archaeologist. 

Also consultation with the 106 Review and Compliance section of the Florida Division of Historical 

Resources will take place before the commencement of any work of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse 

Outstanding Natural Area. All planned work on the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area 

must be submitted to and approved by the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Florida's State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), before such work can begin. The 106 Review and Compliance 

section of the Florida Division of Historical Resources- SHPO will have oversight responsibility for all 

compliance activities with Federal and State of Florida historic preservation laws, regulations, and 

guidelines for all actions, or undertakings, by the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Natural Outstanding Area 

administrators. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following: the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as amended; ARPA, as amended; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended; NAGPRA, as amended; and Florida Statutes 267. In addition, implementing regulations of 

these laws will also be followed, including, but not limited to, 36 CFR 800 (Advisory Council 

regulations) and 36 CFR 60 (National Register of Historic Places regulations). Project specific 

guidelines, such as The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

(available from the National Park Service) and other Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines, 

such as, but not limited to, the National Park Service's Preservation Brief series including those with 

guidance on the abatement of lead paint and asbestos, which will have an effect (see 36 CFR 800.9). 

b. Impacts from the Alternative 1 

Impacts to sites and structures under Alternative 1 would be similar to the preferred Alternative. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Impacts to sites under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1.

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action alternative, the projects would not proceed. The No-Action alternative would 

result in surface disturbances from soil erosion and heavy visitor traffic especially to site PB35-B, 

exposing cultural material to the elements and public, continued weather erosion to the Lighthouse 
87 

mound and further deterioration to the historic structures. Also, without a complete cultural resources 

survey of the entire 120-acres important prehistoric site elements could be lost. 

6. Vegetation 

a. Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

Vegetation has the potential to be affected by the development of public access facilities, including trails, 

boardwalks and overlooks, the creation and closure of management roads, shoreline stabilization 

projects, prescribed burns, invasive species control, installation of fencing, implementation of special 

rules, and increases in public use. 

Although the alignment of trails and boardwalks is conceptual, the proposed action is estimated to 

include 1,220 feet of new ADA compliant trails, 1,882 feet of new soft trails, 225 square feet of new 

parking and 240 feet of new boardwalk. The construction of these facilities would result in the loss of 

0.375 acres of scrub, and 0.06 acres of hardwood hammock. During construction of the new ADA trail, 

the adjacent areas are expected to be temporarily disturbed by equipment and clearing activities. This is 

expected to include approximately 2 feet on either side of the trails, totaling an additional 0.1 acres of 

disturbance across these habitats. Vegetation clipped in this buffer area is likely to regrow unless the 

roots are damaged during the construction process. The exact trail alignment would be meandered 

around woody plant species to the maximum extent possible, and diverted around special status plants. 

This would be particularly important during the final placement of the ADA trail where it will bisect an 

area recently planted with federally endangered four-petal pawpaw and transplanted perforate lichen. 

Public use of the ONA is expected to increase and ultimately the construction of the trail system is 

expected to benefit special status plant species by funneling the public through the site and providing 

interpretive signage to increase public awareness of the sensitivity of the vegetation to trampling. 

Habitat restoration of Lot 17 would eventually add almost 3 additional acres of scrub oak and sand pine 

scrub and up to 20 acres of hardwood hammock habitat to the ONA. 

The prescribed burn program would retain Florida oak scrub in burn blocks 1, 2 and 5 with burns on 

scheduled as needed to maintain the scrub characteristics identified in the scrub management guidelines 

developed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(2009). These guidelines include maintaining shrub height at an average of 4-5.5 feet high and 

maintaining 10-50% bare sand or sparse herbaceous vegetation. The number of sand pine in these areas 

is expected to eventually diminish as subsequent burns remove young sand pine before they have 

reached their maximum cone production. The remaining areas would be managed with longer burn 

intervals. After the initial burn in Prescribed Burn Blocks 3, 4 and 6, longer burn rotations would allow 

sand pine to mature and provide for those species requiring more mature scrub structure, including 

epiphytes, ground lichens and scrub rosemary. Prior to these longer interval burns it is expected that the 

heavier standing fuels (sand pines) would be removed or mulched to reduce the burn duration, flame 

height, residual smoke and chance of spotting. In addition, most of the shrub layer would be chopped to 

reduce the flame heights. Species composition is not expected to be altered as a result of these burns. 

Oaks and other endemic shrubs resprout quickly from root stock. Some species such as sand pine and 

rosemary typically require fire to prompt reseeding, and germination is best in the bare mineral soil 

cleared of leaf litter. Scrub oaks can reach 3 feet within two to three years and sand pines could become 

a dominate element of the canopy again in twenty years. 

Vegetation would be manipulated mechanically when needed to meet resource objectives when fire 

cannot be used because of failure to reach prescription or other reasons of public safety. Mechanical 

manipulations provide flexibility in the amount and location of activities to maintain scrub 
88 

characteristics, but may not provide the ecological benefits of prescribed fire, particularly for endemic 

herbaceous plants. 

Disturbances, including mechanical disturbance and fire, would promote the spread of opportunistic, 

early succession plant species. At Jupiter Inlet, natal grass, a non-native grass, has been quick to invade 

following burns. Unless controlled early by hand pulling, natal grass removal can result in inadvertent 

damage to scrub endemics, particularly nodding pinweed, which also tends to germinate quickly in 

response to disturbance and can be difficult to detect in dense stands of natal grass. It can also out 

compete endemic species adapted to open sandy areas. 

The Preferred Alternative includes provisions to hand clear or root rake to maintain between 10 and 30% 

open sand in the scrub habitats to benefit endemic scrub species. This vegetation removal is primarily 

targeting scrub oaks, the dominant shrub. Herbaceous species would benefit from these scrub openings. 

Establishing a native, drought-resistant hedge between the Jupiter Lighthouse Park ball fields and Lot 19 

would reduce the amount of windblown litter entering the natural area to the east. It would also deflect 

some of the overspray from the Lighthouse Park’s irrigation system, reducing the invasive weeds along 

the border and subsequently management costs associated with their removal. 

Actions planned in association with the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and Tindall House are not expected to 

affect native plant communities as these areas have been largely converted to maintained landscapes, 

predominately bahia grass, although there are an increasing number of native plantings being installed 

and maintained. 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Same as Preferred Alternative, except that this Alternative would result in additional impacts to 

vegetation related to public access facilities south of County Road 707 in Lot 17. The proposed action 

is estimated to include 2,575 feet of new hard trails, 4,200 feet of new soft trails, 550 square feet of new 

parking and 800 feet of new boardwalks. The construction of these facilities would result in the loss of 

0.93 acres of scrub, 0.017 acres of hardwood hammock and 0.33 acres in areas of disturbed hardwood 

hammock dominated by invasive species, primarily Brazilian pepper. 

Impacts from the prescribed burn program would be the same as the Preferred Alternative for 

management blocks 1, 2 and 5. In management blocks number 3 and 4 along U.S. Highway 1, 

vegetation would be manipulated mechanically to remove excess fuels and to renovate the scrub. This 

option provides flexibility in the amount and location of activities to maintain scrub characteristics, but 

would not provide the ecological benefits of prescribed fire, particularly for endemic plants. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Under this Alternative the proposed action is estimated to include 4,000 feet of new shell rock trails, 750 

feet of new soft trails, square feet of new parking and 240 feet of new boardwalk. The construction of 

these facilities would result in the loss of 0.18 acres of scrub, 0.13 acres of hardwood hammock and 0.33 

acres in areas of disturbed hardwood hammock dominated by invasive species, primarily Brazilian 

pepper. During construction of the new hard trails, the adjacent areas are expected to be temporarily 

disturbed by equipment and clearing activities. This is expected to include approximately 2 feet on 

either side of the trails, totaling an additional 0.11 acres of disturbance across these habitats. Impacts 

would be similar to those discussed earlier. This alternative may provide some limited benefit over the 

hard trails in Alternative 1 by being more permeable and shedding less water into the trail shoulder. This 

should reduce the germination of invasive species. 
89 

Under this alternative, impacts from the prescribed burn program would be the same as the Preferred 

Alternative. 

d. Impacts from No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative there would be no additional prescribed burns and public use facilities would not 

be constructed. While there is expected to be less public use within the natural areas of the ONA, casual 

use is expected to continue and could result in inadvertent trampling of lichen, nodding pinweed and 

other smaller special status plants. Without burning or efforts to maintain open sand scrub areas, the site 

would eventually return, over several decades, to a sand pine scrub which would shade out most forbs 

and many scrub endemics. 

Without a buffer behind the ball fields and cover on the tennis courts, the adjacent scrub in Lot 19 would 

continue to be degraded by trampling, trash and the edges of the site would require extensive 

maintenance to remove invasive weeds. There is the potential for extensive trampling in this open scrub 

habitat, particularly lichens, fungus and small annuals. 

The lack of shoreline restoration projects under this alternative would result in the continued erosion 

along the shoreline resulting in additional loss of vegetative cover. Unmanaged, the continued public 

use would result in the accelerating loss of this bluff and leave the site vulnerable to catastrophic loss 

during storm surges. 

7. Wildlife 

a. Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

General wildlife is expected to benefit from the habitat actions proposed under this Alternative. The 

continuation of the prescribed burn program and invasive weed programs would maintain or improve 

habitat for scrub and wetland species. The combination of the prescribed burn program and mechanical 

manipulations would provide a mosaic of different aged scrub habitats capable of supporting a wide 

variety of species. The increased public use at the site may alter some wildlife use patterns, particularly 

roosting wading birds and potentially foraging tortoises. However, restricting the use to established 

trails is expected to limit those impacts and eventually most species are expected to habituate to the use. 

At least 3 acres of scrub oak and sand pine scrub and up to 20 acres of hardwood hammock habitat 

would be created by the restoration of Lot 17, to the benefit most wildlife species recorded in the ONA. 

In some cases, the removal of non-native plant species may result in the short-term impact to wildlife, 

due to localized loss of cover. Ultimately, native wildlife is expected to benefit from the removal of 

exotic vegetation and restoration of the native plant communities. Leaving snags in strategic locations 

where they do not pose a hazard to the public is a standard procedure under this plan and would mitigate 

some of the temporary loss of structure, particularly for roosting egrets, herons and osprey. 

Actions planned in association with the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and Tindall House are not expected to 

negatively affect wildlife as these areas have been largely converted to maintained landscapes, 

predominately bahia grass, although there are an increasing number of native plantings being installed 

and maintained. These areas new native planting areas provide additional habitat for wildlife species, for 

example a gopher tortoise recently excavated a burrow in a constructed mound near the Tindall House. 

The increased use of native plantings would increase habitat values even in these relatively high public 

use areas. 
90 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Same as the Preferred Alternative, the increased emphasis on mechanical manipulations to maintain 

scrub characteristics would provide more flexibility to maintain sand pine on these blocks rather than the 

complete stand replacement as a result of prescribed burns. This structure and forage opportunities for 

migratory and resident birds, as well as squirrels. 

The creation of approximately 3 acres of new tidal wetlands provides benefits, particularly for wading 

birds and fisheries. However, increases in public use along boardwalks and in kayaks may disrupt this 

use during peak visitation. Increases in public use may also bring increases in litter attracting raccoons 

and crows, resulting in artificially high numbers. Construction of a mangrove shelf along reaches of the 

Indian River Lagoon and Loxahatchee River would eventually increase structure and shade, increasing 

habitat diversity for fish and invertebrates. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Impacts to general wildlife under this alternative would be similar to Alternative 1, except that there 

would be no new wetland construction on the north of County Road 707, and the new tidal wetland south 

of County Road 707 would have only one entrance, supporting more effective tidal flushing. Installation 

of mangrove balls along shallow shorelines could eventually provide limited shade or structure along the 

Indian River Lagoon and Loxahatchee River, but higher public use of the area because of the boat 

mooring facilities could reduce their viability and would potentially increase harassment and shoreline 

disturbances. 

This Alternative proposes the removal of the Brazilian pepper, Australian pine and other invasive species 

from Lot 17 at one time. This would remove structure and forage opportunities within the area without 

providing opportunities for temporary alternative habitat. 

d. Impacts from No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative eliminate the affects of construction activities related to trail, parking area, 

boardwalk and other visitor use facilities. There would be no invasive removal in Lot 17, which would 

result in the continuation of a seed source for other areas of the ONA already in a maintenance mode. 

There would be no prescribed fire used to renovate scrub habitats in south of County Road 707. 

8. Special Status Species 

a. Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

Plants/Lichen Species 

Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) - This species is expected to benefit from shorter rotation burns 

and its distribution on the tract should expand in disturbed scrub areas as invasive species are removed 

and fire is reintroduced. Restoration of the scrub areas in Lot 17 has the potential to provide additional 

suitable habitat for this species. 

Four-petal pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) – Four-petal pawpaw could be affected by implementation of 

the prescribed burn program, integrated weed management program, construction of public use facilities, 

research activities, and population augmentation. 
91 

All of the four-petal pawpaws in the ONA are located in areas where the habitat objective would be to 

maintain scrub height below 5.5 feet. Prescribed fire would be used as the primary management tool 

with some hand clearing and root raking as needed to maintain 10-30% open sand. Although hand 

clearing may be used in the vicinity of pawpaw, no root raking would be conducted in immediate 

vicinity of four-petal pawpaw. Fire damages or removes the aboveground portions of this long-lived 

shrub, but the below ground stems re-sprout robustly and the new growth supports significantly 

increased flowering and fruiting (Cox 1998). In addition, decadent growth tends to be highly branched 

which, according to Anne Cox, (pers. communication) may reduce the capacity for the plant to support 

viable fruit. The most appropriate fire interval for four-petal pawpaw has not been established and, 

although there are indications that regular applications of fire benefits this species, the optimum interval 

is not known. Adjustments in the fire interval could be made in response to future research. The 

proposed prescribed fire program is expected to benefit this four-petal pawpaw. 

There is potential for this species to be affected by integrated weed management activities, however the 

four naturally occurring plants are well documented and tagged. The planted pawpaws are still 

individually flagged and more obvious because of the remaining drip lines in the planting area. The 

pawpaws are located in areas of intact scrub where hand pulling is generally sufficient to remove natal 

grass, the most common invasive in Lot 15. Weed crews/ applicators are familiar with the species and 

know the locations of the existing plants. No herbicide applications will be made on days when there is 

potential for drift to affect non-target species. Overall, habitat conditions in the scrub would improve 

with ongoing efforts to control invasive plants. The integrated weed management activities are not 

expected to have an adverse affect on four-petal pawpaw. 

Construction of a parking area and trail system has the potential to affect four-petal pawpaw. There are 

currently no formal trails or signage at the site; however with the greater visibility of the ONA 

designation, visitation is expected to increase, and there is a need to provide for controlled public access 

through the site. Currently most visitors use an existing management road along the south side of Lot 16 

chain link fence to access the site and the constructed wetlands to the east along the Indian River Lagoon 

(Intracoastal Waterway). This management road passes by two of the naturally occurring four-petal 

pawpaw. This road is expected to be closed in this alternative and vehicle access, for management 

purposes only, would be rerouted through Lot 16, using existing asphalt roads. Although neither of the 

naturally occurring pawpaw in this portion of Lot 15 shows signs of damage from the current vehicle 

use, it is resulting in rutting and road widening at the bottom of the hill. With the expected increase in 

public use the lack of a formal trail system and appropriate signage increases the potential for trampling 

of the smaller planted pawpaw. There is some potential for visitors to take ripe fruit, however the fruit 

ripens in the middle of the summer when public visitation is generally low. A formal trail system is 

expected to funnel visitors through the site and provide for interpretation of the resource values, 

including the endemic scrub plants. Adoption and enforcement of the Palm Beach County natural area 

ordinance as special rules for Jupiter Inlet and ultimately staffing the site with a full time manager will 

provide additional protection for resources and ensure visitor compliance. The trail system as proposed 

in the plan is conceptual and the exact routing will be determined onsite with the trail being routed 

around woody vegetation and special status plants, including four-petal pawpaw, and in coordination 

with Vero Beach Fish and Wildlife Service staff. 

Ongoing research and population augmentation within suitable habitat for this species would support the 

recovery objectives for this species. This action would establish a large and genetically diverse 

population at the ONA to protect this species from further loss of germplasm and a decline in remaining 

plant numbers across its limited range. Individual proposals would be coordinated with U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Augmentation is planned only in those blocks where the fire interval would maintain 

open, low oak scrub. This species responds well to fire after it is established. 
92 

Perforate reindeer lichen (Cladonia perforata) - Perforate lichen could be affected by implementation 

of the prescribed burn program, integrated weed management program, construction of public use 

facilities, construction of new fencing and screens associated Jupiter Lighthouse Park and monitoring 

activities. 

The effects of fire on this extremely rare lichen are not well understood. Ecological Consultants quoted 

Johnson and Abrahamson (1990), "Cladonia and Cladina sp. are destroyed by fire and take 10 to 12 

years to recover to preburn levels". They also cited another recent study from Archbold Biological 

Station which indicates that lichens may recolonize burned sites within three to five, but at lower 

densities than prior to the burn (Menges 1995, in press). Mechanical disturbance is also likely to be 

detrimental to this species. As such, areas supporting concentrations of Florida perforate lichen would 

be excluded from mechanical disturbance and buffered from prescribed fire. Prior to prescribed burns 

under this alternative, perorate lichen would be moved from vulnerable locations, under sand pines and 

in dense litter, to suitable habitat including unoccupied habitats in other areas of the ONA. This option 

may expand the current population and provide refugia for this species during subsequent burns. 

Because pre-burn activities and prescribed burns are likely to result in adverse affects to this federally 

listed species BLM is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is currently preparing a programmatic biological opinion which is likely to address 

many of the options discussed above. Once that document is prepared, BLM will consult with Fish and 

Wildlife Service and incorporate approved best management practices into all pre-burn and prescribed 

fire activities. 

In management blocks where shorter prescribed burn rotations perforate lichen is expected to be 

excluded, except where open sand provides refugia. Overall, the prescribed burn program is considered 

necessary to maintain the scrub habitats of this species and would benefit the long term maintenance of 

this species at the ONA, but there is potential for individuals to be killed during prescribed burns at the 

ONA. 

The integrated weed management program has the potential to affect perforate lichen. In general, 

perforate lichen occurs in intact scrub areas where there are few invasive plant species. Natal grass 

(Rhynchelytrum repens) is the most common invasive occurring in proximity to perforate lichen. Even 

with occasional hand pulling there is the potential to trample individual perforate liche, particularly in 

mixed beds of lichen and in areas with hard to identify smaller thalli. Limiting the number of people in 

these cases to one or two people capable of identifying the species and understanding the need to avoid 

trampling would help to minimize loss. Hand pulling and bagging with as little ground disturbance as 

possible, rather than herbicide use would be required in areas with perforate lichen. Timing the work 

during the morning hours or during periods of high humidity may help reduce fragmentation of thalli, as 

would combining the effort with annual monitoring to reduce the overall foot traffic in the area. 

Construction of visitor use facilities has limited potential to affect perforate lichen. No trails are 

proposed for Lot 19, where the bulk of the perforate lichen occurs, nor are there trails planned near the 

single population in the southwest corner of Lot 15. There are trails proposed in Lot 15 that will be 

routed around the three recent transplant locations. PVC pipe frames have been placed over the 

transplanted lichen to protect against inadvertent trampling by the public. The proposed trail closest to 

the eastern two transplant areas is proposed as a handicap accessible trail, the formal trail system and 

interpretive signage is expected to reduce potential trampling off the trail. Interpretive signage and 

environmental education is expected to limit public use off the trail system and enforcement of special 

rules will ensure compliance. 

Scrub habitats within Lot 19 and perforate lichen are being negatively affected by public use and 

maintenance activities at Jupiter Lighthouse Park. Trash and overspray from the irrigation system has 
93 

degraded scrub habitat bordering the fields and increased the cover of invasives and non-scrub plants. 

Increased fragmentation of lichen thalli in at least one area is likely due to occasional foot traffic. Trash 

and trampling have also been observed behind the tennis courts as people enter the area to retrieve balls 

and other activities. Actions are proposed in the plan to reduce the potential impact is these areas. 

Perforate lichen is expected to benefit from the installation of new fencing east of the ballfields in Jupiter 

Lighthouse Park. Chain link fencing and the installation of a native species shrub will substantially 

reduce litter being blown into the natural area, discourage foot traffic and the shrubs, when mature, will 

deflect some of the overspray from the ball field sprinklers. The overspray contributes to the 

establishment of non-native grasses and forbs in the natural area, reducing habitat quality in this scrub 

habitat to the detriment of perforate lichen. Installation of a screen over the tennis courts and locking the 

gates on the north side of the tennis courts would reduce impacts to perforate lichen by eliminating foot 

traffic and associated soil disturbance in the area of the ONA near the densest populations of perforate 

lichen. 

Monitoring perforate lichen will include mapping the extent and establishing relative density of the 

current population with annual follow-up, as well as ongoing annual monitoring of the survivorship of 

the transplanted perforate lichen thalli. BLM would incorporate standardized monitoring protocols 

approved for this species by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Large-leaved rosemary (Conradina graniflora) - This fire-dependent scrub endemic is expected to 

respond favorably to fire, and its distribution and numbers are expected to increase as a result of the 

prescribed fire program. 

Nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua) - This species is fire-adapted and expected to benefit from the 

proposed management program. This species could be vulnerable to overspray during herbicide 

applications to treat invasive weeds, particularly natal grass. Mechanical treatments in lieu of burning in 

management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 may not provide adequate open sand for this species in those 

management blocks. Restoration of the scrub areas in Lot 17 has the potential to improve and expand 

habitat for this species. 

Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata) - Only a few individuals of this species are present on the tract. The 

management program is expected to improve habitat conditions for this species particularly in those 

blocks bordering U.S. Highway 1. An increased emphasis on the use of mechanical manipulations in 

these blocks would provide some flexibility in avoiding trees supporting these epiphytes. 

Golden polypody (Phlebodium aureum) - This epiphytic fern is fire adapted and is expected to resprout 

shortly after burning. 

Sand spikemoss (Selaginella arenicola) - This species tends to occur in open sand areas where fire is 

not likely to carry and where mechanical manipulations are generally not necessary. There is potential 

for this species to be negatively impacted by mechanized equipment crossing open sand areas and during 

site preparation for prescribed burns. This species is expected to benefit from increased protection of 

Lot 19, where most of the population occurs. This species, like perforate lichen, is vulnerable to 

trampling and is outcompeted by weedy plants supported by overspray from sprinklers. Reducing foot 

traffic in Lot 19 and protecting arid scrub conditions is expected to benefit this species. 

Tillandsia sp . - All of the special status bromeliads are sensitive to fire and individuals would be killed 

during prescribed burns. Management blocks are expected to be recolonized from seed sources in 

adjacent blocks. An increased emphasis on the use of mechanical manipulations in these blocks would 

provide some flexibility in avoiding trees supporting these epiphytes. However, the shorter burn 

rotations in management blocks 1, 2, and 3 are likely to limit numbers. 
94 

Shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata) - Primarily a hammock species, there is the potential for some plants 

may be lost during prescribed burns in adjacent areas. 

Wildlife Species 

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) - Brown pelican is not expected to be adversely affected by the 

proposed actions in upland areas. Potential affects related to shoreline stabilization would be covered 

under analysis based on the final selected design. 

Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) - Although there are no longer Florida scrub-jays on site 

at Jupiter Inlet, the ONA continues to provide suitable habitat and there is some potential for dispersing 

birds to reoccupy the site. The proposed plan would continue to provide near optimal habitat across at 

least 20 acres, while maximizing the habitat values for other scrub endemics. The scrub management in 

the ONA would be balanced between the needs to maintain habitat for Florida Scrub-jay and other scrub 

endemics in the more interior prescribed burn management blocks (#1, #2 and #5), and the longer burn 

intervals needed to maximize habitat for C. perforata, epiphytes, and rosemary in blocks #3, #4, and #6 

totaling about 25 acres. These other blocks would continue to provide suitable, if not optimal Florida 

scrub-jay habitat. 

