Canaveral National Seashore

 Florida

Final General Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

i 

Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida 

Canaveral National Seashore was created 

through congressional legislation on January 3, 

1975 (Public Law 93-626) to preserve and protect 

the natural, scenic, scientific, ecological, 

archeological, and historical values and resources 

within the national seashore and to provide for 

public outdoor recreational use and enjoyment of 

those resources. The national seashore, which 

represents an excellent example of a relatively 

stable barrier beach backed by a productive 

lagoon system, comprises a barrier island 

ecosystem and contains nearly 58,000 acres of 

barrier island, open lagoon, coastal hammock, 

pine flatwoods, and offshore waters. The national 

seashore contains 24 miles of pristine, 

undeveloped beach along the Atlantic coast, is 

prime habitat for many threatened and 

endangered species, and provides nesting 

beaches for several thousand protected marine 

turtles. Mosquito Lagoon, which encompasses 

more than two-thirds of the national seashore, is 

designated an estuary of national significance and 

an outstanding Florida water. This lagoon is one 

of the most diverse and productive estuaries in 

North America. The national seashore also 

contains cultural resources that reflect human 

history in the Florida peninsula from 2000 BC to 

early 20th century Florida settlement. 

The national seashore is managed by the 

National Park Service, in partnership with the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

which owns approximately two-thirds of the 

national seashore and the adjacent Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, which is administered 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

This Final General Management Plan provides 

comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural 

systems, preserving cultural resources, and 

providing opportunities for quality visitor 

experiences at Canaveral National Seashore. A 

general management plan is needed to outline 

how the National Park Service can best fulfill the 

national seashore’s purpose, maintain its 

significance, and protect its resources 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. This plan describes the 

general course the National Park Service will 

follow in managing the national seashore during 

the next 20 years or more. 

The document examines four alternatives for 

managing the national seashore for the next 20 or 

more years. It also analyzes the impacts of 

implementing each of the alternatives. Alternative 

A is the “no-action” alternative, which describes 

how the national seashore is managed now and 

provides a basis for comparing the other 

alternatives. The three action alternatives 

(alternative B, the National Park Service 

preferred alternative; alternative C; and 

alternative D) present a spectrum of visitor 

opportunities, visitor facilities, and natural and 

historic enhancements. 

A Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was distributed to other 

agencies, interested organizations, and 

individuals for their review and comment. 

Changes were made to the plan in response to 

comments received. Following distribution of the 

final plan and a 30-day no-action period, a 

“Record of Decision” may be signed by the 

National Park Service regional director 

documenting the selection of an alternative for 

implementation. 

For further information on this plan, contact 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington Avenue 

Titusville, FL 32796-3553

U.S. Department of the Interior ● National Park Service

iii 

SUMMARY 

THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 

Canaveral National Seashore was established 

as a new unit of the national park system by the 

U.S. Congress in 1975. The national seashore is 

situated on both a barrier island and the 

mainland along Florida’s east coast; inviting 

highlights include pristine, undeveloped 

beaches and dunes and a lagoon that offers 

sanctuary to an abundant blend of plants and 

wildlife. Year-round recreation includes 

fishing, boating, canoeing, surfing, sunbathing, 

swimming, hiking, camping, enjoying nature 

and historic trails, and exploring cultural 

resources. The national seashore has 57,662 

total acres within the boundary. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

This Final General Management Plan provides 

comprehensive guidance for perpetuating 

natural systems, preserving cultural resources, 

and providing opportunities for quality visitor 

experiences at Canaveral National Seashore. 

Its purpose is to decide how the National Park 

Service (NPS) can best fulfill the national 

seashore’s purpose, maintain its significance, 

and protect its resources unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations. 

This General Management Plan describes the 

general path that the National Park Service 

would follow in managing the national 

seashore during the next 20 years or more. 

Based on public and partner comment and 

NPS concerns, the following questions were 

identified as major issues for the plan to 

address: 

 What are the appropriate types of visitor 

activities and levels of access to natural and 

cultural sites? 

 What opportunities exist to provide 

education and orientation so visitors 

recognize that they are in a national 

seashore and they understand the 

resources? 

 What strategies should the national 

seashore use to minimize impacts on 

resources? 

 What types and levels of facilities are 

needed to remain consistent with the 

national seashore’s legislation, where are 

the most appropriate places to establish 

functions and facilities, and what is the 

appropriate use of land at Bill’s Hill and 

newly developed areas such as Seminole 

Rest? 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Both the National Environmental Policy Act 

and the NPS planning process require 

development and evaluation of a range of 

alternatives to compare the advantages of one 

course of action to another. The alternatives 

provide guidance for protecting resources, 

meeting the needs of visitors, and addressing 

the concerns of neighbors and partners. 

Consistent with the national seashore’s 

legislated purpose, public input, and consultation with other government agencies, the 

planning team developed three “action” 

alternatives that would provide the foundation 

for decision making in the national seashore 

and form the