The ONA is likely too small to warrant transplant efforts, but the maintenance of habitat improves 

chances of dispersing individuals utilizing the site, if or when the south Florida population stabilizes. 

Annual monitoring for the presence of Florida Scrub-jay would continue using the most up to date 

protocol approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The monitoring would be expanded to meet 

current standards if Florida scrub-jays occupy the site. 

Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) – Habitat conditions are expected to be maintained under this 

Alternative and reintroduction efforts, if successful, would provide an additional population of this rare 

Florida species. 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) – Gopher tortoise could be affected by the proposed prescribed 

burn program, integrated weed management program, construction of public use facilities and fence 

construction. The continuation of the prescribed burn program is expected to benefit gopher tortoise by 

continuing to promote native herbaceous forage species. The restoration activities in Lot 17 are also 

expected improve and extend scrub habitat for this species in the upland portions of this area. A gopher 

tortoise survey would be required prior to mechanical treatments and treatments would be excluded from 

operating within 25 feet of active, inactive or abandoned burrow. Woody invasives within the 25 foot 

burrow buffer would be killed in place to avoid the potential of collapsing the burrow. 

The integrated weed management plan in general benefits gopher tortoise by facilitating the 

establishment of native grasses and groundcovers, however there is potential for crews to inadvertently 

crush shallow burrows. Crew briefings ahead of the work would reduce the potential for damaging 

burrows. The only herbicide planned for use on potential forage species is glyphosate, which has low 

toxicity for wildlife, although there appear to be no studies on ingestion by tortoise. Glyphosate residues 

in plant tissues tend to remain until foliage is shed or the plant dies and tissues begin to decay. The 

reported half-lives of glyphosate in vegetation typically are less than 24 days and glyphosate does not 

bioaccumulate (Giesy et al. 2000). The potential for ingestion is expected to be negligible given the spot 

application and short exposure time, and there is no evidence that limited exposure would result in toxic 

effects. 
95 

The construction of public use facilities has the potential to affect gopher tortoise. There are no gopher 

tortoise burrows near the proposed parking area north of County Road 707, but there are burrows within 

100 feet of the area of the proposed handicap accessible trail in Lot 15. Construction activities and the 

increased public use may alter foraging use by tortoises, at least temporarily. 

All perimeter fences are split rail and would not restrict gopher tortoise movement, nor would they keep 

gopher tortoise from attempting to cross County Road 707. While there has been no evidence of road 

killed tortoise along this section of road it should be monitored and remedial actions taken, if needed. 

The new chain link fence along the ball fields would exclude tortoises, but also reduces the chance of 

interactions with people and lawn maintenance equipment and prevents the tortoises from becoming 

dependent on turf. 

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) - Indigo snakes have not be documented at Jupiter Inlet, 

but there is suitable habitat. The prescribed burn program and integrated weed management program are 

expected to ultimately benefit indigo snake by maintaining or improving habitat quality, but there is 

potential to affect individuals during these activities. A though inventory of potential refugia (i.e. 

stumps, debris piles, etc.) prior to prescribed burns, briefing of the burn crew on identifying and protocol 

if seen, as well as avoiding use of ring fires that could trap wildlife, would help to reduce the potential to 

adversely affect this species. 

There is also the potential for entanglement in erosion control fabrics used in bank stabilization. 

Standard best management practices would include using only properly prepared and geofabrics that do 

not pose and entanglement threat. 

Scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) - This species is expected to benefit from the maintenance of a mosaic 

of scrub habitats, particularly sand pine scrub edges on the western side management blocks 3 and 4. 

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus mantus) – The proposed shoreline stabilization project would occur 

within designated critical habitat for this species. These shoreline areas do not currently support 

seagrasses, but stabilization would reduce sedimentation in the general area, including nearby seagrass 

beds. Impacts to this species, particularly related to the manatee travel corridor along the shore line, 

would depend on the selected project design, and will require a separate and more in-depth analysis 

beyond the scope of this document. 

Wading Birds (Reddish Egret, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, Tri-colored Heron, and White 

Ibis) and Osprey 

These species use shoreline habitats where increases in public use are expected. The construction of the 

proposed boardwalk west of the tidal wetland north of County Road 707 would temporarily displace 

herons, egrets and osprey during construction activities. Increases in public use, as a result of the 

boardwalk and overlook could temporarily reduce overall suitability for foraging and loafing by these 

birds. Placing the boardwalk in the adjacent hammock would buffer birds visually and reduce that 

impact. Most wading birds and osprey are expected to eventually habituate to routine use of the 

boardwalk and overlook and the area is expected to continue to provide suitable habitat for foraging and 

loafing. 

Royal Tern 

This species is not expected to be affected by the implementation of this plan. 
96 

Merlin 

In general, no actions are expected to affect this species, but improving habitats for native species, 

including song birds would benefit this winter visitor. 

Painted Bunting 

In general, no actions are expected to affect this species, but habitat improvements projects, including 

restoration of Lot 17 would benefit this winter visitor. 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Plants/Lichen Species 

Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) – Impacts to this species would be similar to the Preferred 

Alternative, however mechanical manipulations in the management blocks along U.S. Highway may not 

provide optimal habitat and the use of mechanized equipment may result in inadvertent impacts to 

unidentified individuals. 

Four-petal pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, although the population 

target is set at 500, while the Preferred Alternative is undefined and target would be assessed for each 

augmentation project. 

Perforate reindeer lichen (Cladonia perforata) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, except an 

increased emphasis on mechanical disturbance in management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 is less 

likely to create suitable habitat. Areas supporting concentrations of Florida perforate lichen would be 

excluded from mechanical disturbance and buffered from prescribed fire. 

Large-leaved rosemary (Conradina graniflora) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, except an 

increased emphasis on mechanical disturbance in management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 is less 

likely to create suitable habitat. 

Nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua) - Mechanical treatments in lieu of burning in management blocks 

along U.S. Highway 1 may not provide adequate open sand for this species in those management blocks. 

Less focus on early intervention following prescribed burns and other disturbances would increase the 

potential for the spread of this species and the need to use herbicides for its control, with potential to 

inadvertently treat this species. 

Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata) - Only a few individuals of this species are present on the tract. 

Although the management program is expected to improve habitat conditions for this species, this 

Alternative provides more flexible options for avoiding individual plants during mechanical 

manipulations. 

Golden polypody (Phlebodium aureum) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, except that this 

Alternative provides more flexible options for avoiding individual plants during mechanical 

manipulations. 

Sand spikemoss (Selaginella arenicola) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, except mechanical 

treatments in lieu of burning in management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 may not provide adequate 

open sand for this species in those management blocks. 
97 

Tillandsia sp . - All of the special status bromeliads are sensitive to fire and individuals would be killed 

during prescribed burns. Management blocks are expected to be recolonized from seed sources in 

adjacent blocks. However, the shorter burn rotations in management blocks 1, 2, and 3 are likely to limit 

numbers. Mechanical manipulation in the management blocks along Highway 1 provides additional 

flexibility to retain individual pines or oaks supporting these epiphytes.

Shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata) - Primarily a hammock species, some plants may be lost during scrub 

restoration activities. 

Wildife Species 

Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) - Same as the Preferred Alternative, expect that the 

increased emphasis on mechanical manipulations in management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 would be 

less likely to provide optimal habitat. Also, this Alternative sets the anticipated burn interval, rather than 

a more adaptive approach to maintain suitable scrub conditions. This approach reduces management 

flexibility in responding to these natural processes. Initially, fifteen years may not be a short enough 

interval to exclude sand pine regeneration and droughty conditions could require that the burn schedule 

be extended to meet the required prescription. 

Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) – Same as the Preferred Alternative. Mechanical treatments in 

lieu of burning in management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 may not remove leaf litter or provide 

sufficient open sand optimize habitat for this species in those management blocks. 

 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) –The continuation of the prescribed burn program is expected 

to benefit gopher tortoise by continuing to promote herbaceous forage species. The restoration activities 

in Lot 17 are expected improve habitat for this species in the upland areas, particularly the restoration of 

scrub habitats in the western areas. A gopher tortoise survey would be required prior to mechanical 

treatments and mechanical treatments would be excluded from operating within 25 feet of active, 

inactive or abandoned burrow. 

Scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) - This species is expected to benefit from the maintenance of a mosaic 

of scrub habitats, particularly sand pine scrub edges. 

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus mantus) – Same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Wading Birds (Reddish Egret, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, Tri-colored Heron, and White 

Ibis) and Osprey 

Same as Alternative 1, except that the construction of new tidal wetlands would provide additional 

habitat for these birds. 

Royal Tern (Sterna maxima)

Same as Alternative 1. 

Merlin (Falco columbarius)

Same as Alternative 1. 

Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris)
98 

Same as Alternative 1. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Plants 

Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) - This species is expected to benefit from including the 

management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 in the prescribed burn program which has the best option to 

create open sand and to avoid soil disturbance. 

Four-petal pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) – All of the known four-petal pawpaw in the ONA are located 

in areas where the burns are expected to be used to maintain low (4 – 5.5 feet) shrub layers. While fire 

damages or removes the aboveground portions of this long-lived shrub, the below ground stems of this 

fire adapted shrub re-sprout quickly and the new growth supports increased flowering and fruiting. The 

augmentation target under this Alternative is 300 rather the unspecified number in the Preferred 

Alternative, which would be a more adaptive approach to augmentation based on the results of the initial 

transplant. 

Perforate reindeer lichen (Cladonia perforata) – Same as the Preferred Alternative, except that 

perforate lichen could only be moved within currently occupied habitat. Since this species is only 

known to reproduce by vegetative means this would not result in any additional populations within the 

ONA. It would also restrict management options during site preparation for prescribed burns. It does 

represent the lowest risk to individual thalli. Under this Alternative the doors on the north side of the 

tennis courts would remain unlocked leaving some of the best populations of this species vulnerable to 

trampling. 

Large-leaved rosemary (Conradina graniflora) - This fire-dependent scrub endemic is expected to 

respond favorably to fire, and its distribution and numbers are expected to increase. 

Nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua) - This perennial herb is fire-adapted, resprouting and seeding after 

burns and is expected to benefit from the proposed management program. This species could be 

vulnerable to overspray during herbicide applications to treat invasive weeds, particularly natal grass. 

Mechanical treatments in lieu of burning in management blocks along Highway 1 may not provide 

adequate open sand or prompt the same seeding response in these management blocks. 

Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata) - At most, only a few individuals of this species are present on the 

tract. Although the management program is expected to improve habitat conditions for this species, 

special care would be required to avoid individual plants during initial mechanical manipulations. 

Golden polypody (Phlebodium aureum) - This epiphytic fern is fire-adapted and is expected to resprout 

shortly after burning. 

Sand spikemoss (Selaginella arenicola) - Same as Preferred Alternative, except that the doors on the 

north side of the tennis courts would remain unlocked leaving some of the best populations of this 

species vulnerable to trampling. 

Tillandsia sp. - All of the special status bromeliads are sensitive to fire and individuals would be killed 

during prescribed burns. Management blocks are expected to be recolonized from seed sources in 

adjacent blocks. However, the shorter burn rotations in management blocks 1, 2, and 3 are likely to limit 

numbers. The initial prescribed burn in the management blocks along U.S. Highway 1 would kill most of 
99 

the bromeliads. While the longer burn rotation would eventually allow for the more mature structure 

needed for these plants, there may be reduced seed sources in the adjacent more frequently burned 

management blocks. 

Shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata) - Primarily a hammock species, some plants may be lost during 

prescribed burns. 

Wildlife 

Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) – Same as Alternative 1, however increased focus on 

mechanical manipulation in the management blocks along Highway 1 would not provide optimal habitat 

for this species in those areas. 

Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) – Habitat conditions are likely to improve under this Alternative, 

but without a transplant program there is little chance of this species maintaining a sustainable 

population in the ONA. 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) –The continuation of the prescribed burn program is expected 

to benefit gopher tortoise by continuing to promote herbaceous forage species. The restoration activities 

in Lot 17 are expected improve habitat for this species in the upland areas. A gopher tortoise survey 

would be required prior to mechanical treatments and mechanical treatments would be excluded from 

operating within 25 feet of active, inactive or abandoned burrow. 

Scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) - This species is expected to benefit from the maintenance of a mosaic 

of scrub habitats, particularly sand pine scrub edges. 

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus mantus) – Same as the Preferred Alternative. 

Wading Birds (Reddish Egret, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, Tri-colored Heron, and White 

Ibis) and Osprey 

Same as Alternative 1, except that the construction of new tidal wetlands would provide additional 

habitat for these birds. 

Royal Tern (Sterna maxima)

Same as Alternative 1. 

Merlin (Falco columbarius)

Same as Alternative 1. 

Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris)

Same as Alternative 1. 

c. Impacts from No Action Alternative 

Under this Alternative, there would be no impacts from the construction of visitor use facilities, 

however, increases in public use are expected to occur regardless due increased visibility, and media 

attention. Without a trail system to guide visitors through the ONA there would be increased potential 
100 

for habitat damage as a result of trampling and the potential for smaller plants and lichen, including 

perforate lichen, nodding pinweed, small Curtiss milkweed to be impacted by inadvertent foot traffic. 

There is also an increased potential for gopher tortoise burrows to be damaged and tortoises harassed by 

curious visitors without constraining trail system and public education. Without additional protections, 

including new fencing along the ball fields, and locking and covering the tennis courts foot traffic is 

expected to continue to degrade habitat for the endangered perforate lichen. Foot traffic in this area 

damages soil crusts, encourages weedy species and results in crushing or fragmentation of lichen thalli. 

The management road south of the U.S. Coast Guard communication site would remain open. Vehicle 

travel on this road is rutting the deep sand particularly at the bottom of the hill where vehicles must make 

a sharp left turn. This is in the immediate vicinity of the largest original four petal pawpaw and leaves it 

vulnerable to inadvertent damage. 

Although the prescribed burn program would be similar to the Preferred Alternative, under this 

Alternative there would be no habitat restoration activities in Lot 17. Without removal of the exotic 

species, this area has very limited capacity to support the endemic species normally associated with the 

original scrub and hardwood hammock habitats. 

Throughout scrub habitats there would be no action taken to maintain and enhance open sandy areas. 

Burned oak scrubs can develop into thick stands which can hamper the germination and growth of many 

scrub endemics requiring open sand. 

Under this Alternative there would be no actions taken to remove feral cats which could increase 

predation of Florida scrub lizards and hatchling tortoise. There would be no Florida mouse relocations 

in this alternative. Without augmentation this population is not expected to be viable, if it currently 

exits. 

Perforate lichen would not be moved under this Alternative, which may jeopardize the implementation 

of prescribed burns in the areas where it is most numerous. Without burning these areas habitat is 

expected to continue to decline and this population is expected to be compromised. 

9. Invasive, Non-native Species 

a. Impacts from Preferred Alternative 

Control of invasive, non-native plants would be coordinated across the ONA through the Coordinated 

Weed Management Area. This alternative provides the greatest level of coordination and collaboration 

across administrative boundaries. Under this alternative the partners would collaborate on contracts, 

methods and timing which would lead to more effective control. 

The ongoing suppression of invasive and exotic plant species would reduce competition with endemic 

scrub species and allow for restoration of native plant communities. Outside of Lot 17, control of 

invasive plant species is primarily an ongoing program of suppressing herbaceous annuals and vines. In 

most cases this can be attained by hand pulling with limited foliar herbicide application in areas with 

dense stands or heavy vines, or stump treatment of woody regrowth. There is potential to affect nontarget vegetation in dense stands of invasives, particularly invasive grasses and vines. 

In Lot 17, woody invasives would be removed incrementally west to east over a period of three years. 

This would allow for some invasive species to reseed treated areas and require increased retreatment by 

hand-pulling and herbicide application to accomplish adequate control. 

 
101 

In the long-term, though, mangroves and other wetland species are expected to benefit from the 

restoration of a more natural hydrologic regime and reduced competition with non-native plant species 

along the shoreline. 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Same as Preferred Alternative, except that invasive plant treatment would be scheduled semi-annually. 

While this would provide a good level of control, it does not provide the flexibility for early detection 

and follow-up after prescribed fire and other disturbances. Many of the target species respond quickly to 

disturbance and can flower and seed within months. Delaying treatment allows additional spread of 

these species, increasing the cost of removal and the use of herbicide to obtain sufficient control. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to Alternative 1, except that each entity would be 

responsible for their own invasive, non-native program. While this could be effective, budget issues, 

differences in prioritization, and contract timing is likely to result in implementation gaps, resulting in 

non-treatment of some areas which could subsequently act as seed sources. 

Weed treatment techniques and the associated impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Under this alternative, mature woody vegetation in Lot 17 would be removed at one time, leaving only 

the most eastern portion untreated until after the shoreline has been fully stabilized. This method would 

reduce the number of retreatments and amount of herbicide needed to suppress the regrowth of nonnative species. 

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, except that under this alternative there would be no invasive 

removal in Lot 17. This is the last major acreage within the ONA with woody invasives. Not treating 

this area would be a lost opportunity to restore native habitat values on these 23 acres and the area would 

continue to provide a seed source for exotic species in adjacent areas of the ONA. 

10. Wetland/Riparian Zones 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

Under this Alternative, no additional wetlands would be constructed. Shoreline stabilization projects, 

including the construction of an intertidal mangrove shelf are planned for both the Indian River Lagoon 

and the areas along the Loxahatchee River. These projects are outside the scope of this document and 

would be addressed in-depth in a separate analysis. 

b. Impacts from the Alternative 1 

This Alternative would result in the construction of approximately three acres of new tidal wetland 

components through the extension of the existing tidal lagoon and creation of an additional opening, the 

creation of a new tidal lagoon with two entrances south of Cato Bridge. There is potential for the second 

opening on the existing tidal lagoon to dissipate the flushing capacity of that lagoon, and increase the 

need for future maintenance to keep the openings from silting in. The same would be true for the second 

tidal lagoon proposed south of Cato Bridge. 
102 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Under this alternative, there would be no new wetland construction. The new tidal wetland proposed 

south of Cato Bridge in this alternative would have only one inlet and is expected to be more efficient in 

flushing sediments, requiring less maintenance and reducing the disturbance related to that maintenance. 

d. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Under this Alternative, there would be no new wetland construction or shoreline stabilization. Without 

shoreline stabilization, the erosion on both the Indian River Lagoon and the Loxahatchee River would 

continue to degrade shoreline habitats and leave them vulnerable to catastrophic loss during hurricane 

storm surges. 

11. Recreation and Public Use 

a. Preferred Alternative 

This alternative provides new public access to the northern portion of the ONA through construction of a 

small parking area and ADA compatible trail/boardwalk and overlook to the tidal lagoon. Associated 

interpretive signage would increase public awareness of the special resources of the ONA and should 

increase compliance with special rules to protect those resources. 

Within Lots 18 and 20 new facilities would be constructed to more effectively accommodate increased 

public visitation while protecting the historic and cultural resources. The area behind the Station J 

building would be filled, and capped with geofabric and resodded to cap the existing midden. Pavers 

would be installed in high use areas as additional protection and to provide a level, stable surface for 

visiting public. A deck would be constructed at the base of the lighthouse under the council fig tree, to 

protect the site of the original lighthouse keeper’s house, and provide seating and a waiting area for 

lighthouse visitors. This also provides an additional opportunity for public interpretation. The visiting 

public’s experience would be further enhanced by access to the restored Lighthouse Keeper’s Workshop, 

which would broaden the public’s understanding of the life of early lighthouse keepers. 

Impacts from the Alternative 1 

This alternative provides the most public access to the interior of the ONA. The public would be 

directed from two new parking areas to a system of accessible trails to the primary destinations and 

viewing spots, as well as a series of soft trails that loop through the site. Observation decks would be 

constructed at the two major overlooks, the existing tidal wetland and Jupiter inlet. Elevated boardwalks 

along wetlands would be constructed along mangrove wetlands and on the south side in particular would 

provide a view of the crystal clear incoming tide that has made this site such a destination for snorkeling. 

The north and south trail systems would be linked under Cato Bridge, reducing the need for the public to 

cross County Road 707 to access both sides of the ONA. 

Impacts on Lot 18 and 20 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative except that under this Alternative 

a water taxi dock would be constructed behind the Station J building. This water taxi would provide an 

additional access point to the ONA. It could also provide additional parking for visitors using the ONA 

as a departure point for other water taxi locations. The parking capacity is likely to be exceeded during 

Saturdays when the ball fields are being used for organized sports. The water taxi dock increases 

unmonitored access to the Station J building during the night. 
103 

b. Impacts from Alternative 2 

This alternative provides less connected access through the ONA. There would be no new parking areas, 

requiring visitors to park at Jupiter Lighthouse Park and walk across County Road 707. A traffic light 

and a cross walk are proposed to provide for that crossing. There would be no overlook south of County 

Road 707, and the public would be able to view Jupiter inlet only while passing on the trail. There 

would be only one elevated boardwalk constructed to the existing tidal wetland. The public would view 

the Indian River Lagoon from a shell rock loop trail from a trail head south of Cato Bridge. 

Like Alternative 1, new facilities would be constructed to more effectively accommodate increased 

public visitation while protecting the historic and cultural resources. The area behind the Station J 

building would be filled, and capped with a deck to protect the midden area and provide for higher 

public use. Like Alternative 1, a deck would be constructed at the base of the lighthouse under the 

council fig tree, to protect the site of the original lighthouse keeper’s house, and provide seating and a 

waiting area for lighthouse visitors. The Lighthouse Keeper’s Workshop would also be restored. Both 

of these actions provide additional opportunities for public interpretation. 

c. Impacts from the No Action Alternative 

Without the construction of additional public access facilities the majority of the ONA would remain 

inaccessible for most visitors. Lack of signage and parking would dissuade most people from venturing 

from the existing facilities associated with Lighthouse Park and the Loxahatchee River Historical 

Society. Although increases in general public visitation due to increased visibility and media attention, 

public use would be dispersed across the natural areas. Lack of interpretation and public education is 

likely to lead to inappropriate uses by uninformed visitors. The unauthorized use along the Indian River 

Lagoon would continue to be difficult to control and degradation of the site would continue. 

12. Visual Resources 

a. Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

As described in other sections of this plan, a fundamental intent of Congress in designating the ONA is 

“the conservation and enhancement of healthy, functioning ecological systems”. Because of years of 

invasive plant development, this has required intensive management activities to remove trees such as 

Brazilian Pepper and Australian Pine, which has caused change in what had been the typical setting at 

the site: acres of trees have been cut down, understory vegetation has been cut, pulled and removed, and 

prescribed burns have blackened and charred both native and non-native plants. In Lot 17 similar 

actions would take place. Experience over the past ten years in Lot 15 has shown that understory 

grasses, shrubs and forbs are quick to reemerge. Within several growing seasons, the rapid growth of 

some shrubs adds a vertical canopy to the landscape. The most significant visual change that has 

resulted from the past habitat management and future proposed actions would be the temporary loss of 

the tree canopy from invasive trees. In the VRM program, short-term (up to 1 year) and medium term 

(up to 5 years) changes are considered temporary changes in the landscape, and are not usually mitigated 

during the recovery process. In hardwood hammock habitats, including most of Lot 17, tree species tend 

to be relatively fast growing and a new canopy is expected to be established within 10 to 15 years. Sand 

pines would respond quickly, particularly in response to fire and could be a dominant feature after 15 

years. The canopy would not be replaced in scrub oak areas. 

The removal of Australian pine in the vicinity of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse would alter the backdrop of 

this iconic structure. This is in keeping with returning the site to a natural state and would recreate more 

historically accurate view from the surrounding area. 
104 

From the observation points, very little of the facilities would be seen other than the trailhead parking lot 

and signs. Any visual impacts from the construction of the recreation facilities would be minor, and 

would not conflict with the VRM class III rating for the site. The historic renovations would be focused 

on preserving the setting and character of the structures, and the work involved would not generally be 

visible to from the observation points. Other proposed fencing around the ONA would be unfinished 

split rail. 

Shoreline hardening is common along various parts of the inlet, and rivers. Mangroves planted along the 

shoreline would reduce their visual impact, increase the amount of mangrove habitat in the area, and 

keep the public out of the shoreline natural areas. All wood structures would be left unfinished and 

allowed to weather to help them match their surroundings. The chain link fence proposed between the 

sports fields and lot 17 would be black chain link fence, which is very low visibility against the dense 

vegetation behind it. The portal signs proposed in the plan would replace signs in similar locations as 

the existing portal signs, and directional signs would be placed to use existing sign structures wherever 

possible, as approved by the various transportation departments involved. 

b. Impacts from Alternative 1 

Same as the Preferred Alternative except that there is an increased emphasis on mechanical manipulation 

of habitats along U.S. Highway 1 rather than prescribed fire. This would make any changes to the 

vegetation more gradual and less obvious to the public. 

c. Impacts from Alternative 2 

Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except that all of the woody invasives in 

Lot 17 would be removed during the same year, increasing the impacts to visual resources, particularly 

when viewed from Jupiter Inlet Colony and from boats on the Indian River Lagoon. This would be 

relatively short term, as most hardwood hammock species grow relatively quickly. Vegetation structure 

is expected begin to return within three to four years and should be close to the existing structure within 

ten to fifteen years. 

d. Impacts from No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no removal of invasive trees from Lot 17, nor shoreline 

stabilization project. While this alternative maintains the existing vegetation cover avoiding short term 

impacts to visual resources, over the long term this alternative is would result in continuing erosion of 

the bank along the Indian River Lagoon and the continued coverage of exotic invasive plants, contrary to 

accepted public land management practices. 

E. Cumulative Impacts 

1. Cumulative Impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is not expected to prompt any development outside of the 

ONA. However, once completed, the public use facilities would encourage appropriate uses in the 

natural areas. Improved infrastructure and interpretive facilities associated with the Jupiter Inlet 

Lighthouse are expected to continue to increase the number of local, national and international visitors. 

The prescribed fire and invasive species control programs would support scrub maintenance on one of 

the largest tracts of scrub remaining in Palm Beach County. The 120-acre ONA contributes to over 
105 

165,000 acres of conservation land in the County. The ONA is the only Federal property to support both 

four-petal pawpaw and perforate lichen. The proposed actions are expected to increase the numbers and 

viability of both populations at the site. Habitat management actions are also expected to retain scrub 

characteristics suitable for the Florida scrub jay. BLM has determined that implementation of the plan 

“may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the four-petal pawpaw, perforate lichen and Florida 

Scrub jay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with that finding in a memo dated March 5, 

2010, except that the prescribed burn program will require an additional consultation to address impacts 

and best management practices for burning in areas supporting perforate lichen. 
106 
107 

Part VI. Appendices 
108 
109 

A. Public Law 110-229, Section 202 
110 
111 

LIGHTHOUSE OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA. 

 (a) Definitions.--In this section: 

 (1) Commandant.--The term ``Commandant'' means the 

 Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

 (2) Lighthouse.--The term ``Lighthouse'' means the Jupiter 

 Inlet Lighthouse located in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

 (3) Local partners.--The term ``Local Partners'' includes-- 

 (A) Palm Beach County, Florida; 

 (B) the Town of Jupiter, Florida; 

 (C) the Village of Tequesta, Florida; and 

 (D) the Loxahatchee River Historical Society. 

 (4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the 

 management plan developed under subsection (c)(1). 

 (5) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Jupiter 

 Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area'' and dated October 

 29, 2007. 

 (6) Outstanding natural area.--The term ``Outstanding 

 Natural Area'' means the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding 

 Natural Area established by subsection (b)(1). 

 (7) Public land.--The term ``public land'' has the meaning 

 given the term ``public lands'' in section 103(e) of the Federal 

 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)). 

 (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 

 of the Interior. 

 (9) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida. 

 (b) Establishment of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding 

Natural Area.-- 

 (1) Establishment.--Subject to valid existing rights, there 

 is established for the purposes described in paragraph (2) the 

 Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area, the 

 boundaries of which are depicted on the map. 

 (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Outstanding Natural Area 

 are to protect, conserve, and enhance the unique and nationally 

 important historic, natural, cultural, scientific, educational, 

 scenic, and recreational values of the Federal land 

[[Page 122 STAT. 764]] 

 surrounding the Lighthouse for the benefit of present 

 generations and future generations of people in the United 

 States, while-- 

 (A) allowing certain recreational and research 

 activities to continue in the Outstanding Natural Area; 

 and 

 (B) ensuring that Coast Guard operations and 

 activities are unimpeded within the boundaries of the 

 Outstanding Natural Area. 

 (3) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and 

 available for public inspection in appropriate offices of the 
112 

 Bureau of Land Management. 

 (4) Withdrawal.-- 

 (A) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, 

 subsection (e), and any existing withdrawals under the 

 Executive orders and public land order described in 

 subparagraph (B), the Federal land and any interests in 

 the Federal land included in the Outstanding Natural 

 Area are withdrawn from-- 

 (i) all forms of entry, appropriation, or 

 disposal under the public land laws; 

 (ii) location, entry, and patent under the 

 mining laws; and 

 (iii) operation of the mineral leasing and 

 geothermal leasing laws and the mineral materials 

 laws. 

 (B) Description of executive orders.--The Executive 

 orders and public land order described in subparagraph 

 (A) are-- 

 (i) the Executive Order dated October 22, 

 1854; 

 (ii) Executive Order No. 4254 (June 12, 1925); 

 and 

 (iii) Public Land Order No. 7202 (61 Fed. Reg. 

 29758). 

 (c) Management Plan.-- 

 (1) In general.--Not <<NOTE: Deadline.>> later than 3 years 

 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 

 consultation with the Commandant, shall develop a comprehensive 

 management plan in accordance with section 202 of the Federal 

 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) to-- 

 (A) provide long-term management guidance for the 

 public land in the Outstanding Natural Area; and 

 (B) ensure that the Outstanding Natural Area 

 fulfills the purposes for which the Outstanding Natural 

 Area is established. 

 (2) Consultation; public participation.--The management plan 

 shall be developed-- 

 (A) in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, 

 county, and local government agencies, the Commandant, 

 the Local Partners, and other partners; and 

 (B) in a manner that ensures full public 

 participation. 

 (3) Existing plans.--The management plan shall, to the 

 maximum extent practicable, be consistent with existing resource 

 plans, policies, and programs. 

 (4) Inclusions.--The management plan shall include-- 

 (A) objectives and provisions to ensure-- 

 (i) the protection and conservation of the 

 resource values of the Outstanding Natural Area; 

 and 
113 

[[Page 122 STAT. 765]] 

 (ii) the restoration of native plant 

 communities and estuaries in the Outstanding 

 Natural Area, with an emphasis on the conservation 

 and enhancement of healthy, functioning ecological 

 systems in perpetuity; 

 (B) objectives and provisions to maintain or 

 recreate historic structures; 

 (C) an implementation plan for a program of 

 interpretation and public education about the natural 

 and cultural resources of the Lighthouse, the public 

 land surrounding the Lighthouse, and associated 

 structures; 

 (D) a proposal for administrative and public 

 facilities to be developed or improved that-- 

 (i) are compatible with achieving the resource 

 objectives for the Outstanding Natural Area 

 described in subsection (d)(1)(A)(ii); and 

 (ii) would accommodate visitors to the 

 Outstanding Natural Area; 

 (E) natural and cultural resource management 

 strategies for the Outstanding Natural Area, to be 

 developed in consultation with appropriate departments 

 of the State, the Local Partners, and the Commandant, 

 with an emphasis on resource conservation in the 

 Outstanding Natural Area and the interpretive, 

 educational, and long-term scientific uses of the 

 resources; and 

 (F) recreational use strategies for the Outstanding 

 Natural Area, to be prepared in consultation with the 

 Local Partners, appropriate departments of the State, 

 and the Coast Guard, with an emphasis on passive 

 recreation. 

 (5) Interim plan.--Until a management plan is adopted for 

 the Outstanding Natural Area, the Jupiter Inlet Coordinated 

 Resource Management Plan (including any updates or amendments to 

 the Jupiter Inlet Coordinated Resource Management Plan) shall be 

 in effect. 

 (d) Management of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural 

Area.-- 

 (1) Management.-- 

 (A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 

 the Local Partners and the Commandant, shall manage the 

 Outstanding Natural Area-- 

 (i) as part of the National Landscape 

 Conservation System; 

 (ii) in a manner that conserves, protects, and 

 enhances the unique and nationally important 
114 

 historical, natural, cultural, scientific, 

 educational, scenic, and recreational values of 

 the Outstanding Natural Area, including an 

 emphasis on the restoration of native ecological 

 systems; and 

 (iii) in accordance with the Federal Land 

 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 

 et seq.) and other applicable laws. 

 (B) Limitation.--In managing the Outstanding Natural 

 Area, the Secretary shall not take any action that 

 precludes, prohibits, or otherwise affects the conduct 

 of ongoing or future Coast Guard operations or 

 activities on lots 16 and 18, as depicted on the map. 

 (2) Uses.--Subject to valid existing rights and subsection 

 (e), the Secretary shall only allow uses of the Outstanding 

[[Page 122 STAT. 766]] 

 Natural Area that the Secretary, in consultation with the 

 Commandant and Local Partners, determines would likely further 

 the purposes for which the Outstanding Natural Area is 

 established. 

 (3) Cooperative agreements.--To facilitate implementation of 

 the management plan and to continue the successful partnerships 

 with local communities and other partners, the Secretary may, in 

 accordance with section 307(b) of the Federal Land Management 

 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(b)), enter 

 into cooperative agreements with the appropriate Federal, State, 

 county, other local government agencies, and other partners 

 (including the Loxahatchee River Historical Society) for the 

 long-term management of the Outstanding Natural Area. 

 (4) Research activities.--To continue successful research 

 partnerships, pursue future research partnerships, and assist in 

 the development and implementation of the management plan, the 

 Secretary may, in accordance with section 307(a) of the Federal 

 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737(a)), 

 authorize the conduct of appropriate research activities in the 

 Outstanding Natural Area for the purposes described in 

 subsection (b)(2). 

 (5) Acquisition of land.-- 

 (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 

 Secretary may acquire for inclusion in the Outstanding 

 Natural Area any State or private land or any interest 

 in State or private land that is-- 

 (i) adjacent to the Outstanding Natural Area; 

 and 

 (ii) identified in the management plan as 

 appropriate for acquisition. 

 (B) Means of acquisition.--Land or an interest in 

 land may be acquired under subparagraph (A) only by 

 donation, exchange, or purchase from a willing seller 
115 

 with donated or appropriated funds. 

 (C) Additions to the outstanding natural area.--Any 

 land or interest in land adjacent to the Outstanding 

 Natural Area acquired by the United States after the 

 date of enactment of this Act under subparagraph (A) 

 shall be added to, and administered as part of, the 

 Outstanding Natural Area. 

 (6) Law enforcement activities.--Nothing in this section, 

 the management plan, or the Jupiter Inlet Coordinated Resource 

 Management Plan (including any updates or amendments to the 

 Jupiter Inlet Coordinated Resource Management Plan) precludes, 

 prohibits, or otherwise affects-- 

 (A) any maritime security, maritime safety, or 

 environmental protection mission or activity of the 

 Coast Guard; 

 (B) any border security operation or law enforcement 

 activity by the Department of Homeland Security or the 

 Department of Justice; or 

 (C) any law enforcement activity of any Federal, 

 State, or local law enforcement agency in the 

 Outstanding Natural Area. 

 (7) Future disposition of coast guard facilities.--If the 

 Commandant determines, after the date of enactment of this Act, 

 that Coast Guard facilities within the Outstanding 

[[Page 122 STAT. 767]] 

 Natural Area exceed the needs of the Coast Guard, the Commandant 

 may relinquish the facilities to the Secretary without removal, 

 subject only to any environmental remediation that may be 

 required by law. 

 (e) Effect on Ongoing and Future Coast Guard Operations.--Nothing in 

this section, the management plan, or the Jupiter Inlet Coordinated 

Resource Management Plan (including updates or amendments to the Jupiter 

Inlet Coordinated Resource Management Plan) precludes, prohibits, or 

otherwise affects ongoing or future Coast Guard operations or activities 

in the Outstanding Natural Area, including-- 

 (1) the continued and future operation of, access to, 

 maintenance of, and, as may be necessitated for Coast Guard 

 missions, the expansion, enhancement, or replacement of, the 

 Coast Guard High Frequency antenna site on lot 16; 

 (2) the continued and future operation of, access to, 

 maintenance of, and, as may be necessitated for Coast Guard 

 missions, the expansion, enhancement, or replacement of, the 

 military family housing area on lot 18; 

 (3) the continued and future use of, access to, maintenance 

 of, and, as may be necessitated for Coast Guard missions, the 

 expansion, enhancement, or replacement of, the pier on lot 18; 

 (4) the existing lease of the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse on 

 lot 18 from the Coast Guard to the Loxahatchee River Historical 
116 

 Society; or 

 (5) any easements or other less-than-fee interests in 

 property appurtenant to existing Coast Guard facilities on lots 

 16 and 18. 

 (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 

appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section. 
117 

B. Master Species Lists 
118 
119 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

STATUS

USFWS FDAC

S 

FNAI FLEPPC

Fungi 

Geastrum floriforme Earthstar

Lichens

Cladonia evansii Cladonia 

Cladonia leporina British Solders 

Cladonia perforata Perforate Reindeer Lichen E E G1/S1

Cladonia prostrata Cladonia

Cladonia subtenuis Cladonia

Ferns and fern allies 

Acrostichum danaeifolium Giant Leather Fern

Blechnum serrulatum Swamp Fern

Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern Category I

Phlebodium aureum Golden Polypody 

Polypodium polypodioides Resurrection Fern 

 var. michauxianum 

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern

Selaginella arenicola Sand Spikemoss 

Vittaria lineata Shoestring Fern 

Gymnosperms

Pinus clausa Sand Pine

Monocots 

AGAVACEAE {agave family}

Agave americana Century Plant exotic

ARECACEAE formerly PALMAE {palm family} 

Phoenix reclinata 

Senegal date 

Palm 

exotic

Sabal palmetto 

Sabal Palm; 

Cabbage Palm 

Serenoa repens Saw Palmetto 

ASPARAGACEAE {asparagus family}

Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus Fern Category I

BROMELIACEAE {pineapple family}

Tillandsia flexuosa 

Banded Air 

Plant 

T G5/S3

Tillandsia paucifolia 

Pot-bellied 

Tillandsia 

Tillandsia recurvata Ball Moss
120 

Tillandsia usneoides Spanish Moss 

Tillandsia utriculata 

Giant Wild 

Pine 

E

COMMELINACEAE{spiderwort family}

Commelina erecta 

Whitemouth 

Dayflower, 

Erect 

Tradescantia spathacea Oyster Plant 

CYPERACEAE {sedge family}

Bulbostylis ciliatifolia Hairsedge

Cladium jamaicense Sawgrass 

Cyperus globulosus Globe Sedge 

Cyperus ligularis Large Cyperus

Cyperus planifolius 

Glaucus 

Cyperus 

Cyperus retrorsus Flatsedge 

Fimbristylis castanea Fimbristylis

Fimbristylis spathacea Hurricanegrass

Rhynchospora megalocarpa 

Large-seeded 

Beakrush 

IRIDACEAE {iris family}

Sisyrinchium xeriphyllum 

Blue-eyed 

Grass 

POACEAE {grass family}

Andropogon virginicus Broomsedge

Aristida gyrans 

Corkscrew 

Threeawn 

Cenchrus incertus Coast Sandspur 

Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass exotic

Dactyloctenium aegyptium Crowfootgrass

Dichanthelium portoricense Panic-grass 

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass 

Eragrostis sp. Love Grass

Eremochloa ophiuroides Centipedegrass exotic

Eustachys petraea Eustachys

Panicum repens Torpedograss Category 

I

Paspalum distichum 

Seashore 

Paspalum 

Paspalum notatum Bahiagrass Category I

Paspalum setaceum Thin Paspalum

Rhynchelytrum repens Natal Grass 

Category 

II 

Setaria sp. Foxtail

Spartina bakeri Sand Cordgrass

Spartina patens Saltmeadow 
121 

Cordgrass

Sporobolus indicus Smutgrass exotic

Stenotaphrum secundatum 

St. Augustine 

Grass 

exotic

RUSCACEAE {bowstring-hemp family} 

Sansevieria hyacinthoides 

BowstringHemp Category 

II 

SMILACACEAE (greenbriar family} 

Smilax auriculata 

Greenbrier; 

Catbrier 

Smilax bona-nox 

Greenbrier; 

Catbrier 

Dicots

AIZOACEAE 

Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea Purslane

AMARANTHACEAE {including former CHENOPODIACEAE, amaranth family} 

Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican Tea exotic

Iresine diffusa Bloodleaf

Salicornia virginica 

Perennial 

Glasswort 

Suaeda linearis Sea Blite 

ANACARDIACEAE {cashew family}

Metopium toxiferum Poisonwood 

Schinus terebinthifolius 

Brazilian 

Pepper 

Category I

ANNONACEAE

Annon glabra Pond Apple 

Asimina reticulata 

Gopher-berry 

pawpaw 

Asiminia tetramera 

Four-petal 

pawpaw 

E E G1/S1

APOCYNACEAE

Catharanthus roseus Periwinkle exotic

Cynanchum angustifolium Cynanchum

Rhabdadenia biflora Rubber Vine 

ARALICEAE {ginseng family}

Schefflera actnophylla 

Australian 

Umbrella Tree; 

Schefflera 

Category I

ASCLEPIADACEAE {milkweed family) 
122 

Asclepia feayi 

Feay's 

Milkweed 

Asclepias curtissii 

Curtiss' 

Milkweed 

E

Citharexylum fruticosum Fiddlewood

ASTERACEAE{formerly COMPOSITAE)

Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Common 

Ragweed 

Balduina angustifolia Yellow Buttons 

Bidens alba var. radiata Beggar Ticks 

Borrichia frutescens 

Sea Daisies; 

Sea Oxeye 

Conyza canadensa var. pusilla 

Dwarf 

Horseweed 

Eupatorium leptophyllum 

Lopsided Dog 

Fennel 

Flaveria linearis 

Narrowleaf 

Yellowtops 

Helianthus debilis var. debilis 

Dune 

Sunflower 

Iva frutescens Marsh-elder

Mikania scandens 

Climbing 

Hempweed 

Palafoxia feayi Palafoxia

Palafoxia integrifolia Pink Lace

Pityopsis graminifolia 

Pityopsis; 

Grass-leaved 

Golden Aster 

Solidago odora var. chapmanii 

Chapman's 

Goldenrod 

Sonchus oleraceus Fire Weed exotic

Tridax procumbens Tridax exotic

Verbesina virginica Frostweed 

Wedelia trilobata 

Creeping 

Oxeye 

Category 

II 

BATACEAE 

Batis maritima Saltwort 

BIGNONIACEAE {trumpet creeper family

Tecomaria capensis 

Cape 

Honeysuckle 

exotic

BURSERACEAE

Bursera simaruba Gumbo-limbo

CACTACEAE {cactus family} 

Cereus undatus Night- Category 
123 

blooming 

cereus 

II

Opuntia humifusa 

Prickly-pear 

Cactus 

CAPPARARACEAE 

Polanisia tenuifolia Polanisia 

CARICACEAE

Carica papaya Papaya exotic

CARYOPHYLLACEAE {pink family}

Paronychia americana 

Ground 

Squares 

Stipulicida setacea Stipulicida 

CASUARINACEAE

Casuarina equisetifolia Australian Pine Category I

CHRYSOBALANACEAE 

Chrysobalanus icaco Coco-plum 

Licania michauxii Gopher Apple

CISTACEAE {rockrose family} 

Helianthemum nashii 

Scrub 

Frostweed 

Lechea cernua 

Nodding 

pinweed 

T G3/S3

Lechea deckertii 

Woody 

Pinweed 

COMBRETACEAE

Conocarpus erecta Buttonwood 

Laguncularia racemosa 

White 

Mangrove 

CONVOLVULACEAE {morning glory family} 

Ipomoea pes-caprae Railroad-vine 

Stylisma villosa 

Hairy 

Dawnflower 

CRASSULACEAE 

Kalanchoe pinnata Life Plant 

Category 

II 

Kalanchoe tubiflora 

Chandelier 

Plant 

exotic

CUCURBITACEAE

Momordica charantia Balsam apple exotic
124 

EMPETRACEAE 

Ceratiola ericoides Rosemary

ERICACEAE {heath family}

Lyonia ferruginea Rusty Lyonia 

EUPHORBACEAE

Chamaesyce cordifolia Spurge

Cnidoscolus stimulosus 

Tread Softly; 

Stinging 

Nettles 

Croton glandulosus 

Simpson's 

Croton 

Phyllanthus sp. Phyllanthus exotic

Poinsettia cyathophora Painted-leaf

Sapium sebiferum 

Popcorn Tree; 

Chinese Tallow 

Tree 

Category I

FABACEAE {pea family} 

Abrus precatorius 

Rosary Pea,

Crab's-eye 

Category I

Acacia aunculiformis Ear-leaf Acacia Category I

Albizia lebbeck 

Womans-

tongue-tree 

Category 

II 

Canavalia rosea Baybean

Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge-pea

Crotalaria pallida ovovata Rattlebox exotic

Crotalaria rotundifolia 

Rabbit-bells;

Rattle-box 

Dalbergia ecastophyllum Coin Vine

Desmodium incanum 

Beggar's Lice; 

Common Ticktrefoil 

exotic

Galactia elliottii 

Elliott's Milk 

Pea 

Galactia regularis Milk Pea

Luecaena leucocephala Lead tree 

Category 

II 

Vigna luteola Cowpea

FAGACEAE

Quercus chapmanii Chapman's Oak 

Quercus geminata Sand Live Oak 

Quercus myrtifolia Myrtle Oak

GENTIANACEAE {gentian family}

Eustoma exaltatum Marsh Gentian 
125 

LAMIACEAE 

Conradina grandiflora 

Large-flowered 

Rosemary 

T G3/S3

Trichostema dichotomum 

Forked Bluecurls 

LAURACEAE 

Cassytha filiformis Love Vine

LOASACEAE 

Mentzelia floridana 

Poorman's 

Patch 

LOGANIACEAE

Polypremum procumbens Rustweed 

MALVACEAE

Hibiscus furcellatus Hibiscus

Hibiscus tiliaceus Mahoe 

Category 

II 

Kosteletzkya virginica 

Saltmarsh 

Mallow 

Sida acuta Broomweed exotic

Sida cordifolia Sida exotic

Thespesia populnea Seaside Mahoe Category I

MORACEAE {fig family}

Ficus aurea Strangler Fig 

Ficus microcarpa Laurel Fig Category I

MYRSINACEAE

Ardisia escallonioides Marlberry

Raphanea punctata Myrsine 

MYRTACEAE

Eugenia uniflora 

Surinam 

Cherry 

Category I

Melaleuca quinquenervia 

Punk Tree; 

Cajeput 

Psidium guajava Guava Category I

OLACACEAE 

Ximenia americana 

Tallow Wood; 

Hog Plum 

ONAGRACEAE

Gaura angustifolia 

Southern 

Gaura, 

Southern 
126 

beeblossum

OROBANCHACEAE {broomrape family)

Buchnera americana Blueheart

Seymeria pectinata Seymeria

Oenothera laciniata 

Cut-leaved 

Evening 

Primrose 

PAPILIONACEAE

Lupinus diffusus Sky-blue Lupin

PHYTOLACCACEAE {pokeweed family} 

Rivina humilis Rouge Plant 

PLANTAGINACEAE

Bacopa monnieri Water Hyssop

Linaria canadensis 

Canadian 

toadflax 

Scoparia dulcis Sweet Broom

Bacopa monnieri Water Hyssop

PLUMBAGINACEAE {leadwort family} 

Plumbago scandens Wild Plumbago

POLYGALACEAE {milkwort family}

Polygala grandiflora 

Large-flowered 

Milkwort 

POLYGONACEAE {buckwheat family}

Coccoloba uvifera Sea Grape

Polygonella ciliata Wireweed 

Polygonella polygama Jointweed 

Polygonella robusta 

Sandhill 

Wireweed 

PORTULACACEAE {purslane family} 

Portulaca pilosa Pink Purslane

RHIZOPHORACEAE {mangrove family}

Rhizophora mangle Red Mangrove 

RUBIACEAE {madder family}

Chiococca alba Snowberry

Diodia teres Poor Joe

Galium hispidulum Bedstraw 

Hamelia patens Firebush 

Psychotria nervosa Wild Coffee

Randia aculeata Randia; Box127 

brier; White 

Indigo-berry 

Richardia brasiliensis Richardia exotic

Richardia grandiflora 

Large-flowered 

Richardia 

exotic

Spermacoce verticillata 

Shrubby False 

Buttonweed 

exotic

RUTACEAE {rue or citrus family}

Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Hercules-club 

Zanthoxylum fagara Wild Lime 

SAPOTACEAE {sapodilla family}

Bumelia salicifolia Willow Bustic

Bumelia tenax 

Tough 

Buckthorn 

SIMAROUBACEAE

Simarouba glauca Paradise Tree 

SOLANACEAE {nightshade family}

Physalis viscosa var. maritima Physalis

VERBENACEAE {vervain family} 

Avicennia germinans 

Black 

Mangrove 

Callicarpa americana 

Beauty Berry; 

Beauty Bush 

Lantana camara Shrub Verbena Category I

Lantana involucrata Lantana 

Lippia nodiflora 

Frog-fruit; 

Carpetweed 

VITACEAE {grape family} 

Parthenocissis quinquefolia 

Virginia 

Creeper 

Vitis munsoniana 

So. Fox Grape; 

Scuppernong; 

Muscadine 

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE 

Tribulus cistoides 

Burnut; 

Bicycle-tirepoppers 

Category 

II 

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Animals and Plants 

E – Endangered: Any species which is in danger of extinction through all or a portion of its 

 range. 

T- Threatened: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
128 

FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs - Plants 

E - Endangered: Species of plants native to the state that are in imminent danger of extinction 

 within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of 

 plants continue, and includes all species determined to be endangered species or threatened 

 species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Pub. L. No. 93-

 205(87 Stat. 884). 

 T – Threatened: Species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants 

 within the state, but which have not so decreased in such number as to cause them to be 

 endangered 

CE – Commercially Exploited: Species native to the state which are subject to being removed 

 In significant numbers from native habitats in the state and sold or transported for sale 

FNAI - Florida Natural Areas Inventory - Plants, Animals and Natural Communities FNAI ranks 

indicate the global (G) or state (S) status of a species or exemplary natural community; definitions are 

from FNAI (2008), updated as of March 2009. 

 Global Rank Definitions 

 G1: 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 human factor 

 G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or fewer than 3,000 individuals) 

 or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or human factor 

 G3: Either very rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences or fewer than 

 10,000 individuals), or found locally in a restricted range, or vulnerable to extinction from other 

 factors 

 G4: Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range) 

 G5: Demonstrably secure globally 

 State Rank Definitions 

 State ranks follow the same system and have the same definitions as global ranks, except that 

 they apply only to Florida. 

FLEPPC - Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Lists 

Category I invasives when they are altering native plant communities by displacing native 

species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. 

This definition does not rely on the economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but 

on the documented ecological damage caused. 

 Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered 

 Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species. These species may become 

 Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated. 

Exotic - Non-native species not listed as Category 1 or II by FLEPPC 

Note: All of these organizations have other listing/ranking criteria which did not pertain to this species 

list and which were omitted from the definitions, for example extinct species or species extirpated from 

the wild. 
129 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

STATUS

USFWS FWC FNAI BCC

Mammals

(Names and sequence from 

Revised Checklist of 

North American Mammals)

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus G5

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus

Oldfield mouse Peromyscus polionotus

Florida mouse Peromyscus floridanus 

SSC G3T2/

S3 

Cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Northern river otter Lutra canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E G2/S2

Birds

(Names and sequence from 

A.O.U. Check-list of North 

American Birds)

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC G3/S3

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens SSC G4/S2

Great Egret Casmerodius albus G5/S4

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

SSC 

(1) 

G5/S3

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax G5/S3

Little Blue Heron Florida caerulea SSC G5/S4

Tri-colored Heron Hydranassa tricolor SSC G5/S4

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green Heron Butorides virescens

White Ibis Eudocimus albus SSC G5/S4

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Muscovy Duck (non-native) Cairina moschata G4

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula G4

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

SSC G5/S3

S4 
130 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii G5/S3

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius G5/S2

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Royal Tern Sterna maxima G5/S3

Rock Pigeon Columba livia 

Common Ground Dove Columbina passerina BCC

Eurasian Collared-Dove (nonnative) Streptopelia decaocto 

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio

Great-horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Barred Owl Strix varia 

Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis BCC

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Gray Kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus G4 BCC?

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Florida Scrub Jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T G2/S2

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
131 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

European Starling (non-native) Sturnus vulgaris

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Northern Parula Parula americana 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica

Cape May Warbler *Dendroica tigrina

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 

G5T3/

S3 

BCC

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris G5/S3 BCC nb

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Boat-tailed Grackle Quiscalus major 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Reptiles 

Southern Black Racer Coluber constrictor 

Coachwhip snake Masticophis flagellum

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus 

Under 

review 

T G3/S3

Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Florida Scrub Lizard Sceloporus woodi G3/S3

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis

Brown Anole* Anolis sagrei

Fox Gecko* Hemidactylus garnotii 

Northern Curly-tailed Lizard* 

Leiocephalus carinatus 

armouri 

Amphibians

Oak Toad Bufo quercicus 

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris 

Marine Toad* Bufo marinus

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis

Cuban Treefrog * Osteopilus septentrionalis

Fox gecko * Hemidactylus garnotii 

Fishes

(observed since August 2000 in 

tidal lagoon) 

Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli
132 

Pork Fish Anisotremus virginicus 

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 

Hardhead Catfish Arius felis

Crevalle Jack Caranx hippos

Common Snook Centropomus undecimalis

Stingray Dasyatus spp. 

Striped Mojarra Diapterus plumieri 

Spotfin Mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 

Silver Jenny Eucinostomus gula

Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki

Yellowfin Mojarra Gerres cinereus 

Scaled Sardine Harengula jaguana 

Pin Fish Lagodon rhomboides

Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus

Lane Snapper Lutjanus sunagris

Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 

White Mullet Mugil curema 

Checkered Puffer Sphoeroides testudineus

Great Barracuda Sphyaena barracuda

Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina

Insects 

Green lynx spider Peucetia viridans

Beach wolf spider Arctosa littoralis

Vinegaroon Mastigoproctus giganteus

Bush Katydid Scudderia sp.

Cone-headed Grasshopper Neoconocephalus sp. 

Southeastern Lubber Grasshopper Romalea microptera 

Cicada (?)Tibicen sp.

Gulf Fritillary Agraulis vanillae

Cloudless sulphur butterfly Phoebis sennae

Corporal skimmer 

Libellula deplanata (tentative 

id) 

Aethecernus hornii

* - Non-native species 

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Animals and Plants 

E – Endangered: Any species which is in danger of extinction through all or a portion of its 

 range. 

T- Threatened: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

 Under review – USFWS is reviewing species for consideration for listing 

FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs - Plants 

E - Endangered: Species of plants native to the state that are in imminent danger of extinction 

 within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of 

 plants continue, and includes all species determined to be endangered species or threatened 
133 

 species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Pub. L. No. 93-

 205(87 Stat. 884). 

 T – Threatened: Species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants 

 within the state, but which have not so decreased in such number as to cause them to be 

 endangered 

CE – Commercially Exploited: Species native to the state which are subject to being removed 

 In significant numbers from native habitats in the state and sold or transported for sale 

FWC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Animals 

E - Endangered: As designated by the Commission, a species, subspecies, or isolated population 

 of a species or subspecies which is so few or depleted in number or so restricted in range or 

 habitat due to any man-made or natural factors that it is in imminent danger of extinction. 

T – Threatened: As designated by the Commission, a species, subspecies or isolated population 

 of a species or subspecies which is facing a very high risk of extinction in the future. 

SSC: Species of Special Concern: As designated by the Commission, a species, subspecies, or 

 isolated population of a species or subspecies which is facing a moderate risk of extinction in the 

 future. 

FNAI - Florida Natural Areas Inventory - Plants, Animals and Natural Communities FNAI ranks 

indicate the global (G) or state (S) status of a species or exemplary natural community; definitions are 

from FNAI (2008), updated as of March 2009. 

 Global Rank Definitions 

 G1: 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 human factor 

 G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or fewer than 3,000 individuals) 

 or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or human factor 

 G3: Either very rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences or fewer than 

 10,000 individuals), or found locally in a restricted range, or vulnerable to extinction 

 from other factors 

 G4: Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range) 

 G5: Demonstrably secure globally 

 State Rank Definitions 

 State ranks follow the same system and have the same definitions as global ranks, except that 

 they apply only to Florida. 

FLEPPC - Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Lists 

 Category I invasives when they are altering native plant communities by displacing native 

 species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. 

 This definition does not rely on the economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but 

 on the documented ecological damage caused. 

 Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered 

 Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species. These species may become 

 Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated. 

Exotic - Non-native species not listed as Category 1 or II by FLEPPC 
134 

BCC – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. This publication 

identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and nonmigratory birds in need of additional 

conservation actions. 

 BCC- Included on list 

 nb – Non-breeding in this region (BCR 31) 

Note: All of these organizations have other listing/ranking criteria which did not pertain to this species 

list and which were omitted from the definitions, for example extinct species or species extirpated from 

the wild. 
135 

C. Palm Beach County Ordinances 
136 
137 

Palm Beach County Natural Areas Ordinance 94-13 

ARTICLE XI. NATURAL AREAS* 

__________ 

*Editor's note: Ord. No. 94-13, adopted June 21, 1994, effective June 27, 1994, amended this Code by 

adding provisions designated by the editor as ch. 11, art. XI, §§ 11-251--11-272. 

__________ 

Sec. 11-251. Short title; applicability. 

(a) This article shall be known as the "Palm Beach County Natural Areas Ordinance." 

(b) The recitations set forth in the "WHEREAS" paragraphs included in Ordinance No. 94-13 are 

incorporated by reference herein as findings of fact upon which this article is based. 

(c) All provisions of this article shall be effective within the unincorporated and incorporated areas of 

the county and shall set restrictions, constraints, and requirements to protect and preserve countymanaged natural areas. 

(d) This article shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes set forth herein. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 1, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-252. Authority. 

This article is adopted under the authority of chapter 125, Florida Statutes. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 2, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-253. Purpose. 

The purpose of this article is to preserve and protect in perpetuity county-managed natural areas by 

regulating public uses of these lands. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 3, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-254. Definitions. 

The following terms when used in this article shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: 

Department means the department of environmental resources management. 

Natural area means all public lands containing high-quality native ecosystems that are under the control 

of or assigned to the department for management, maintenance, and operation. 

Natural areas property means all structures, facilities, plants, and animals contained within a natural 

area. 

Parking area means a specially designed and publicly designated area set aside for the standing or 

temporary stationing of vehicles. 

Permit means a document or certificate provided by the county administrator or his designee granting 

permission to conduct or take part in a specific activity at a specific location. 

Vehicle means any wheeled conveyance for transportation of persons or materials whether: 

(1) Powered or drawn by motor such as an automobile, truck, motorcycle, scooter, or minibike. 

(2) Animal-drawn such as a carriage, wagon, or cart. 

(3) Self-propelled such as a bicycle. 

Watercraft means any boat, kayak, canoe, raft, houseboat, barge, vessel, ship or any other floating device 

capable of transporting humans or objects over water. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 4, 6-21-94) 
138 

Sec. 11-255. Scope. 

This article applies only to county-owned or county-controlled natural areas and natural areas property 

that is assigned to the department of environmental resources management for management, 

maintenance and operation. Department staff and other authorized persons working under staff 

supervision shall be exempt from the provisions of this article when performing activities related to 

management plans. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 5, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-256. Buildings and other property. 

(a) No person shall willfully mark, deface or damage in any way, or displace, remove or tamper with, 

any natural area building, fence, educational or informational structure, walkway, bridge, bench, railing, 

public utility, paving or paving material, or part or appurtenance thereof, natural area sign, notice or 

placard, monument, stake, post, or other boundary marker, or other structure or equipment, facility or 

natural area property or appurtenance that is located on a natural area. 

(b) No person shall dig, move, or remove from any natural area any sand, soil, rocks, stones, trees, 

shrubs, or plants, fallen timber, or other wood or materials, or make any excavation by tool, equipment, 

blasting or other means. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 6, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-257. Plant and wildlife protection and preservation. 

(a) Within any natural area, no person shall cut, carve, or damage the bark, or break off limbs or 

branches or mutilate in any way, or pick the flowers or seeds, of any tree or plant, or shrub, nor shall any 

person dig in or disturb grassy areas, or transplant or remove any tree or plant or part thereof, or in any 

other way damage or impair the natural beauty or usefulness of any natural area, nor shall any person 

deposit any debris or material on or about any tree or plant. 

(b) Within any natural area, no person shall molest, harm, frighten, kill, trap, hunt, chase, shoot, throw 

objects at, harass, feed, or otherwise inhibit the natural movements and habits of any invertebrate, 

mammal, amphibian, reptile, fish or bird. No person shall remove or have in his or her possession the 

young of any wild animal, or the eggs or nests of any amphibian, reptile, fish, bird or invertebrate. The 

provisions of this section applying to fishes are not applicable in designated fishing areas. 

(c) In order to prevent disruption of natural ecosystems and the spread of disease, no person shall 

introduce, plant, or release any plant or animal into any natural area. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 7, 6-21-94) 

Editor's note: As originally promulgated, Ord. No. 94-13 contained no § 8. 

Sec. 11-258. Reserved. 

Sec. 11-259. Fires. 

No person shall build or attempt to build, light, or cause to be lighted any fire or fires within any natural 

area unless given permission under a written permit from the county administrator or his designee. No 

person shall drop, throw, or otherwise deposit lighted matches, burning cigarettes or cigars, tobacco 

paper, or other flammable materials within any natural area or on any county highway, road or street 

abutting or contiguous thereto. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 9, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-260. Boating. 

(a) All provisions of chapter 327, Florida Statutes, shall apply to county-managed natural area waters. 

(b) No person shall launch or operate any watercraft upon any watercourse, lagoon, lake, canal, pond, 

marsh, wet prairie or slough within a natural area except at such places that are designated for such use 

by the board of county commissioners or the county administrator or his designee. 
139 

(c) No person shall operate, moor, or anchor any watercraft within the waters of any natural area in a 

manner that results in damage or harm to the vegetation, wildlife or shoreline. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 10, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-261. Fishing. 

Except where specifically designated, fishing, or the buying or selling of fish caught in any natural area 

waters, is prohibited in all natural areas. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 11, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-262. Prohibited activities. 

The following are prohibited in county-managed natural areas: 

(a) Hunting, trapping, or the possession of any kind of trapping device. Licensed hunters and trappers 

authorized by the county administrator or his designee to remove nuisance and exotic animals are 

exempt from this prohibition, as are licensed hunters authorized by the county administrator or his 

designee to reduce excessive populations of animals causing environmental damage in a natural area. 

(b) Use of firearms or other weapons potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety by 

persons other than authorized law enforcement personnel and persons authorized to remove nuisance and 

exotic animals. This prohibition includes shooting into a natural area from beyond the boundaries of the 

natural area. 

(c) The sale, purchase, consumption, or possession of alcoholic beverages as defined in section 

561.01(4), Florida Statutes. 

(d) Use, discharge or possession of fireworks, explosives, or substances that could be combined into an 

explosive mixture. 

(e) Domestic animals and pets. 

(f) Placement of beehives or other apicultural practices. 

(g) Cultivation of plants. 

(h) Vehicle repair. 

(i) Use of airboats. 

(j) Loud, unnecessary noise that disturbs wildlife and produces physical discomfort or annoyance to 

other people. 

(k) Possession and release of inflated balloons. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 12, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-263. Activities requiring a special permit. 

The following activities may be allowed only if a written permit is obtained from the county 

administrator or his authorized designee. Written terms and conditions shall accompany each permit, and 

a fee will be charged as set by resolution of the board of county commissioners. The decision on whether 

or not to issue a permit will be based on the potential for damage to the natural resources of the site, the 

carrying capacity for that particular use, and any conflicts with a previously issued permit for the same 

use. The activities requiring a special permit are: 

(a) Camping. 

(b) Erection of temporary or permanent structures. 

(c) Horseback riding. 

(d) Public demonstrations and gatherings. 

(f) Collection of plant and animal specimens and use of watercraft in wetlands for scientific research. 

(g) After-hours and night-time use of natural areas. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 13, 6-21-94) 
140 

Sec. 11-264. Merchandising, advertising and signs. 

(a) No person shall expose or offer for sale, rent or trade any article or thing, or station or place any 

stand, cart, or vehicle for the transportation, sale or display of any article, merchandise, or other item 

within the limits of any natural area. 

(b) No person shall use the natural area roadways or paths, or enter any natural area, for the purpose of 

announcing, displaying, advertising or calling attention to any person, political party, religious 

institution, or meetings or assemblies thereof, or for the purpose of demonstrating, advertising or calling 

attention to any article or service for sale or for hire; nor shall any signs, slogans, loudspeakers or 

advertising display be used for such purposes unless a written permit allows such activity. 

(c) No person shall display, distribute, post, paste, glue, tack, or otherwise fix any handbill, pamphlet, 

circular, sign, placard or any other printed matter containing advertising within any natural area or upon 

any natural area tree, fence or other structure. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 14, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-265. Pollution of waters. 

No person shall throw, discharge, or otherwise place or cause to be placed in the waters of any pond, 

lake, canal, slough, marsh, wet prairie, lagoon, or any other body of water or wetland in any natural area, 

any substance, matter, object or item which will or may result in pollution of those waters. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 15, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-266. Refuse and trash. 

No person shall take into, dump or deposit on land of, or leave in, any natural area or county road 

abutting such natural area, bottles, broken glass, ashes, paper, boxes, cans, dirt, construction or 

agricultural debris, rubbish, waste, garbage, refuse, or any other solid or liquid discard. Such discard 

shall be placed in the proper receptacles where provided on a natural area. Where receptacles are not 

provided, all such discard shall be carried away from the natural area and properly disposed of by the 

person responsible for its presence. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 16, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-267. Public utilities. 

No entity shall be allowed to place any new public service utility into, upon, or across natural area lands 

except by prior written permit from the county administrator or his designee. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 17, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-268. Closing of natural areas. 

(a) Each natural area managed by the county shall be open to the public at hours and days that are 

determined to be appropriate and adopted as part of the management plan for that natural area. These 

hours shall be posted at each natural area. 

(b) The county administrator or his designee may declare any section of a natural area closed to the 

public, either temporarily or at regularly stated intervals, in order to protect natural resource protection, 

public safety, health and/or welfare. 

(c) No person shall remain in any natural area during the hours that the natural area is closed, unless he 

or she has a permit. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 18, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-269. Vehicles. 

(a) All state vehicle laws and county traffic regulations shall be applicable in all natural areas. 

Municipal traffic ordinances shall be applicable in those natural areas located within municipalities. 

(b) No person shall drive, operate, or propel any vehicle outside the boundaries of designated paved or 

improved natural area access roads or driveways unless specifically authorized by the county 

administrator or his designee. 
141 

(c) No person shall park any vehicle on a natural area at any place other than a designated parking area 

without prior authorization from the county administrator or his designee. No person shall park any 

vehicle in a manner that blocks or impedes access to a parking area or access road. No vehicle shall be 

left in a parking area or access road. No vehicle shall be left in a parking area overnight without prior 

authorization by the county administrator or his designee. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 19, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-270. Enforcement. 

(a) It shall be the duty and responsibility of law enforcement officials to, within their jurisdiction, 

enforce all state laws, municipal ordinances, county ordinances, and county traffic regulations within and 

adjacent to the limits of all natural areas maintained and operated by the department. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to do any act forbidden, or fail to perform any act required, by 

this article or for any person to fail to comply with any lawful and reasonable order given by law 

enforcement officers or authorized department officials. It shall be the duty and responsibility of law 

enforcement officers and authorized department officials to enforce all natural areas rules. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 20, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-271. Penalties. 

The violation of any provision of this article shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred 

dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such 

fine and imprisonment, or by such other penalty as may hereafter be provided in section 125.69, Florida 

Statutes. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 21, 6-21-94) 

Sec. 11-272. Municipal ordinances and land development regulations. 

This article does not supersede any municipal ordinance or land development regulation. 

(Ord. No. 94-13, § 23, 6-21-94) 

Secs. 11-273--11-290. Reserved. 
142 

Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation 

ORDINANCE NO. 2004-022 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI0NERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, 

FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE APALM BEACH COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION 

ORDINANCE@; PROVIDING FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND 

RECREATION; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF PARK 

TRAFFIC, PROPERTY, WILDLIFE, AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES; PROVIDING FOR 

REGULATION OF ANIMALS, FIREARMS, FIREWORKS AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; 

PROVIDING FOR PARK USAGE, RESERVED PARK/FACILITY AREAS, SANITATION AND 

POLLUTION CONTROL; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, 

AIRCRAFT, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES; PROVIDING FOR PARK HOURS; PROVIDING FOR 

ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 

NO. 96-44; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION 

IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF PALM BEACH COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR 

SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

WHEREAS, Section 125.01(f), Florida Statutes, grants Palm Beach County the power to provide parks, 

preserves, playgrounds, recreation areas and other recreational facilities for the welfare of its citizens; 

and 

WHEREAS, it is necessary to repeal Ordinance No.96-44, to conform with federal and state law and to 

provide for more efficient and effective operations of Palm Beach County parks and recreation areas. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 

SECTION 1. TITLE 

This Ordinance may be cited as the APalm Beach County Parks and Recreation Ordinance.@ 

SECTION 2. AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION 

 Subject to the direction of the Board of County Commissioners or the County Administrator, all powers, 

duties and authorities relating to the operation of the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation system 

for the Board of County Commissioners, are vested in the Director of Parks and Recreation unless 

specifically vested elsewhere by the provisions of this Ordinance. In the absence of the Director of 

Parks and Recreation, a Supervisor over the Director of Parks and Recreation, or an individual 

specifically appointed by the County Administrator, may 

assume the powers, duties, and authority vested by this section. 

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS 

 The following terms when used in this Ordinance shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this 

section: 

(A) BEACH, WATER AREA, WATERPARKS OR POOL. Any beach, water area, waterpark or pool 

designated by the Board of County Commissioners as such, within any park property, either on the ocean 

or inland, including the actual sand beach, if any, used for swimming and wading. 

(B) DEPARTMENT. The term "the Department" when used herein is defined as the "Palm Beach 

County Parks and Recreation Department". 

(C) DIRECTOR. The terms "Director" or "Parks Director" when used hereinafter are defined as the 

Director of the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department or his designee 

(D) EXOTIC ANIMAL. A non-native animal species that occurs in South Florida, as a result of direct or 

indirect, deliberate or accidental actions by humans, which may include, but not be limited to, domestic, 

semi-domestic or feral animals. 

(E) NATIVE ANIMAL. An animal species that occurs naturally in or is indigenous to South Florida. 

(F) PARK. The terms "park", "parkways", "recreational areas", "natural areas", "marinas" and "areas 

operated and maintained by the Department" may include, but is not limited to, parks, wayside parks, 

parkways, playgrounds, recreation fields, open green spaces, golf courses, community centers, museums, 
143 

auditoriums, ranges, lakes, streams, canals, lagoons, waterways, pools, waterparks, water areas and 

beaches therein and all on grounds, water areas, buildings and structures in Palm Beach County which 

are under the control of or assigned for upkeep, maintenance or operation by the Department. 

(G) PARKING AREA. Any designated part of any park road, drive or area that is designated for the 

standing or stationing of any vehicles. 

(H) PARK PROPERTY. The term park property is defined to cover all areas, grounds, buildings, 

locations and facilities described in the foregoing section "F". 

(I) 

PERMIT 

. The term "permit" means a document or certificate provided by the 

Department granting permission for use of reserved park/facility areas and which sets forth terms and 

conditions applicable thereto. 

(J) PERSON. The word "person" includes natural persons, firms, associations, joint ventures, 

partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups and 

combinations. 

(K) VEHICLE. The term "vehicle" means any wheeled conveyance (except a baby carriage or 

wheelchair) for transportation of persons or materials whether: (1) powered or drawn by motor such as 

an automobile, truck, motorcycle, scooter, minibike, or recreational vehicle; (2) animal-drawn such as a 

carriage, wagon, or cart; (3) self-propelled such as a bicycle, tricycle, or skateboard; or (4) towed such as 

a trailer of any size, kind or description. "Vehicle" does not include any recreational or park 

transportation service operated or authorized by the Department. 

SECTION 4. REGULATION OF VEHICLES WITHIN PARKS 

(A) All applicable state or local vehicle laws are enforceable within park property. 

 (B) All law enforcement officers shall direct traffic and enforce all motor vehicle, traffic and parking 

laws of this County including the Palm Beach County Parking Ordinance, codified in Chapter 19 of the 

County Code, as may be amended, and enforce all rules and regulations set forth by the Department 

within park property. Park personnel, authorized and designated by the Director, may direct traffic and 

enforce the rules and regulations set forth by the Department with park property. 

(C) The Director shall determine and all persons shall carefully observe and obey all traffic signs 

indicating speed, direction, caution, stopping, or parking, and all other signs posted for proper control 

and the safeguarding of life and property. 

(D) Notwithstanding Paragraph (A) above, where a public road traverses a County 

Park, said road shall be open to all through traffic permitted on any County road or highway, but such 

through traffic shall conform to park speed and traffic regulations. 

(E) No person driving, operating, controlling or propelling any vehicle whether motorized, horse drawn, 

or self-propelled, shall use any other than the regularly designated paved or improved park roads, 

pathways, trails, or driveways, except when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer or 

Department employee or by official signs or markings. No driver or operator of any vehicle shall 

obstruct traffic or stop on any road or driveway except those places so designated. 

(F) No person shall park a vehicle on park property at any place other than in the regular designated 

facilities provided for that particular type of vehicle, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement 

officer or Department employee or by official signs or markings. No driver or operator of any vehicle 

shall park on any road or driveway except those places so designated. No driver or operator of any 

vehicle shall leave a vehicle parked on any road, driveway or park property after posted closing hours. 

(G) No truck, commercial vehicle or bus shall be driven on any restricted service road or property 

without prior authorization from the Department for the purpose of park work, service, or activities. 

(H) No person shall ride, drive or propel any bicycle, motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle (ATV), scooter, 

minibike or similar vehicle on any but the regular vehicle roads except for those areas designated for 

such specified use. The designated bicycle trails shall be used only by pedestrians and bicycles and 

other vehicles propelled by human power. It is expressly provided that no vehicles, motorcycles, 

scooters, minibikes, or similar vehicles shall be ridden on the designated nature trails located within 
144 

Palm Beach County parks. No person shall deviate from compliance with all applicable vehicle laws 

and regulations governing the operation of the above vehicles while on park property. 

(I) No person shall change parts, repair, wash or grease a vehicle on any park roadway, parkway, 

driveway, parking lot or other park property. No driver of a vehicle using gasoline or any other 

explosive mixture as source of power shall at any time fail to use an adequate muffler or sound 

deadening device. 

SECTION 5. BUILDINGS AND OTHER PROPERTY 

(A) No person shall willfully mark, deface, injure in any way, displace, remove or tamper with any park 

buildings, bridges, tables, benches, fireplaces, railings, paving, water lines or other public utilities or 

parts of appurtenances thereof, park signs, notices or placards whether temporary or permanent, 

monuments, stakes, posts or other boundary markers, or other structures of equipment, facilities or park 

property or appurtenances whatsoever, either real or personal. 

(B) No person shall dig, move or remove from any park area any beach sand, soil, rocks, stones, trees, 

shrubs, whether submerged or not, or plants, down-timber, or other wood or materials, or make any 

excavation by tool, equipment, or other means, or construct or erect any building or structure of 

whatever kind, whether permanent or temporary in character, or run or string any public service utility 

into, upon, or across such land, or affix any materials to any park property, except with the prior written 

approval of the Director. 

(C) No person shall excavate or remove any artifact from any archeologically sensitive areas with 

particular concern to Native American burial grounds and living sites. 

SECTION 6. FIRE 

(A) No person shall build or attempt to build any fire within any park property except in such areas 

where fireplaces or grills are provided and under such regulations as are or may be specifically set forth 

by the Director. No person shall drop, throw, or otherwise deposit lighted matches, burning cigarettes or 

cigars, or other flammable material within any park property. 

SECTION 7. PLANT AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION 

(A) Within any park, no person shall cut, carve, or injure the bark or break off limbs or branches or pick 

the flowers or seeds, of any tree, plant or shrub, nor shall any person dig in or otherwise disturb grass 

areas, or install any vegetation, or in any other way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefulness of 

any area, nor shall any person pile debris or material of any kind on or about any tree or plant, or attach 

any rope, wire, or other contrivance therein, whether temporary or permanent in character or use, without 

prior approval by the Director. No person shall tie or hitch any animal to any tree or plant within park 

property. 

(B) No person shall remove, molest, harm, frighten, kill, trap, hunt, chase, shoot or throw any object at 

any animal, nor shall any person remove or possess the eggs, nests or young of any wild animal whether 

alive or dead without prior approval from the Director. 

(C) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly interfere with or damage any humane animal trap 

owned by the department, or another county department or agent, or to molest or release any animal 

caught therein. 

SECTION 8. CONTROL OF NUISANCE ANIMALS (A) The introduction, by any person, of any 

exotic animal or the placement, abandonment or leaving of any animal in a County park is strictly 

forbidden. 

(B) The feeding, by any person, of any exotic or native animal in a County park is hereby strictly 

forbidden unless specifically authorized by the Department Director. 

(C) Exotic animals, with the exception of those authorized by the Director, roaming free in County parks 

are hereby declared a nuisance. The Director has the authority to establish processes and procedures to 

control, and remove from the park, species that are declared to constitute a nuisance. 

(D) The Director is hereby authorized to declare certain native species, located in identified parks, to 

constitute a nuisance. Native species shall be determined to be a nuisance when the Director deems that 
145 

the number, location, behavior or other characteristic of the native species constitutes a hazard to human 

health and/or safety or to the resources of the particular park. 

SECTION 9. SWIMMING AND WADING 

(A) No person shall swim or wade in any beach, water area, waterpark or pool within any park property, 

except where specifically designated and in compliance with such regulations as to hours of the day and 

safety limitations for such use as set by the Department. 

(B) In areas designated for swimming and wading, all persons shall be so covered with clothing or a 

bathing suit so as to prevent any indecent exposure of the person. 

SECTION 10. BOATING 

(A) In addition to the provisions set forth in Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, the following regulations 

shall apply to recreational area waters within park property: 

(1) No person shall bring into, launch, or operate any vessel (as defined in Section 327.02, Florida 

Statutes, as may be amended) upon any park property, including designated swimming areas, except at 

such places as are or may be designated for such use or purposes by the Board of County Commissioners 

or the Director. Such operation or use shall be in accordance with such rules and regulations as are now 

or may hereafter be adopted by the Department. Boating permits may be required by the Department for 

specific boating activities within park property. 

(2) No person shall moor, anchor, or tie up to the bank or any wharf, dock, tree, building, rock or any 

object or structure on the bank in waters within park property or property managed by the Department 

unless said person does so in pursuit of recreational activities of a temporary nature or unless the owner 

of the vessel has obtained written permission from the Director, except in an emergency situation. 

(3) No person shall launch, dock or operate any vessel on the waters of any park between the closing 

hour of the park at night and opening hour the following morning, with the exception of designated 24 

hour boating facilities, nor shall any person be on, or remain on or in, any vessel in the park during the 

said closed hours of the park, except with prior approval of the Director. 

(4) Boat operators shall be responsible for their own wake and liable for any damage it may cause. 

(5) During the staging of Department approved special events, all non-participating vessels and 

spectators shall be prohibited from entering the boat pit area and from obstructing any race, ski courses 

or special event. 

(6) No person shall operate airboats or hovercraft within park property except by approval from the 

Director. 

(7) The Director shall have the authority to establish regulations and speed limits of vessels that utilize 

the water areas located within park property unless otherwise pre-empted by the State. 

(B) The Department shall establish rules and regulations for use of the County’s permanent boat slips for 

dockage of vessels, managed mooring fields and other marine facilities by the public. Rates for said 

usage shall be established by the Board of County Commissioners. 

(C) No person shall rent, hire, or operate any vessel within park property for a commercial purpose 

unless so permitted by the Department. 

SECTION 11. WATER SKIING 

(A) No person shall water ski within park property except in such places as designated by the Director, 

and in compliance with rules and regulations as are now or may hereafter be adopted. 

(B) No person shall water ski in such manner as to endanger bystanders, swimmers, other skiers, or 

occupants of other vessels. 

(C) No person shall obstruct the takeoff and landing areas designated for water skiing for any purpose 

other than for normal water skiing activities. 

(D) No water skiing is permitted after sunset or before sunrise, except in areas designated for such use. 

SECTION 12. FISHING 

(A) The buying or selling of fish is prohibited within park property. 

(B) Sport fishing is allowed within park property except where specifically prohibited. 
146 

(C) The use of a troll line for fishing purposes is prohibited within park property. Set cane poles are 

permitted if attended. 

(D) All applicable State laws pertaining to fishing and licensing shall be enforced within Park property. 

(E) The Director may establish specific fishing regulations for various water bodies within park property. 

SECTION 13. FIREARMS 

 No person shall use or possess firearms, weapons or trapping devices within any park property except 

with prior approval from the Director or in any area designated by the Department for such purpose. The 

Director shall establish rules and regulations pertaining to shooting or archery ranges. Shooting into 

park areas from beyond park boundaries is prohibited. 

SECTION 14. PICNIC AREAS AND USE 

(A) Except for reserved park/facility areas, individual picnic tables and associated grills are available on 

a first come, first served@ basis. 

(B) No person shall use a grill or other device in such a manner as to burn, char, mar or blemish any 

bench, table, or other object of park property nor shall any person starting a fire leave the area without 

extinguishing said fire. 

SECTION 15. CAMPING 

No person shall camp within any park property except in areas designated by the Director for said 

purpose. The Department may establish rules and regulations for designated camping areas within park 

property. Rates for said use shall be established by the Board of County Commissioners. Camping units 

are to be of commercial manufacture and be of flame retardant material. House trailers are prohibited. 

SECTION 16. HORSEBACK RIDING 

No person shall engage in horseback riding within any park property except in areas designated by the 

Director for said purpose. In areas designated for horseback riding, horses must be thoroughly broken, 

properly restrained, and prevented from grazing and straying unattended. All riders must carry proof of 

their horse=s negative coggins test. 

SECTION 17. ANIMALS 

(A) Except in specified areas, domesticated animals are permitted within Park property. Said animals 

must be restrained at all times at a distance not greater than six (6) feet in length from their handler. 

(B) No person shall bring into, nor allow to enter, any park property any non-domesticated animals 

including, but not limited to, cattle, mules, swine, sheep, goats, fowl or reptiles except where in 

conjunction with projects sponsored by County Departments or upon permit from the Director. 

(C) Dangerous dogs, as defined in Chapter 767, Florida Statutes, are prohibited from park property. 

(D) In conjunction with projects and facilities administered by County Departments or upon permit from 

the Director, animals may be allowed in designated areas of the parks at specified times without 

restraint. 

SECTION 18. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 

(A) The sale, purchase, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages as defined in Section 

561.01(4), Florida Statutes, is hereby prohibited within park property except as specifically provided in 

accordance with the provisions set forth herein. 

(B) Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in Paragraph (A) above, the possession of alcoholic 

beverages in sealed original packages in any vehicle, vessel, or conveyance for purposes of storing or 

transporting such and not for purposes of selling or consuming such within park property shall not be a 

violation of this Ordinance. 

(C) The Director may designate specific areas in which alcoholic beverages may be possessed and/or 

consumed. Designated areas may include, but are not limited to, picnic areas, areas reserved for large 

groups, and facilities for food service. Kegs of beer or other alcoholic malt liquor will be authorized 

only by permit and in conjunction with a reserved park facility area. 

(D) The Director may permit, in writing, the sale, possession, and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages 

incidental to a special event. Said permission may not exceed four consecutive days. 

(E) The Board of County Commissioners may permit the sale of alcoholic beverages by private 

contractors who operate or manage facilities within park property including but not limited to food 
147 

service, performing arts, golf courses, and other facilities, as the Board of County Commissioner deems 

appropriate. 

(F) At its option, the County may obtain, in its name, the necessary State licensing for the sale of 

alcoholic beverages. The County may, at its option, have such license transferred to a contractor=s or 

lessee=s name, provided, however, that such licensing shall immediately revert to the County upon 

termination, for any reason, of the contractor=s agreement or lessee=s lease with the County. The 

license holder shall take all action and execute all documents necessary to effect said transfer to the 

County. 

(G) The permission granted under this Section shall be subject to all ordinances, laws rules and 

regulations applicable in Palm Beach County, and any grantee shall be responsible for compliance 

thereto. The permission granted may also be subject to, and granted with, specific conditions as set forth 

by the Department, and the grantee shall be responsible for insuring compliance thereto. 

 (H) No person who is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs will be permitted in parks or recreation 

areas. 

SECTION 19. FIREWORKS AND EXPLOSIVES 

(A) No person shall bring into or have in his possession, or set off or otherwise cause to explode or 

discharge or burn within any park property any firecrackers, torpedoes, rockets or other fireworks or 

explosives of flammable material, or discharge them or throw them onto any park property from land or 

water adjacent thereto. Parents or guardians shall be held strictly responsible and accountable for the 

actions of minors. Violators will be subject to prosecution accordingly. 

(B) The Director may permit organizations and entities to conduct fireworks displays within Palm Beach 

County Parks, subject to full compliance with the Palm Beach County Fire Code or other applicable 

County Ordinances, or the ordinances of any municipality having jurisdiction to regulate said fireworks 

display. 

SECTION 20. PARK USAGE 

(A) It is the policy of Palm Beach County to afford all citizens the opportunity to utilize County parks 

and also to participate in free speech activities within park property to the fullest extent permitted by 

law. The Parks and Recreation Director has the authority to establish guidelines for the permitting of 

special events, demonstrations, gatherings, performances or other mass assemblages at county parks. 

(B) No person shall be or remain in any part of any park property between sunset and sunrise or as 

specifically posted. The provisions of this section shall not apply to police officers or department 

employees while in the discharge of their duties nor to persons having a permit in writing issued by the 

department to be or remain in any part of the parks between such hours. The Department Director has 

the authority to establish exceptions to the closing hours as set forth above when it is in the interest of 

the public health, safety or welfare and such exceptions shall be posted. 

(C) No person shall loiter in or around any park areas including, but not limited to, restrooms, dressing 

rooms or bathhouses, picnic shelters/areas, wooded or natural/undeveloped areas. 

SECTION 21. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES 

(A) No person shall park or station on any park property any vehicle displaying a sign or notice with the 

intent of offering said vehicle for sale or exchange. 

(B) No person shall advertise or offer for sale any article, material, or service, nor place any stand, cart, 

or vehicle for the transportation, sale, trade or display of any article, material or service for sale or trade 

within any park area unless in conjunction with a permitted use of a reserved park/facility area. 

(C) No person shall distribute, display or affix any printed materials or advertisements to or within any 

park property. Exceptions to this rule are printed materials or advertisements permanently affixed on 

vehicles or on clothing, distribution of printed handbills or leaflets the purpose of which is not solely 

commercial, announcements of park sponsored or sanctioned events; authorized signs located entirely 

within concession structures, and signs or distribution of printed materials in conjunction with a 

permitted use of reserved park/facility area. 

SECTION 22. RESERVED PARK/FACILITY AREAS 
148 

 Park/facility areas shall not be reserved except by permit issued by the Director. Said reserved 

park/facility areas include athletic fields, group picnic shelters and associated facilities, recreation and 

civic facilities, and those areas requested for use for special events. Persons permitted for use of 

reserved park/facility areas must comply with all applicable rules and regulations as may be established 

by the Department. Permits requested for use of reserved park/facility areas for for-profit activities 

require approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 

SECTION 23. PERMITS 

The Director has the authority to develop permitting systems and related rules and regulations for the use 

of Park facilities. Violations of permit requirements shall result in suspension or revocation of such 

permit. 

SECTION 24. NOISE 

No person shall make such loud, excessive, unnecessary noise so as to create a nuisance in any County 

park. Noise shall be considered a nuisance where it produces actual physical discomfort and annoyance 

to persons of ordinary sensibilities. 

SECTION 25. AIRCRAFT 

 No one operating, directing or responsible for any aircraft, seaplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, 

dirigible, parachute or other aerial apparatus shall take off from or land within Park property except in 

emergency law enforcement situations or when written permission has been obtained from the Director. 

SECTION 26. POLLUTION OF WATERS 

 No person shall throw, discharge or otherwise place or cause to be placed in the waters of any fountain, 

pond, lake, stream, bay or other body of water within Park property any substance, matter or thing, liquid 

or solid, which will or may result in the pollution of said waters. 

SECTION 27. REFUSE, TRASH AND LITTER 

(A) No person shall take into, dump, deposit or litter any bottles, broken glass, ashes, printed material, 

paper, boxes, cans, dirt, rubbish, waste, garbage, refuse or other trash upon any park property. Persons 

shall place all bottles, broken glass, ashes, printed material, paper, boxes, cans, dirt, rubbish, waste, 

garbage, refuse or other trash in the proper receptacles where provided; where receptacles are not 

provided, same shall be carried away from park property by the person or persons responsible for its 

presence and properly disposed of elsewhere. 

(B) No person shall affix printed material or any other item to any vehicle within park property other 

than their own vehicle. 

SECTION 28. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

Public utilities serving park property or traversing park property shall be subject to reasonable 

regulations as may be hereafter adopted in the public interest in order to protect County parks from 

unsightly and inconveniently located fixtures, installations and facilities. 

SECTION 29. PARK HOURS 

(A) Except for unusual and unforeseen emergencies and twenty-four (24) hour boat launching, fishing 

and camping areas, all parks shall be open to the public every day of the year during hours designated by 

the Director. The opening and closing hours shall be posted at each park in order to give notice to the 

public. 

(B) The Director, acting as agent of the Board of County Commissioners, may declare any section or 

part of any park closed to the public at any time and for any interval of time, either temporary or at 

regular and stated intervals (daily or otherwise) and either entirely or merely for certain uses. 

(C) No unauthorized person shall be or remain within park property during those hours when the park is 

closed. 

(D) No person shall enter upon park property which is under construction, in a state of disrepair, or 

withheld from general public usage in the interest of public safety, health and/or welfare. 

SECTION 30. ENFORCEMENT 

(A) It shall be the duty and responsibility of all law enforcement officers within their jurisdiction to 

enforce all State laws, municipal ordinances, County ordinances, and County traffic regulations within 

park property and other areas maintained and operated by the Department. 
149 

(B) It shall be the duty and responsibility of law enforcement officers and designated Department 

employees to enforce all park rules and regulations. It shall be unlawful for any person to do any act 

forbidden or fail to perform any act required by these rules or for any person to fail to comply with any 

lawful and reasonable order given by law enforcement officers. Violators of this Ordinance may be 

ordered to leave Park areas by law enforcement officers and designated Department employees. Failure 

to leave once ordered constitutes a separate violation of this Ordinance. 

(C) It shall be the duty and responsibility of law enforcement officers and authorized 

Department employees to enforce all provisions of permits issued by the Department. It shall be 

unlawful for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required by any permit issued 

by the Department. Copies of regulations pertaining to reserved park/facility areas may shall be 

furnished with each permit issued. 

SECTION 31. PENALTIES 

Failure to comply with the provisions set forth in this Ordinance shall constitute a violation of a County 

Ordinance and shall be punished upon conviction, pursuant to Section 125.69(1), Florida Statutes, by a 

fine not to exceed $500.00 dollars per violation per day for as long as the violation continues or 

imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days, or both fine and imprisonment. 

Violations of this Ordinance that are continuous with respect to time may be abated by injunctive or 

other equitable relief. The imposition of a penalty does not prevent equitable relief. 

SECTION 32. SAVINGS CLAUSE 

This Ordinance shall not affect or impair the processing and implementation of any permit issued or any 

act authorized pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 96-44. All permits and authorizations 

initiated under said Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect until completed. Upon expiration of 

an existing permit or authorization, the permittee or authorized person must apply for a new permit or 

seek authorization in accordance with the provisions as set forth herein. 

SECTION 33. REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT 

Ordinance No. 96-44 is hereby repealed in its entirety. All local laws and ordinances in conflict with 

any provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 

SECTION 34. SEVERABILITY 

If any provision, article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any 

reason held by the Court to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the 

remainder of this Ordinance. 

SECTION 35. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES 

The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of 

Palm Beach County, Florida. The Articles and Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or 

relettered to accomplish such, and the word 

A Ordinance may be changed to A Section, Article, or any other appropriate word. 

SECTION 36. EFFECTIVE DATE 

The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, 

this _____ day of ___________________, 2004. 

 

ATTEST: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS 

SHARON R. BOCK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

CLERK & COMPTROLLER, PBC 

 

By:___________________________ By: __________________________________ 

Deputy Clerk Karen T. Marcus, Chair 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND 

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY 

 
150 

 

By:___________________________ 

County Attorney 

 

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Filed with the Department of State on the _______ day of __________________, 

2004. 

 

 
151 

D. Literature Cited 

Butterfield, B. P., W. E. Meshaka, Jr., and C. Guyer. 1997. Nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles. 

Pages 123-138 in D. Simberloff, D. C. Schmitz, and T. C. Brown, editors. Strangers in paradise. Impact 

and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Davis, Joseph. 1991. Camp Jupiter, Palm Beach County. January, AHC Technical Report #26. 

Carr, R.S., W.S. Steele, J. Pepe, and R. Ferrer. 1992 An Archaeological Survey and Management Plan of 

the Town of Palm Beach. October, 1992. AHC Technical Report #61. 

Carr, Robert S., Willard Steele, James Pepe and Linda Jester. 1994. An Archaeological Assessment and 

Survey of Riverbend Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #106.

Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester and James Pepe. 1995. Phase II Archaeological Excavations of the 

Riverbend #12 Site, 8PB7984, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #112.

Carr, Robert S. and James Pepe. 1995. Archaeological and Historical Elements for the Management of 

Riverbend Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #133.

Carr, Robert S., M.S. 2005. An Archaeological Assessment of the Pennock Point Parcel, Lots 2 - 6, 

Palm Beach County, Florida. AHC Technical Report #601. 

Colonial Records of Spanish Florida: Letters and Reports of Governors and Secular Persons, Volume I, 

1570-1577, translated and edited by Jeannette Thurber Connor (The Florida State Historical Society, 

1925). 

Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to amphibians and reptiles of eastern and central North 

America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 450pp. 

Fernald, R.T. 1989. Coastal xeric scrub communities of the Treasure Coast Region, Florida: a summary 

of their distribution and ecology, with guidelines for their preservation and management. Technical 

report no. 6, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida. 

Hawkes, C.V. 2003. Nitrogen Cycling Mediated by Biological Soil Crusts and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal 

Fungi. Ecology. 84: 1553-1562. 

Hawkes, C.V. 2000. Biological soil crusts and their interactions with vascular plants in a xeric Florida 

shrubland. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Pennsylvania. [Archbold library call number: 581.5/975.9/H2000] 

Humphrey, Stephen R. editor, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. I: Mammals. University Press 

of Florida, Gainesville, USA. 

Kale, Herbert W., II, and David S. Maehr. 1990. Florida's Birds: A Handbook and Reference. Sarasota: 

Pineapple Press. 

Kennedy, W.J., S.Lewis, N. Cassel, L. Jester, J. Pepe and A.J. Sassi. 1991. The SR706/Indiantown Road 

Realignment, Palm Beach County, Florida, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Gildan Right-ofWay & Bridge/Ca. Florida Atlantic University Department of Anthropology, Boca Raton. 
152 

Kennedy, W.J., R. Wheeler, L. Spears-Jester, J. Pepe, N. Sinks and C. Wernecke. 1993. Archaeological 

Survey and Excavations at the Jupiter Inlet I Site (8PB34), DuBois Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. 

Florida Atlantic University Department of Anthropology, Boca Raton. 

Kennedy, W.J., L. Jester, J. Pepe, N. Sinks, C. Wernecke and D. Flaherty, 1994. Phase I and Phase II 

Archaeological Survey of the Loxahatchee River. Proposed for Environmental Management and 

Engineering, Palm Beach County. 

Kremer, P.R. and W. Spackman. 1981. The paleoecological evidence for environmental change in 

“neopaleobotanical” sediments of South Florida. In R.C. Romans (ed.) Geobotany II. Plenum Plubishing 

Co. pp. 35-52. 

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Meshaka, W. E., Jr. 1995. Reproductive cycle and colonization ability of the Mediterranean gecko 

(Hemidactylus turcicus) in south-central Florida. Florida Scientist 58:10-15. 

Meshaka, W. E., Jr. 2000. Colonization dynamics of two exotic geckos (Hemidactylus garnotii and H. 

mabouia) in Everglades National Park. Journal of Herpetology 34:163-168. 

Moler, P. E, editor. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. Ill: Amphibians and Reptiles. 

University Press of Florida, Gainesville, USA. 

Murdoch, Richard. 1952 The Florida Historical Quarterly, pp. 16-32. Available on-line at: 

http://palm.fcla.edu/fhq/index.shtml 

Newman, C. and Weisman, B. R. 1992. A preliminary cultural resource inventory of Coupon Bight State 

Buffer Reserve Monroe County, FL. 

Romans, Bernard. 1962. A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Written in 1775. 

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 

Speake, D. W. 1981. The gopher tortoise burrow community. Pages 44-47 in The future of gopher 

tortoise habitats (Lohoefener, R., L. Lohmeier and G. Johnston, eds.). Proceedings 2nd Annual Meeting 

Gopher Tortoise Council. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. 

Sturtevant, W. C. 1953. Chakaika and the ‘Spanish Indians’: Documentary Sources Compared with 

Seminole Tradition. Tequesta 13:35-73. True, DO 

True, David O. 1944B. Memoir of Do. d’ Escalente Fontaneda Respecting Florida, written in Spain, 

about the year 1575, translated by Buckingham Smith. University of Miami and Historical Association 

of Southern Florida, Miami. 

Wheeler, R.J. 1992. The Riviera Complex: An East Okeechobee Archaeological Area Settlement. The 

Florida Anthropologist 45(1):5-17. 

Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe, “The Archaeology of Coastal Palm, Beach 

County,” The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4): 119-156 2002. Available on-line at: 

http://www.uflib.edu/UFDC/UFDC.ASPX?S+FLANT&B=UF00027829 
153 

Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe, “The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet I 

(8PB34),”The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4): 157-196 2002. Available on-line at: 

http://www.uflib.edu/UFDC/UFDC.ASPX?S+FLANT&B=UF00027829 

Williams, J.L. 1837. The Territory of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 

Wunderlin, R. P., B. F. Hansen, and D. W. Hall. 1988. The vascular flora of central Florida; taxonomic 

and nomenclatural changes, additional taxa. Sida 13:83-91. 
154 
155 

E. Natural Resource Monitoring Protocols 
156 
157 

The following monitoring protocols are adopted from Palm Beach County Department of Environmental 

Resources Management. The Jupiter Inlet ONA is managed as part of the County’s Natural Area 

program and this will allow for consistent monitoring of management actions across all sites. In 

addition, BLM may adapt these techniques or add additional techniques, as needed, to assess the results 

of management actions on the natural resources at the ONA. These monitoring techniques may also be 

updated, as needed, to stay consistent with approved protocols. For example, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is developing monitoring techniques for perforate lichen and these techniques will be 

incorporated into the ONA monitoring program. 

Photo Monitoring Protocol 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of photo monitoring is to obtain a qualitative, long-term visual record of changes in 

vegetative structure and/or condition over time, including the effects of planned management activities. 

The visual record can be made semi-quantitative with the use of a range pole. 

REQUIRED EQUIPMENT 

• Photopoint Station Data Sheet(s) 

• Aerial photograph of site 

• GPS unit 

• Measuring tape 

• Monument stakes (rebar and PVC) 

• Compass 

• Camera 

• Tripod (must have compass degree increments of at least 45 degrees on camera mount for 

horizontal movement left and right 

• Range pole 

• Level (if needed due to uneven terrain at photopoint location) 

METHODOLOGY 

Selecting the Location(s) for the Photopoint(s) 

Permanent photopoints shall be established in areas where planned management activities are anticipated 

to occur and in areas where natural vegetation succession (of management interest) is expected to occur. 

Examples of planned management activities include: 

• Prescribed burns 

• Exotic vegetation removal/herbiciding 

• Mechanical cutting of vegetation (for example, with a Hydro-axe or a Brontosaurus, roller 

chopping, mowing, logging, etc. 

• Construction of public use facilities and/or management roads 

• Wetland/upland restoration 

• Volunteer events 

• Tree plantings 

• Construction of water control structures on the site 

• Adjacent property owner activities (construction) 

Examples of areas of natural vegetation succession of management interest include: 

• Known listed species populations being outcompeted 
158 

• Early (for example, post-wildfire) or late (for example, fire-suppressed) successional vegetation 

communities 

• New invasions of exotic species 

• Insect pest (for example, Mexican bromeliad weevils) or plant disease outbreaks 

The above-mentioned factors shall be considered in the micrositing of the photopoints. 

Each management/burn unit shall contain at least one photopoint within a vegetation community that is 

expected to carry fire during a wildfire or prescribed burn. In addition, each vegetation community on 

the site shall contain at least one representative photopoint that will allow photographic recording of at 

least one of the above-mentioned planned management activities and/or vegetation conditions. 

NOTE: Photopoints do not need to be established in both disturbed and undisturbed communities of the 

same type (for example, disturbed wet flatwoods and wet flatwoods). This may not be applicable on 

extremely large sites. For some communities (such as open water, beaches, etc.), the site manager shall 

use his or her best judgment in determining if a photopoint is needed and shall include a brief 

explanation of his or her decision on the Photopoint Station 

Data Sheet. 

Additional photopoints may be deemed necessary, or a determination may be made that fewer 

photopoints are needed, in order to appropriately represent the vegetation conditions on site. The exact 

number of photopoints to be established shall be determined by the site manager for the natural area. 

Establishing the Photopoint(s) 

The photopoint location shall be permanently marked by placing rebar in the ground and covering it with 

a PVC tube. The rebar shall be placed at least 2 feet into the ground (or until completely stable) and the 

PVC covering shall stand at least 4 feet above the ground (or until it is readily visible). The PVC can be 

left off if the photopoint is in an area with a significant chance of being vandalized or removed or if the 

photopoint can be easily encountered in the field in the future by ERM staff. Another rebar shall be 

placed in the ground at a reference point 15 feet from the photopoint in the direction of the central photo 

at one of the four cardinal directions (north, east, south, or west). This rebar shall be no more than 3 feet 

above the ground. Covering it with PVC will be optional. The range pole shall be placed at the 

reference point and can be placed directly over the rebar. 

Both of these points shall then be GPS’d with appropriate technology (preferably a GPS unit w/ submeter accuracy) and their locations clearly described on the photopoint monitoring record form. 

Describing additional reference points (for example, trees, structures, or other unique features) may also 

make the photopoint easier to relocate in the future (for example, photopoint is 28 meters at 114 degrees 

from 20" d.b.h. sand pine). 

Taking the Photo(s) 

If a photopoint was established prior to the development of this protocol, a test monitoring event shall be 

conducted at the photopoint by taking photos according to the guidance provided in this section of the 

protocol. The site manager shall compare those photos with photos previously taken at the photopoint 

and evaluate the significance of any difference between the photos. If the site manager determines that 

significant information will be lost by adopting this protocol, photos shall continue to be taken according 

to the previously-written protocol. If significant information would not be lost, this protocol shall be 

followed for photomonitoring at the photopoint. 
159 

All photos shall be taken using the widest angle “zoom” possible (on all cameras). This will give 

sufficient overlap between the photos in order to arrange a composite panorama if needed. In addition, 

photos shall be taken using the image quality that maximizes image resolution while maintaining 

practical storage capacity. 

Three sequential photos shall be taken at approximately 45-degree intervals to obtain a panoramic image 

of the target vegetation (the degree graduation marks on the tripod shall be used to make this alignment). 

The tripod shall be set up so that the camera mount is at 4.5 feet above the ground, directly over top of 

the rebar and at a 90-degree angle to the ground (a level shall be used if the photopoint is on uneven 

terrain). The “0" on the dial with the degree graduations (located below the camera mount on top of the 

tripod) shall face the center point of the photo panorama. The center point of the middle photo shall be 

aligned with one of four cardinal directions. The compass shall be placed on top of the camera to assist 

with this alignment. The person taking the photos shall hold the bottom tripod handle and take the three 

photos in sequence, either from right to left or left to right, at “45" degrees (middle dot between “0" and 

“90"), “0", and at “45" on the other side from the first photo. The range pole at the reference point shall 

be included in the middle photograph. All data related to the photos, the reference point, and the range 

pole shall be recorded on the Photopoint Station Data Sheet at the time the photos are taken. 

DATA STORAGE 

The data obtained during the monitoring event shall be processed and stored in the NRS Environmental 

Enterprise Database (EEDB), as required by ERM PPM # EV-O-619 (Collection, Entry, and Storage of 

Natural Areas Field Data). The staff member who collected the data shall create an electronic data 

folder for each natural area for storage of the photomonitoring photos taken at that site, if one does not 

already exist. A subfolder shall be created within the folder for the photo(s) taken in a particular year. 

The subfolder shall be labeled with the name of the site and the year (for example, High Ridge 2003). 

The three photos taken for the panoramic view shall be combined into a panoramic photo, which shall be 

saved as a single file (JPEG) in the subfolder. The photopoint number shall be included in the name of 

the file (for example, hrpp1). 

The file containing the panoramic photo shall then be copied into the EEDB. The data from the 

Photomonitoring Station Data Sheet for that station and for the monitoring event also shall be entered 

into the EEDB, and the data sheets for all photopoints shall be reviewed and filed as required by PPM 

#EV-O-619. Copies of all files will be submitted to the BLM annually. 

Vegetation Monitoring Protocol 

OBJECTIVES 

The primary objectives of the vegetation monitoring program are: 

• To determine the species of plants present in the ONA. 

• To determine the presence of listed plant species in the ONA. 

• To detect large-scale population trends of monitored listed plant species. 

• To detect changes in vegetative structure and/or composition of natural communities as related 

to certain management activities of interest (e.g., exotic species removal, hydrologic restoration, or 

prescribed burning). 

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 

All species observed shall be recorded in the field and the scientific and common names of these species 

then entered into the NRS EEDB in accordance with Policies and Procedures Memorandum (PPM) #EV160 

O-619 (Collection, Entry and Storage of Natural Areas Field Data) and any guidance document related 

to taxonomy or nomenclature. Species shall be added to the plant species list for the natural area in the 

NRS EEDB as they are observed by staff and reputable sources. 

OPPORTUNISTIC OBSERVATIONS 

Staff shall record all listed plant species encountered opportunistically on a natural area during a regular 

site visit, as well as any plant species not previously recorded for the site. Any specific information 

obtained during each sighting (e.g., blooming or fruiting), also shall be recorded in the NRS EEDB. 

LISTED PLANT SPECIES MONITORING 

Listed plant species are any plants that are considered to be endangered, threatened, or of special concern 

in Florida by any state or federal agency (for example, the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services [FDACS] or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), and/or are 

considered to be rare in Florida by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). The protocol for 

monitoring listed plant species follows a simplified adaptation of the three-level approach proposed by 

Menges and Gordon (1996), as refined by Philippi et al. (2001). 

Initial Listed Species Assessment 

For un-surveyed sections of the ONA, the first listed species monitoring effort conducted at a given site 

will be the most labor-intensive and time-consuming. The goals of the initial survey shall be to obtain 

estimates of entire site population densities and distributions, or species presence if the site has not been 

surveyed before, and to establish permanent monitoring stations based on these estimates. The initial 

survey shall consist of random transects through appropriate habitat until the majority of the habitat 

types are sufficiently covered within each management unit. Guidance on how to establish the 

permanent monitoring stations is provided in this protocol. 

It is important to map or describe all geographic areas covered during the initial survey, so that there is 

no duplication of survey effort and time by subsequent observers. All elements indicated on the sample 

data sheets shall be included in the surveys, and all data collected during listed species surveys shall be 

entered into the NRS EEDB in accordance with the guidance provided in ERM PPM #EV-O-619. 

Frequency of Monitoring 

The frequency of monitoring depends on the species to be monitored, the needs of the land management 

staff, the requirements of the management plan for the site, and any requirements imposed by permitting 

agencies (if applicable). The monitoring frequency categories to be used and the codes for these 

frequencies are: 

A = Annual (every year) BE = Biennial (every two years) BA = Biannual (twice a year) Q = 

Quinquennial (every five years) T = Triennial (every three years) V = Variable (as determined by site 

manager) 

Most listed plant species shall be monitored biennially. Additional surveys may be conducted if it is 

determined that such surveys are necessary to document changing site conditions or the effects of 

significant events or land management activities, such as prescribed burns. 
161 

Methodology and Levels of Monitoring 

Monitoring shall be performed by staff at three levels: 

Level 1: Recording the presence of a species and/or a population of a species (opportunistic observation) 

Level 1 data will provide good baseline information, including whole population and community-wide 

qualitative indicators, as well as species status and management needs. Weaknesses of Level 1 

monitoring include lack of repeatability, observer bias, semi-quantitative data (no analytical value), and 

the ability to detect only dramatic changes. 

Level 2: Estimating the size of a population 

Level 2 monitoring provides more information and greater ability and confidence in assessing change, 

but does not account for variability in responses among individuals over time. The results can be used to 

determine if populations are being lost and if more intensive monitoring is needed. 

Level 3: Demographic monitoring of individuals 

Level 3 monitoring is the most time-consuming and detailed monitoring level. This level involves the 

creation of species-specific monitoring protocols and should be used for species perceived to be at the 

highest risk of loss. The results of Level 3 monitoring can provide a more rapid indication of change and 

a greater indication of the effectiveness of a management technique. 

All listed plant species shall be monitored at Level 1 or Level 2. Level 3 monitoring shall be performed 

when more intense monitoring is needed due to regulatory requirements or management information 

needs, or because a species is highly endangered or suspected to be declining. 

The frequency, level, and type of monitoring activity to be conducted for a particular plant species, and 

the preferred survey season and/or timing for monitoring are provided in the Listed Plant Species 

Monitoring Table (Attachment 1). The list shall be reviewed periodically to assess the minimum 

monitoring level for each species. In addition to regularly-scheduled listed species surveys, special 

surveys with specific objectives may be conducted for certain periods of time, such as to comply with 

permit conditions for a specific project on a specific natural area or to determine the impact of a 

destructive natural event such as a hurricane, wildfire, pest, disease or invasive species on one or more 

natural areas. 

The following paragraphs provide specific guidance for each level of monitoring: 

• Level 1: Recording the presence of a species and/or a population of a species (opportunistic 

observation) 

A record should be made of all listed plant species encountered on a natural area during a regular site 

visit. A permanent monitoring station shall be created for each plant species and/or population and the 

information for that station shall be recorded in the NRS EEDB Station Maintenance module. The 

location of the monitoring station shall be recorded using a global positioning system (GPS) device. The 

frequency of monitoring for each plant species shall be determined by the site manager and his/her 

supervisor. Each species shall be monitored at least once every five years. 

• Level 2: Estimating the size of a population 
162 

Survey/Ocular Estimate 

If the known population of a listed species on the entire natural area is less than 200 individuals, all 

individuals shall be counted. If the entire known population of a listed species on a natural area is 200 or 

more individuals, the population should be grouped into two or more distinct populations, if feasible, for 

monitoring purposes. The species shall be monitored according to following guidance: 

Each special status plant population on the natural area shall be surveyed. If a population contains less 

than 50 individuals, all of the individuals within that population shall be counted. If a population 

contains 50 or more individuals, an ocular estimate shall be made using the following ranges: 

50-100 101-200 201-500 501-1,000 

1,001-3,000 3,001-10,000 >10,000 

Permanent Monitoring Stations and Mapping 

A permanent monitoring station shall be created for each listed plant species or population and the 

information for that station shall be recorded in the NRS EEDB Station Maintenance module. This 

station shall be used for subsequent monitoring activities for the specific listed plant species. If after 

three monitoring events no plants have been observed at a station, then that station should be closed. 

The location of the monitoring station shall be mapped using one of the following GIS mapping methods 

for inclusion in the County’s Enterprise GIS: 

Map Epicenter: One GPS point (± 1 meter accuracy is preferred, but ± 3 meters may be sufficient) shall 

be recorded at or near the epicenter (geographic center) of the highest plant density (this area shall be 

defined as a 25-foot-radius circle unless otherwise stated). An epicenter shall be established at each 

known population center or at least at one point within each representative management unit or other 

logical geographic unit. For example, recording in north, central, and south management units may be 

appropriate if a species is present in all three units and several units contain similar vegetation 

community types. Examples of species appropriate for this level of mapping include Tillandsia spp. and 

Lechea cernua. Each GPS point shall be flagged or otherwise marked in the field for relocatability, and 

the number of individuals shall be counted within the defined radius or estimated according to the ocular 

estimate ranges listed previously. 

Map Individuals: The location of each individual plant shall be recorded. This technique requires the use 

of sub-meter accuracy GPS equipment and is labor-intensive. It is suitable only for widely distributed 

ephemeral species (for example, terrestrial orchids) or species with relatively small populations. 

Map Perimeter: The outer boundary of the total area occupied by each population shall be recorded. This 

will create a polygon shapefile that can be used to track the total area occupied by the species over time. 

This technique is best used for species in which individual organisms cannot be easily distinguished (for 

example, Cladonia perforata or clump-growing herbaceous species such as Panicum abscissum). 

• Level 3: Demographic monitoring of individuals 

Level 3 is the most intensive and detailed of the monitoring levels and is most appropriate for species 

perceived to be at a high risk of being lost from the natural area. It involves establishment of sampling 

procedures to identify individuals and recording of demographic parameters such as seed production, 

gender, number of rosettes, and height of inflorescence. Data obtained from monitoring of individuals 

can be used to determine management alternatives and to increase the ability of staff to accurately and 

precisely detect a change in a population. 
163 

Monitoring of Four-Petal Pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) 

Asimina tetramera shall be monitored at Level 3. A numbered tag shall be placed on or adjacent to each 

individual plant. The following characteristics shall be recorded for each plant: male or female, alive or 

dead, and flowering or fruiting. A unique monitoring station in EEDB shall be created for each plant. 

The location of each individual plant shall be recorded with a GPS unit and the information entered into 

the NRS EEDB. 

Data obtained during a survey conducted for one or more listed species shall be recorded on a Listed 

Plant Survey Data Sheet. 

Following a monitoring event, all data shall be entered into the NRS EEDB in accordance with the 

guidance provided in ERM PPM #EV-O619. BLM will be provided with a copy of all data. 

POINT INTERCEPT TRANSECT VEGETATION MONITORING 

In addition to regularly-scheduled listed species survey, vegetation surveys with specific objectives may 

be conducted for certain periods of time, such as to comply with permit conditions for a specific project 

on a specific natural area or to determine the impact of a destructive natural event such as a hurricane, 

wildfire, pest, disease or invasive species. Monitoring may also be conducted to detect any changes in 

vegetative structure/composition of the natural communities that may be associated with certain 

management activities of interest. If an existing vegetation monitoring protocol currently is being 

followed for a specific project, that protocol shall remain effective until monitoring requirements have 

been fulfilled. If vegetation monitoring is required by the conditions of a permit, grant or any other 

agreement, a point intercept transect monitoring method shall be used, subject to approval by the 

overseeing agency or organization. Permanent point intercept transects shall be established to monitor 

changes in vegetation, following the general methods described in Elzinga et al. (2001). 

 

Frequency of Monitoring 

Transects shall be surveyed twice a year, once near the end of the dry season (March 15 – May 30) and 

once near the end of the wet season (August 1 – October 31). If an analysis of the transect data indicates 

that negative natural community changes are occurring, additional transects may be establish in the 

affected management unit to determine if the changes are localized or widespread. 

Methodology 

Each transect shall be 100 to 250 feet long, and shall be aligned to pass through at least two different 

natural communities, or two different subtypes within a single community. The location of each transect 

shall be mapped and a corresponding EEDB Station number shall be created (the GIS layer shall be 

submitted to the ERM Database Administrator for inclusion in the County’s Enterprise GIS database). 

The end points of each transect shall be permanently marked with rebar and PVC covers. The starting 

and ending points of each transect, the bearing, and the distance from an easily recognizable landmark 

shall be recorded. Data shall be recorded at either 3-foot or 5-foot intervals along each transect and shall 

include the dominant species in each stratum (canopy, shrub and herbaceous), the presence of any listed 

species, and any other plants of management interest (e.g., nonnative invasive species) that cross, touch 

or intersect the line. For purposes of this protocol, the dominant species in each stratum shall be 

considered to be the tallest species in that stratum. Strata are defined as: 
164 

Herbaceous Stratum: Any nonwoody plant, excluding seedlings of woody species that are presently 

nonwoody (e.g., Sabal palmetto, Hypericum spp.), but including vines (e.g., Vitus spp., Toxicodendrom 

radicans). A plant shall be counted only if it crosses, touches or intersects the line. 

Shrub Stratum: Any woody plant above the ground and less than, or equal to, 2.5 meters 

(8.2 feet) tall, excluding vines (which shall be recorded only in the herbaceous plot canopy cover). All 

Hypericum species shall be counted, and all seedlings of potentially woody species that cross, touch or 

intersect the line. 

Canopy Stratum: Any woody plant greater than 2.5 meters tall, excluding vines. A tree shall be counted 

only if any portion, including the canopy, crosses, touches, or intersects the line. Seedlings of canopy 

species shall be counted within the shrub layer. The same interval (3-foot or 5-foot) and transect length 

shall be used for the subsequent point intercept transect monitoring on each natural area. 

Data obtained during a survey shall be recorded on a Point Intercept Transect Survey Data Sheet 

(Attachment 3). 

Following a monitoring event, all data shall be entered into the NRS EEDB in accordance with the 

guidance provided in ERM PPM #EV-O-619. A copy will be provided to BLM. 

Wildlife Monitoring Protocol 

OBJECTIVES 

The primary objectives of the wildlife monitoring program are: 

• To determine the species of animals present on each County-managed natural area. 

• To determine the presence of listed animal species on each County-managed natural area. 

• To monitor the presence of migratory bird and non-migratory wildlife species (amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, mammals, and insects) on County-managed natural areas. 

The secondary objectives of the monitoring program are: 

• To determine the number of gopher tortoises and scrub jays on each of the County-managed 

natural areas on which these species are present. 

• To detect large-scale population trends of monitored species on each County-managed natural 

area over time. 

LEVELS OF MONITORING 

The three different levels of monitoring that may be performed by NRS staff are: 

• Level 1: Recording the presence of a species and/or a population of a species. 

• Level 2: Estimating the size of the population. 

• Level 3: Censusing individuals. 

Level 1 monitoring will provide good baseline information, including whole population and communitywide qualitative indicators, which staff can use to determine species status and presence and 

management needs on a particular natural area. Weaknesses of Level 1 monitoring include lack of 

repeatability, observer bias, semiquantitative data (no analytical value), and the ability to detect only 

dramatic changes. Level 2 monitoring provides more information and greater ability and confidence in 

assessing change, but does not account for variability in responses among individuals or over time. The 

results can be used to determine if populations are declining or have been lost on a natural area, and if 

more intensive monitoring or a change in management is needed. Level 3 monitoring is the most timeconsuming and detailed. It should be used for species considered to be at the highest risk, because the 

results can provide a more rapid indication of change. 
165 

Level 1 monitoring shall be used for baseline data collection. Opportunistic observation and species 

inventories shall be considered to be Level 1 monitoring. Both nonmigratory wildlife surveys and 

migratory bird surveys shall be considered to be Level 2 monitoring, because an estimate of the 

abundance of each species observed is recorded. Level 3 monitoring may be used by NRS for certain 

listed animal species, but is not used for migratory or nonmigratory wildlife surveys. 

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 

NRS staff shall conduct one or more Level 1 surveys on each natural area to develop a list of the animal 

species present on the site for use in the preparation of the initial management plan for the site. All 

species observed shall be recorded in the field and the names of these species then entered into the NRS 

Environmental Enterprise Database (EEDB) in accordance with Policies and Procedures Memorandum 

(PPM) #EV-O-619 (Collection, Entry and Storage of Natural Areas Field Data). Species shall be added 

to the animal species list for the natural area in the NRS EEDB as they are observed by staff. After the 

management plan for the site has been approved and migratory and nonmigratory wildlife surveys are 

scheduled to be conducted, a baseline list shall be generated from the NRS EEDB for use in those 

surveys. 

OPPORTUNISTIC OBSERVATIONS 

Staff shall record all listed animal species encountered on a natural area during all regular site visits, as 

well as any animal species not previously recorded for the site. Any specific information obtained 

during each sighting (e.g., number of individuals, adult/juvenile, male/female, breeding, feeding, etc.) 

also shall be recorded in the NRS EEDB. 

MIGRATORY BIRD SURVEYS 

Time period: Last two weeks of September through first two weeks of November (fall) and 

April through May (spring). Frequency: Biannual Technique: Point count or permanent line transect 

The purpose of the migratory bird survey is to make an estimate of the relative abundance of bird 

populations during the migratory season. Migratory bird surveys shall be conducted biannually. The site 

manager for a specific natural area shall ensure that migratory bird surveys are conducted on that site 

during the same time period on all subsequent years following the first survey. 

Counts will occur in the morning, beginning as soon as it is light enough to see a distance of at least 200 

meters (approximately 660 feet) and ending no later than four hours after official sunrise. The observer 

should try to arrive at the first plot while it is still dark, so that the count can begin as soon as it is light 

enough to see. The singing rate for most species is usually highest before or near official sunrise and 

then declines slowly for the next four hours. 

Counts should not be conducted during high winds or heavy rains because these conditions inhibit bird 

activity and impair the observer’s ability to see and hear birds. Counts should not be conducted if wind 

strength is a sustained 4 or greater on the Beaufort Scale as described on the Migratory/Nonmigratory 

Data Sheet (Attachment 1), or if there is light or hard rain (rain code >3). If these conditions are 

encountered, the observer should wait until the weather improves or cancel the survey and try again on 

another day. 

Surveys will consist of either point counts or line transects. At least one permanent transect or point 

shall be established within each representative habitat type or management unit within each natural area. 

Point counts shall be used in small natural areas with closed canopies or at sites with fine-scaled habitat 

variability over short distances. Line transects shall be used at larger sites or in more open habitats 

where the vegetative community remains relatively homogeneous over hundreds of meters or more 
166 

(Bibby et al. 1993). The procedures for the establishment of points and line transects are described in 

the following sections. 

Point Count 

Each point count station shall be located in a relatively homogeneous vegetative community away from 

management roads (although management roads can be used if habitat is not readily accessible). Points 

shall be located in areas in which visibility is maximal in all directions (360°) while still being 

representative of the target vegetation type. All bird species, and the number of individuals of each 

species seen and heard at each point during a ten-minute period, shall be recorded (recording start and 

stop times). Shorter five-minute periods may be used for larger sites if time is limited. The recording 

period should be consistent on a per-site basis (e.g., if a five-minute count is conducted during the first 

year, a five-minute count should be conducted in subsequent years. Distance estimates shall not be 

recorded unless counts are being conducted for estimates of density. Counts shall be conducted by a 

skilled observer. Counting shall begin immediately upon arriving at a point unless a motor vehicle will 

be used, in which case the count shall begin after a several-minute settling period. Adjacent points shall 

be located no closer than approximately 200 meters (approximately 660 feet) apart unless they are 

located in extremely dense vegetation. Each point count location shall be entered into the NRS EEDB as 

a station. The GIS files for the stations shall be uploaded to the GIS Enterprise Server by the NRS 

Database Administrator. 

Line Transect 

Each transect should be located entirely within one vegetative community. Therefore, the length of each 

transect may differ depending upon the habitat in which it is located. As a general rule, a transect shall 

be at least 100 meters long (approximately 330 feet), but a greater length (up to 1 kilometer, or 

approximately 3,280 feet) is preferable when the habitat allows for the establishment of a longer transect. 

The transect length shall be measured and the endpoints recorded with a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) receiver and permanently marked in the field with rebar, spray-paint, landmarks, or other 

permanent fixtures that will be easily recognizable in future surveys. Each transect shall be entered into 

EEDB as a station. The GIS files for the stations shall be uploaded to the GIS Enterprise Server by the 

NRS Database Administrator. Adjacent transects shall be no closer than 150-200 meters (approximately 

500-650 feet) in a closed-canopy habitat and 250-500 meters (approximately 820-1,640 feet) in an open 

habitat. 

Transects shall be walked at a natural, steady pace by a skilled observer. The observer shall count all 

birds seen and heard on each side of the transect for an unlimited distance and record the start and end 

times of each survey period. 

Migratory/Nonmigratory Data Sheet 

All data collected during a migratory bird survey and any relevant information shall be recorded on a 

Migratory/Nonmigratory Data Sheet (Attachment 1). A separate data sheet shall be used for each 

station. The information to be provided at the top of the sheet shall be completed during or as soon as 

possible after the survey. 

The following information shall be recorded on the data sheet for each bird heard or seen (at any 

distance) during the observation period: 

Species: The scientific name and/or the common name. (The scientific name will be required in order to 

enter the data into the NRS EEDB.) 
167 

Total Number Observed: The total number of birds observed and/or heard during the observation period 

(excluding flyovers). 

Avian Activity: The number of birds observed that were feeding, roosting, nesting, or flying over the 

site. 

Wildlife Observation: The method used for observation (only for nonmigratory surveys). 

Opportunistic Sightings: Any notable species observed opportunistically outside of established transect 

routes during a survey period, recorded for the station closest to the observation location. 

NONMIGRATORY WILDLIFE SURVEYS 

Time period: June through August Frequency: Annual Technique: Point count or permanent line 

transect 

The purposes of the annual nonmigratory wildlife survey are to estimate the abundance of bird 

populations during the nonmigratory season, and to record the presence of nonavian wildlife. After the 

first survey is completed on a natural area, the site manager for that natural area shall ensure that 

nonmigratory wildlife surveys are conducted on that site during the same time period in all subsequent 

years. 

At a minimum, the same point stations and line transect stations used for the migratory wildlife survey 

shall be used for the nonmigratory survey. Additional points or line transects may be established 

specifically for nonavian wildlife surveys. Counts will occur in the morning, beginning as soon as it is 

light enough to see a distance of at least 200 meters (approximately 660 feet) and ending no later than 

four hours after official sunrise. The observer should try to arrive at the first plot while it is still dark, so 

that the count can begin as soon as it is light enough to see. The singing rate for most species is usually 

highest before or near official sunrise, and then declines slowly for the next four hours. 

Counts should not be conducted during high winds or heavy rains, because these conditions inhibit bird 

activity and impair the observer’s ability to see and hear birds. Counts should not be conducted if wind 

strength is a sustained 4 or greater on the Beaufort Scale, as described on the Migratory/Nonmigratory 

Data Sheet (Attachment 1), or if there is light or hard rain (rain code >3). If these conditions are 

encountered, the observer should wait until the weather improves or cancel the survey and try again on 

another day. 

The procedures for recording bird species for a nonmigratory survey shall be the same as those for a 

migratory survey. It is recommended that a second observer be present for the recording of the presence 

of additional wildlife species. One observer should focus on the bird species while the other observer 

records the presence of any other species of wildlife. Surveyors of reptiles and amphibians can turn 

over, or look under, any “cover objects” (e.g., logs, rocks, trash, or other debris) intercepted by the 

transect line (Elzinga et al. 2001). Cover objects may be placed along transect routes if few or no 

animals are observed along the entire transect length. 

All data collected and any relevant information shall be recorded on a Migratory/Nonmigratory Survey 

Data Sheet. A separate data sheet shall be used for each station. The information to be provided at the 

top of the sheet shall be completed during or as soon as possible after the survey. 

Fish surveys and other aquatic macrofauna surveys are considered optional, unless required by the 

conditions of a permit, grant or other agreement. They may be conducted during a separate sampling 
168 

event, using the methodology and data sheets provided in the Aquatic Macrofauna Monitoring Protocol 

for Palm Beach County Natural Areas. 

LISTED ANIMAL SPECIES MONITORING 

Listed animal species are any animals that are considered to be endangered, threatened, or of special 

concern in Florida by any state or federal agency (for example, the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission [FWC] and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]). In 

addition to regularly-scheduled listed species surveys, special surveys with specific objectives may be 

conducted for certain periods of time, such as to comply with permit conditions for a specific project on 

a specific natural area or to determine the impact of a destructive natural event such as a hurricane, 

wildfire, pest, disease or invasive species on one or more natural areas. 

The only regularly-scheduled listed wildlife species monitoring is for gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus) and Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens.). The scrub jay and gopher tortoise are 

keystone species that are indicators for the overall health of a community. When there is a need to 

monitor a listed animal species for which a species-specific protocol does not exist, a species-specific or 

animal class-specific (e.g., fish, reptiles, etc.) protocol shall be developed. Several species-specific 

protocols are used. . 

In addition to a species-specific monitoring event, any opportunistic observation of an individual of a 

listed animal species or a population of a listed animal species encountered on a natural area during a 

regular site visit and any additional information about each sighting deemed appropriate (for example, 

number of individuals, adult/juvenile, male/female, etc.) shall be recorded in the NRS EEDB. Additional 

documentation, such as recording the location of the species or population with a GPS device or taking a 

photograph of the individual animal or population, also should be done if the necessary equipment is 

available at the time that the observation is made. 

Gopher Tortoise Protocol 

The gopher tortoise is listed as a threatened species by FWC. Surveys shall be performed biennially 

from March through October and shall follow the procedures described in Appendix 7 of the FWC 

Gopher Tortoise Management Plan (FWC 2007), which is provided as Attachment 

3. The survey shall be conducted according to the guidance in the section entitled “Intensive Surveys to 

Confirm Rough Density Estimates.” 

The survey requires the establishment of random strip transects 10 meters wide x 250 meters long (= 

0.62 acres in area), throughout the natural area. These transects must account for at least 

15% of the area or habitat patch surveyed. These transects shall be entered into the NRS EEDB as a 

station and the GIS files uploaded to the GIS Enterprise Server by the NRS Database Administrator. 

The results of the survey shall be entered into the NRS EEDB and a copy provided to BLM. 

Florida Scrub Jay Protocol 

The Florida scrub jay is listed as a threatened species by both USFWS and FWC. A survey shall be 

conducted each year in March, and again in July when the young of the year can be identified by their 

plumage, following the procedures described in Subsection 1.2 of Fitzpatrick et al. 1991. 

The survey requires the establishment of transects or routes with points at which an observer plays a tape 

recording of a scrub jay call. Each transect or route and point shall be entered into the NRS EEDB as a 
169 

station. The GIS files shall be uploaded to the GIS Enterprise Server by the NRS Database 

Administrator. 

Survey results shall be entered on Jay Watch Data Sheets. There are two data sheets associated with the 

survey: a survey sheet for recording the point stations, bird counts and banding information and a 

vegetation monitoring data sheet for quickly categorizing the vegetation cover classes at the survey 

points. The results of the bird counts and banding information shall be entered into the NRS EEDB. The 

vegetation monitoring information does not have to be entered into the NRS EEDB. However, the 

completed sheets should be filed in the appropriate monitoring folder in the NRS site file for the natural 

area on which the monitoring was conducted, so that this information can be entered into the NRS EEDB 

at a future date, if desired. BLM will be provided with a copy of all data. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bibby, C.J., N. Burgess, and D. Hill. 1993. Bird Census Techniques. British Trust for Ornithology. 

Academic Press, NY. 

Elzinga, C.L, D.W. Salzer, J.W. Willoughby, and J.P. Gibbs. 2001. Monitoring Plant and Animal 

Populations. Blackwell Science, Malden, Mass. 

Fitzpatrick, J.D., F.E. Woolfenden, and M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-related habitat 

requirements of the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens). Nongame Wildlife 

Program Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 

Available online 

http://research.myfwc.com/publications/publication_info.asp?id=46526 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Florida's breeding bird atlas: a collaborative 

study of Florida's birdlife. Tallahassee. Available online 

http://www.myfwc.com/bba/ 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007. Protocol for assessing gopher tortoise 

densities on FWC lands identified as potential restocking sites. Appendix 7 in Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Gopher Tortoise Management Plan, Tallahassee. Available online 

http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Gt_Mgmt_Plan.pdf 

Menges, E.S. and D.R. Gordon. 1996. Three levels of monitoring intensity for rare plant species. Natural 

Areas Journal 16:227-237. 

Rodgers, J.A. Jr., H. Kale, and H.T. Smith (eds.). 1996. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 

V: Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Philippi, T., B. Collins, S. Guisti, and P.M. Dixon. 2001. A multistage approach to population 

monitoring for rare plant populations. Natural Areas Journal 21:111-116. 

Stevenson, H., and B. Anderson. 1994. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Van Horn, M. and K. Van Horn. 1993. Save Our Rivers Environmental Monitoring Protocols. South 

Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach. 
170 
171 

F. Summary of Public and Regulatory Agency Comments 
172 
173 

1. Summary of Public Comments 

BLM received a total of 66 comment cards, emails and letters during the public comment period on the 

draft management plan. The majority of the comments dealt, at least in part, with the issue of boater 

access or shoreline stabilization along the Indian River Lagoon. The subject was controversial with 

strong sentiments on both sides. Those comments have been collected and are being considered in the 

development of a preferred alternative for that project. 

In addition, a number of people provided extensive editorial comments on the draft plan including James 

Snyder, Richard and Lorraine Roberts, and Dave Gillings, Melissa Tolbert and Harvey Rudolph with 

Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management. 

The following characterize common themes, points or issues. 

· Several comments were in favor of retaining boat access in general. Some of these 

suggested methods of reducing erosion problems such as restricting access to climb the 

hillside. 

· Many comments stressed shoreline stabilization, and many of these suggested restricting 

access, including boat access. 

· Some comments recommended that recreation be oriented to “passive” use, including 

suggestions for education programs interpretation of natural heritage. 

· There were several comments noting that the proposed parking area south of Beach 

Road Bridge should be eliminated, as the area was too congested and it poses a safety 

issue. 

· Several comments advocated keeping the ONA exclusively or primarily as a natural area 

and opposed recreation purposes. 

· Some comments noted that a walkway under Beach Road Bridge would attract 

inappropriate uses. 

· Some comments recommended bringing interpretive planning into the project as early as 

possible to design facilities to protect natural habitat and allow for education. 

· Some comments recommended use of “green” materials, especially permeable material 

for sidewalks and parking areas. 

· Some expressed concern about safety, specifically to keep hikers away from roadways. 

· Some expressed concern about fast currents in the Indian River Lagoon and the danger 

that poses to snorkelers and swimmers. 

· Some comments were in general agreement with ONA designation or with the draft plan 

or one of the alternatives in the draft plan. 
174 

· Some comments supported historic preservation goals including restoration of historic 

structures on the site. A couple of comments, however, specifically recommended that 

the bridge tender’s building not be restored. 

· Several people did not want to see exotic vegetation removed. 

· Some people did not support prescribed burns. 

· Several people wanted an emphasis on environmental education and interpretive 

facilities, and guided tours. 

· Comments were received recommending that the area behind the Station J building 

should be closed to swimming and fishing for the protection of artifacts and a retaining 

wall was suggested to control erosion in that area. 

· There was suggestion to restore the Lighthouse Keeper’s Workshop and provide 

restrooms. 

BLM Responses to Substantive Comments 

The following substantive comments were excerpted from written letters, emails or comment cards 

received on the draft plan. These comments are listed by a randomly assigned correspondence number 

The BLM’s response to each comment is in italic. 

17-1 Check Florida Master Site File (FMSFile@dos.state.fl.us or 850 245 6440) for all cultural 

resource studies done on this property—for example, Ms #605 is the 1981 “Literature Review and 

Cultural Resources Survey of the U.S. Coast Guard Light Station, Jupiter Inlet, Palm Beach County” by 

Carol Weed, as well as Ms #13813, the 2003 “Jupiter Tract Survey and Site Testing of 8PB35” by Greg 

Mikell, Caleb Curren and others. It appears there are several other surveys in the site file that are not 

referenced or included in the References section (a partial list seems to include Ms #s 593, 2031, 5325, 

7849, 7878, and 8118). For management purposes it would be good to include these. 

The older references have been cited in some of the reports that we have cited in the reference section 

for the Cultural Resource section of the plan. We have included a statement in the beginning paragraph 

of the history of the plan directing readers if they so wish to peruse more research on their own, “For 

more comprehensive information on the cultural history of the Jupiter Inlet area see literature sited 

section for related documents by Ryan Wheeler, Jerald Kennedy and James P. Pepe and James Snyder, 

Jeannette Thurber Conner and Richard K. Murdoch. For older report references of Jupiter and Palm 

Beach County look at the reference sections in some of the literature”. 

 

17-2 In the section on the Prehistoric Periods, pp. 43-46 it would be good to reference the following: 

 

Wheeler, Ryan J., Wm. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe, “The Archaeology of Coastal Palm Beach 

County,” The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4):119-156, 2002. Available on-line at: 

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/UFDC/UFDC.aspx?s=flant&b=UF00027829 

 
175 

Wheeler, Ryan J., James P. Pepe, and Wm. Jerald Kennedy, “The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 

(8PB34),” The Florida Anthropologist 55(3-4):157-196, 2002. Available on-line at: 

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/UFDC/UFDC.aspx?s=flant&b=UF00027829 

 

These are a little more up-to-date, accurate and accessible than the Kennedy et al. 1993 report about 

Jupiter Inlet 1 and Dubois Park that is cited in the study. 

 

17-3 Page 46, paragraph that discusses the Historic Period, specifically the possibility of an English 

settlement in the area. There are at least two oblique literary references to English settlements in the 

area. Jeannette Thurber Conner, in her 1925 book Colonial Records of Spanish Florida, notes that 

documents relating to the 1815 Eusebio Gomez Grant in the area refer to an old English settlement in the 

area. Also, the 1793 report of Second Spanish Period Governor Juan Nepomuceno de Quesada mentions 

that English Loyalist Charles Lewis was settled somewhere in southeastern Florida, perhaps “established 

on the Rio Gega”—see Richard K. Murdoch’s 1952 article in The Florida Historical Quarterly, pp. 16-

32. Available on-line at: http://palmm.fcla.edu/fhq/index.shtml. Attached are photos of the Irish shot 

charger and Brown Bess ramrod pipe that were recently found by Jupiter Wreck Inc. that likely date to 

the British Period, now in our collection here. 

We have included a statement in the beginning paragraph of the history of the plan directing readers to 

the references cited section if they so wish to peruse more research on their own, 

“For more comprehensive information on the cultural history of the Jupiter Inlet area see literature 

sited section for related documents by Ryan Wheeler, Jerald Kennedy and James P. Pepe and James 

Snyder, Jeannette Thurber Conner and Richard K. Murdoch. For older report references of Jupiter and 

Palm Beach County look at the reference sections in some of the literature.”

 

17-4 Page 59—Management Issues-Protecting Cultural Resources. The recommendation for a full 

cultural resources survey is very welcomed, considering the number and quality of resources present and 

level of impacts necessitated in managing such a property. This type of survey would help in planning 

small and large projects that may impact cultural resources. It might be worth mentioning here that 

unmarked human burials have been encountered on the property, so there is an added level of sensitivity 

regarding ground disturbing activities. Also, it would be good to discuss the possibility that some 

unmarked human burials on the property would fall under the auspices of NAGPRA, there may be some 

that are not American Indian burials, which would require other consultation if encountered. 

While burials are important issue at Jupiter, at this time we will not be making a distinction between 

Native American burials and unmarked historic burials because of Native American concerns. To be 

able to make proper distinctions between the two it would be necessary to perform invasive scientific 

testing that will go against the wishes of the Native American Tribes. At this time if we encounter 

burials, work will stop, the locations will be plotted with GPS and left alone. These plots will be filed 

with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office and U.S. Coast Guard for avoidance during any 

future ground disturbances. 

28-2 North Side Hard Trail and other trails where “shell rock” is listed as an alternative: use 

concrete or recycled concrete on the trails, NOT shell rock. Shell rock is alkaline and will change the Ph 

of the scrub sand that is acidic. The construction of trails should have minimal impacts on the scrub 

soils, and the disturbance should be limited to the width of the trail and no more. Note that invasive 

species colonize new disturbances. 

Concrete has been selected as the preferred material for the ADA trails in natural areas of the ONA. 

The trail construction is currently anticipated to be limited to a 2 foot “work zone” on either side of the 
176 

trail footprint. Additional control of invasive plant species, particularly natal grass, is anticipated and 

will be incorporated into weed maintenance activities. 

 

28-3 Management Roads. Fire breaks and fence line roads are needed for management purposes. 

Do not eliminate these. You may want to use some for trails as they are already established. 

Only two sections of management roads are being eliminated. The northern section would be 

incorporated into the soft trail system and only the width of the trail would be maintained. Without 

regular root raking areas outside of the trail bed are expected to be return to scrub vegetation. The 

management road along the southern boundary of the communication site is being replaced by an 

existing road inside the communication site that will be open to administrative use only. Public access 

would be funneled onto the ADA trail from the new parking area. 

 

28-5 HABITAT RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT ACTIONS 

 

There are several mentions of mechanical manipulation on JILONA. Attached is recent paper by 

Weekley et al from Archbold Biological Station. Although it is lengthy, recommendations for restoring 

and maintaining high-quality Florida scrub are on pages 126 & 127. The basic recommendations are: 1) 

burning is superior or equivalent to mechanical, 2) burning and to be vigilant in monitoring for invasive 

species colonization with mechanical treatments, 3) mechanical treatment should be prerequisite not 

surrogate for burning, 4) logging should not be used as a restoration tool, 5) heavy equipment uses 

should be avoided as restoration tool, and 6) routine monitoring should be used to evaluate future 

management actions. 

 

Additionally Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(FNAI) produced “Scrub Management Guidelines” available on the FWC Sharepoint Web site: 

http://share2.myfwc.com/scrubjay/default.aspx. You may already have a copy of this excellent paper. 

Although the scrub-jays are no longer present on JILONA, the guidelines are applicable to the listed 

species on the site. 

The final plan identifies prescribed fire as the preferred management tool in all blocks, with mechanical 

manipulation as an alternative only when burning is not prudent because of health and safety issues, or 

resource concerns. 

The invasive species program has identified a need for vigilant follow-up after disturbances. 

Incorporating early and more frequent invasive plant sweeps is planned, particularly in newly disturbed 

or burned areas, when hand pulling is more effective and before invasive plants have an opportunity to 

produce seed. This approach will also assist in reducing the amount of herbicide needed to suppress 

invasive plants. 

As stated above, prescribed fire will be the preferred management tool for scrub management. Where 

fuel loads require, mechanical preparation prior to prescribed burns will be used to reduce the potential 

for crown fires, reduce flame heights, and reduce residual smoke and spotting. Mechanical 

manipulation alone will be used in those situations where risks to public health and safely are not 

prudent. 

Logging would not be used as a restoration tool by itself, however, removal of sand pine in areas being 

managed for earlier successional scrub, as defined in the “Scrub Management Guidelines”, may be 

necessary. In all cases, the removal could include both hand felling and mechanical manipulation. 
177 

A description of the monitoring program that will be used to monitor the effectiveness of this plan has 

been included in the Appendix. Additional monitoring may be developed, as needed, to adapt to 

changing conditions and the monitoring will be modified as needed to stay consistent with current 

approved protocols. 

 

28-6 South Side Prescribed Burn Program: Listed is a 30-year rotation. It may be more 

appropriate to give a range of years as 8 – 15 years, as the fire return intervals for scrub management 

have been revised to more frequent timing. As recommended in the FWC/FNAI “Guidelines” the burn 

rotation should be specific to the site, based on vegetation parameters of shrub height, canopy coverage, 

and open ground. The South East Florida Scrub Ecosystem Working Group (SEFSEWG) is 

considering producing easy to use protocols for monitoring scrub habitat to augment the “Guidelines”. 

The south side prescribed fire interval is being extended to provide the best opportunity to maintain the 

existing populations of perforate lichen and other mature scrub endemics. As best management 

practices for burning in areas supporting perforate lichen are developed and verified this interval could 

be modified. 

 

28-7 Invasive Control. Continue the good work you are doing on the North portion. Remove all the 

invasive plants on the southern portion and especially in Lot 17. Note that treating Brazilian Pepper with 

herbicide makes the woody parts very hard and is extremely difficult to remove after it has been treated. 

Remove all the invasive species at the same time to prevent recolonization and follow-up with herbicide. 

Some invasive species are spread by birds and leaving some of them for three years increases the 

possibility of reinvasion. 

The exotic plants in Lot 17 would be removed over at least three years; in part to initiate work as soon 

as possible and to postpone any work along the Indian River Lagoon until after the shoreline has been 

fully stabilized. There is some additional work expected with the staggered removal but it will allow for 

a quicker response and is more likely to fit within anticipated budgets. It also reduces the visual impacts 

and provides some wildlife structure in the duration. 

 

28-8 Florida Scrub-jay. See “Scrub Management Guidelines” above and continue management. 

FWCC is researching scrub-jay relocation efforts and may provide a paper on this topic in the next year. 

The plan is supportive of future efforts to recover this species and although the ONA is likely to be too 

small to warrant reintroduction efforts, BLM would fully support reintroduction in the ONA, if feasible. 

29-2 Still another related point is the low bluffs at the very south end, currently much assaulted 

ecologically by boats, and hence eroding unnaturally. . . I'd like to see boat disturbance of this area 

completely eliminated. Banks provide a rare habitat in south Florida. We have Belted Kingfishers all 

winter long on this stretch of the Intracoastal and the Loxahatchee, but there is no undisturbed place for 

this species to nest so it disappears from our area in summer, although breeding in highly scattered 

locations elsewhere in south Florida. 

The bluffs at Jupiter Inlet are a scarce feature along the Indian River Lagoon. The current sheer bluffs 

are likely a manifestation of human influences. Based on historic photos and aerial photos from the 

1880’s and the slopes although probably close to the same height were more gradually sloped to a 

narrower, more braided waterway. Opening the Intracoastal Waterway substantially widened the 

waterway and subsequent use has exposed sheer sand bluffs that are very vulnerable to the erosive 

action of waves and wind, as well as being actively eroded by public use. 
178 

Since this species nests in excavated burrows in bluff situations, it is unlikely that suitable natural 

habitat will available after the bluffs are stabilized. However, there is some literature on the use of 

artificial nest boxes for other species of king fisher that could be pursued. 

29-4 The only other thing that caught my eye was the proposed ferry dock near the museum building. 

Ferry from where? 

This option would have allowed for the construction of a dock for use as part of a water taxi system 

being proposed in Jupiter. Concerns for the project, particularly nighttime security for the Station J 

building resulted in the proposal not being included in the final plan. 

31-1 Regarding the proposed deck behind the Station J building, would there be public access or is 

the intent to allow only those individuals who are part of the lighthouse tours or museum activities? Who 

would be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed deck/dock? 

There is no admission fee currently being charged for that area, so it is assumed that the deck would be 

open to the public. However, this property is administered by the Town of Jupiter and public access 

would be at their discretion. 

31-2 Has it been determined that the proposed location for the dock is safe due to the currents on the 

inlet at that location? 

The vicinity of the bridge, fast currents and current level of public use were all additional concerns 

regarding this project, which was not included in the final plan. 

31-3 Are the hard trails ADA accessible? 

Yes, all of the trails designated as “hard” will be designed to be universally accessible, as per the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. 

31-5 Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed chain link fence along the soccer 

fields? 

That is expected to be negotiated between BLM and the Town of Jupiter. 

32-1 Page 7 table –south side ADA trail – add after “Kato Bridge” (SR 707) - Kato’s bridge is such a 

local term and maps list the road as SR 707. 

A global change has been made to refer to the road as State Road 707. 

 

32-2 Page 58, line 33 – insert sentence – “In addition, this site has been utilized by local commercial 

snapper fisherman as a source of the “perfect” sand for mixing with chum to make sand balls.” 

The change has been made as suggested. 

 

32-3 Comment on wetland projects illustrated on pages 11 & 12. For both northern and southern 

mangrove projects, I recommend Alternative 2 for reasons previously discussed. One inlet for a project 

is easier to maintain than two, the one nearest the inlet will have the hydrologic advantage to stay open, 

building an inlet too close to the bridge might have the possibility to interfere with stability of the bridge 

embankment. 
179 

Given the concerns about the feasibility of maintaining wetlands with two inlets, the option to extend the 

existing wetland was removed from the final plan. The option of constructing a second wetland south of 

State Road 707 will be addressed in the shoreline stabilization study. 

34-1 Was the water taxi dock behind the Barracks Building eliminated? 

 

Yes, see response to comment 29-4. 

34-2 Will the Town’s existing restrooms near the soccer fields be used on a regular basis, and if so 

who will open and close them? 

This is expected to be negotiated between BLM and the Town of Jupiter. 

34-3 Is BLM or PBC going to be patrolling the site on a regular basis? 

BLM will pursue a Law Enforcement MOU/agreement with local law enforcement entities, including 

Palm Beach County Sheriff Department, Town of Jupiter Police Department, Village of Tequesta Police 

Department, and other appropriate entities for the enforcement of the Special Rules. In addition, BLM 

expects to have an onsite manager for the ONA in the near future. This person is not expected to have 

law enforcement capabilities but would be able to provide an additional agency presence. 

34-4 Did the new water line and fire hydrant get approved? 

Both of these items would be constructed at the discretion of the Town of Jupiter to provide additional 

protection for the Station J building and other historic structures. BLM may be able to provide support 

for this project. 

35-1 It is not clear if the current or proposed fencing in both alternatives is located in areas where it 

can prevent gopher tortoises from crossing into busy highways. 

The split-rail perimeter fencing planned would not exclude tortoises from State Road 707. However, the 

chain link fence in conjunction with the native hedge would discourage tortoises from entering Jupiter 

Lighthouse Park and the ball fields. 

35-2 Based on our experience at other natural areas, we believe you should make it clear if horses are 

allowed or not on the ONA. 

The change has been made as suggested. 

35-3 It appears like historically all standing snags were removed. We recommend leaving snags that 

are not a safety concern up as is proposed in Alternative 1 on page 79. Snags will also provide habitat for 

woodpeckers as well as nesting sites for ospreys and roosting sites for wading birds. 

The change has been made as suggested. Strategic snags will be left in place where they do not posed 

threat to public use. 

35-4 I believe the bird species listed on page 33 were meant to be Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need. FWC does not have a category called Species of Conservation of Concern. 

The change has been made as suggested. 
180 

35-5 The osprey is only listed as a Species of Special Concern in Monroe County (i.e. the Florida 

Keys). It is not an SSC in Palm Beach County. 

The change has been made as suggested. 

37-1 On the sixth line, page 21, it says the lighthouse was completed in 1859. Please make it 1860. 

The change has been made as suggested. 

38-1 While we believe that public access will provide outreach and education, it also has the potential 

to increase visitor impacts to natural features and native species. All trails should be routed away from 

occurrences of rare and listed species. The trail identified in the east side of Lot 15 appears to be routed 

within 20 to 30 feet of two of the only four remnant Asimina tetramera plants. This will draw attention 

to the plants and could lead to picking of fruits when they are in season, as they are large and interesting 

in appearance. The trail system should be routed away from these plants to reduce the chance of this 

happening. Cladonia perforate have also been transplanted near this area, and these transplants have the 

same protection under the ESA as individuals that occur naturally elsewhere in other sections of the 

site. Routing trails away from occurrences should be added to the management recommendations for 

these species. 

The public access trails will be designed to funnel the increasing number of visitors through sensitive 

areas while providing appropriate interpretive facilities to encourage appreciation for the ONA 

resources and understanding of special rules. The trail will be routed around all special status plants 

and in particular four-petal pawpaw and perforate lichen. Ongoing coordination with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service will continue through the design and construction phase of the ADA trail north of State 

Road 707 to ensure that the trail does not adversely affect either species. There may be some potential 

for visitors to take pawpaw fruit, however the fruit ripens in the middle of the summer when public 

visitation is expected to be low. Adoption and enforcement of the Palm Beach County natural area 

ordinance as special rules for Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse ONA, and ultimately staffing the site with a full 

time manager will provide additional protection for resources and ensure visitor compliance. 

38-2 Although there have been no confirmed sightings of eastern indigo snakes on site, it is 

nevertheless possible that they could occur there, given that they are a commensal burrow species, a 

wide-ranging habitat generalist, are cryptic, and are not readily surveyed. In acknowledgement of this 

possibility, the Service recommends ensuring that any erosion control geo-textiles used are safe for 

snakes and do not present opportunities for entanglement. We recommend that BLM protect all 

burrows, stumps, and debris piles that may serve as snake refugia by raking around them before 

prescribed burns. 

The change has been made as suggested. 

38-3 Monitoring the status of populations and their response to management actions will be essential 

in directing future management decisions. The BLM should include monitoring programs for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species in the management plan. 

The ONA will use the monitoring protocol developed for use in Palm Beach County’s Natural Areas, 

which includes population and habitat monitoring for special status species. These have been included 

in the Appendix. This does not preclude additional monitoring as needed to assess management actions, 

including monitoring of special projects such as the four-petal pawpaw augmentation and perforate 

lichen transplants. 
181 

 38-4 Many recommend using vegetative structure to determine the burn interval for scrub jays rather 

than time in years because individual sites may have different growth rates. As a result, scrub would be 

burned when the vegetative height reaches the point where there needs to be a reduction, rather than at a 

predetermined date. Vegetation height within a territory is one of the most important factors influencing 

demographic success of scrub-jays. The optimal average height of the shrub layer for scrub-jays is 4 to 

5.5 feet. This average shrub height also provides appropriate habitat for the majority of other scrub 

adapted species. Scrub-jay numbers, as well as numbers of scrub-endemic plants, quickly decline in 

areas where the shrub layer averages taller than 5.5 feet. Optimal scrub-jay habitat contains 10% to 50% 

open ground with either bare sand or grass <6 inches tall. 

The final plan has a more adaptive burn program which identifies the use of prescribed fire as the 

preferred management tool for scrub habitats within the ONA. Fire interval and preparation techniques 

would be adapted to maintain approximately 50% of the scrub habitats in oak scrub as described by the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Natural Areas Inventory(June 30, 

2009). It is anticipated that sand pine would be reduced in these areas. The remaining areas would be 

managed with longer fire rotations to support perforate lichen, epiphytes, and other species requiring 

more mature scrub communities, including sand pine. It is the goal of this plan to adapt implementation, 

as needed, to reflect the most current research. Where the use of fire is not prudent mechanical 

manipulations may be used to maintain scrub characteristics. Specific burn plans will be developed 

prior to each burn establishing the burn prescription based on fuel conditions and resource objectives. 

38-5 Extreme caution should be practiced when using herbicides to treat invasives in the vicinity of 

rare and listed plants. 

All herbicide applicators will be fully briefed on the location and identification of special status plants. 

No herbicide applications will be made on days when there is potential for drift to affect non-target 

species. In addition, the move to more frequent sweeps for invasive species is expected to increase the 

effectiveness of hand pulling. In areas with perforate lichen, limiting the number of people to one or two 

people capable of identifying the species and understanding the need to avoid trampling would help to 

minimize loss. 

38-6 Cladonia perforata and prescribed fire 

Recommend fire as the preferred management technique for scrub where feasible. However, there 

probably is no vegetation treatment, fire or mechanical, that will avoid the destruction of some of the 

lichen fragments of Cladonia perforata in Lot 19. In 2009, the Service issued a Biological Opinion for a 

pilot project involving the translocation of Cladonia perforata from occupied to unoccupied habitat at 

JILONA. This effort was implemented on a small scale to test methodology and feasibility of relocating 

lichens to avoid directly mortality that would occur with the application of prescribed fire or mechanical 

treatments. While this technique may hold value to management of the species and its habitat at 

JILONA, the success of this effort cannot be fully evaluated because the fragments were moved less than 

a year ago. 

Because the prescribed burn program has the potential to adversely affect perforate lichen, BLM will 

consult to fulfill all Endangered Species Act Section 7 requirements. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is currently preparing a programmatic biological opinion addressing prescribed burning in areas 

supporting perforate lichen. Once that document has been completed BLM will adopt those best 

management practices and apply for an incidental take permit through a separate Section 7 

consultation. 

38-7 The BLM should consult with the Service on burn and translocation plans for Cladonia perforata 

at JILONA. Due to this species slow rate of regeneration and/or recolonization after fire, and small area 
182 

occupied at the site, careful planning will always be needed to ensure the persistence of Cladonia 

perforata at JILONA. Cladonia perforata lichens should only be moved when habitat management is 

needed. If they must be moved, preference should be given to areas where they currently occur, since 

these habitats are proven to support the species. Translocation should be to sites where vegetation 

treatments have recently been completed so that the translocated lichen fragments will have 15-30 years 

to regenerate. Lichens should not be moved in any case to make way for improvements such as trails 

and roads. Areas that are to be managed on a 30-year interval will probably have the best chance 

providing the time needed for significant regeneration. Burning at 15 year intervals would likely cause 

this species to be extirpated from these areas. Fire shadows should be simulated to act as refugia for 

these lichens. The Service recommends using GIS to carefully track and plan prescribed fire in relation 

to Cladonia perforata to ensure that management of the site does not lead to the extirpation of this 

species. The adaptive management paradigm should be utilized to modify practices as needed. 

See response to comment 38-6. 

38-8 Cladonia perforata and tennis courts/ball field 

The Service feels that restricting access to adjacent scrub (Lot 19) by replacing the existing split rail 

fence with 6 foot cyclone fence and installing overhead screen over the tennis court to reduce number of 

stray balls is the best option to protect lichens adjacent to these areas, which we believe are being 

trampled by people retrieving stray balls or entering the area for other untoward purposes. 

BLM expects that the addition of a shrub hedge in front of 4 feet chain link fence will be sufficient to 

discourage people from entering the site from the ball fields and will have the added benefit of deflecting 

the irrigation from the scrub habitat. . 

38-9 Florida mouse (Peromyscus floridanus) conservation 

The Service recommends that BLM explore reintroduction of the Florida mouse (Peromyscus 

floridanus) to suitable habitat within the JILONA.) 

The change has been made as suggested. 

43-1 Executive Summary 

Nice narrative, however, is this a summary or Introduction? If it's an executive summary we need to 

make sure any information here is repeated elsewhere in the body of the Plan. 

Could proposed actions in Summary Table be numbered or lettered and then located on corresponding 

maps? This would make it easier to identify and locate.) 

With the number of actions included in the document it would be difficult to display them on a map for 

inclusion in the document. In the final document no public access facilities are included in Lot 17, 

which should help to clarify the locations of planned actions. 

43-2 New Section 

Add Introduction, goals, mission statement. While the purpose of this document is to meet requirements 

of the JILONA Legislation, we also need to recognize that this will be the main "official document" for 

the JILONA. As such, it will be read by the Public as well as other governmental entities. We need to 

make sure that it's purpose and goals are clear to any reader. I would suggest adding an Introduction 

section. In this we should explain the overall purpose of the Plan and the goal(s). Specifying a specific 

mission statement or goal(s) will assist in future use and advocacy of the plan.) 
183 

These sections are addressed later in the document. 

43-3 B. Relationship to Other Plans and Relevant Statutes, 5. Local Zoning (pg. 19) 

"Change "5. Local Zoning to" Local Land Use Designation and Zoning" 

The change has been made as suggested. 

Add: The current Land use for the ONA within the Town of Jupiter is Public/Institutional. While the 

Town's current zoning for the site is "Rural Residential", the Town intends to change it to 

"Public/Institutional" to be consistent with the Land Use. 

The change has been made as suggested. 

Consider adding, "Florida statutes, chapter 163.Part II governs the process for local government land use 

changes, and requires consistency between Land Use and Zoning." (See below) 

Consider adding: "Florida Law, Florida Statutes, Chapter 163, Part II, Known as the "Local Government 

Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act "requires that all local governments 

adopt a Comprehensive Plan. The act requires that all actions related to property be consistent with the 

Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Required elements of the plan that could include policies related 

to JILONA include the following elements: Land Use, Coastal, Conservation, Recreation and Open 

Space." Adding JILONA-related policies to the Town's Plan may be of benefit in regard to grants, and 

strengthen intergovernmental cooperation. 

While BLM will continue to coordinate with local municipalities to ensure that local zoning and 

comprehensive plans are consistent with management of the ONA. 

43-4 C. Existing Land Uses" (pg. 19) 

Consider changing heading to "JILONA Partners and Current Uses" 

The change has been made as suggested. 

Consider NEW SECTION Recommend a section on how site came to be JILONA and member of the 

Landscape Conservation System, describing unique working group and efforts involved. Also mention 

awards to date such as the 4 Cs, the JHS student awards, Cooperative Conservation, etc. 

Commented noted. 

43-5 5. visual resources (pg.51) 

Could you quote the reference document or law for the "Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III 

Zone"? 

The visual resource inventory process is outlined in BLM Handbook H-8410-1. The process of 

assigning a ranking is based on scenic quality, sensitivity level analysis and delineation of distance 

zones. Based on these three factors lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. 

This ranking system was designed to address larger tracts of land. The Class III objectives for visual 

resources are to partially retain the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual 
184 

observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural and/or cultural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

43-6 H. Socio-Economic Conditions – Jupiter (pg 55) 

Incorporation date 1925. 

Update population projection -just over 50,000. 

Clarify/modify comment regarding growth relating to Scripps.) 

The change has been made as suggested. 

43-7 C. Management Issues (pg. 58) 

Consider adding section on "Link to Inlet Village". Issues would include access, onsite impact, 

coordination opportunities. This may benefit both areas, in terms of grants and future activities. 

Comment noted. 

60-3 Need to remodel the small building next to the lighthouse to include much needed restrooms. 

The Lighthouse Keeper’s Workshop has been funded for stabilization and rehabilitation to provide the 

public with a living exhibit to demonstrate the working life of the lighthouse keeper. Constraints with 

the existing septic system preclude use as a public restroom. 

61-1 Area at Barracks Bldg. (museum) should be restricted from swimming & fishing. Artifacts 

found in this area could be destroyed. Put signs & keep boats from landing on the beach along 

river and inter-coastal. 

The “Barracks Building” is located in Lot 20 which is administered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town 

of Jupiter has adopted Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Ordinance No. 2004-022 for the area 

behind the Station J building (see Appendix C). According to that ordinance swimming and boating use 

is at the discretion of the Director, or in this case the Town of Jupiter. 

61-2 Build retaining walls in this area to prevent erosion. 

Areas along the Loxahatchee River east of the Station J building are in active erosion. The plan 

provides for stabilization of the bank and return to the 1995 shoreline. 
185 

2. Regulatory Agency Comments 






Preserving America’s Heritage 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803 Washington, DC 20004 

Phone: 202-606-8503 Fax: 202-606-  8647 achp@achp.gov www.achp.gov  

February 4, 2010 

Mr. Bruce Dawson 

Field Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Jackson Field Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, MS 39206 

Ref: Proposed Construction Projects at Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area

 Jupiter, Florida

Dear Mr. Dawson:

On January 25, 2010, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received your revised 

notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on 

a property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We understand that we 

were invited to participate under the Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers regarding the Manner in which BLM will meet its Responsibilities under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. At this time, we do not believe that our participation in the 

consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed. However, if we receive a request for participation from 

the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian tribe, 

or other consulting party, we may reconsider this decision. Additionally, should circumstances change, 

and you determine that our participation is needed to conclude the consultation process, please notify us. 

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this undertaking. If you have any questions or 

require further assistance of the ACHP, please contact Nancy J. Brown at 202-606-8582, or by e-mail at 

nbrown@achp.gov.

Sincerely, 

Raymond V. Wallace 

Historic Preservation Technician 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 
"Zambrano, Ricardo" <Ricardo.Zambrano@MyFWC.com>

09/08/2009 01:02 PM

Faye, 

Laura Knipp from our Division of Habitat and Species and I both reviewed the 

draft plan for the Jupiter Inlet ONA. We both felt this was a very thorough 

and well-laid out plan. We only had a few minor comments on the plan. I am 

listing them below in no particular order. 

* It is not clear if the current or proposed fencing in both 

alternatives is located in areas where it can prevent gopher tortoises from 

crossing into busy highways. 

* Based on our experience at other natural areas we believe you 

should make it clear if horses are allowed or not on the ONA. 

* It appears like historically all standing snags were removed. We 

recommend leaving snags that are not a safety concern up as is proposed in 

Alternative 1 on page 79. Snags will also provide habitat for woodpeckers as 

well as nesting sites for ospreys and roosting sites for wading birds. 

* I believe the bird species listed on page 33 were meant to be 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need. FWC does not have a category called 

Species of Conservation of Concern. 

* The osprey is only listed as a Species of Special Concern in 

Monroe County (i.e. the Florida Keys). It is not an SSC in Palm Beach County. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. 

Ricardo Zambrano 

Regional Biologist 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

8535 Northlake Boulevard 

West Palm Beach, FL 33412 

Phone: 561-625-5122 

Fax: 561-625-5129 

 

Visit us at www.myfwc.com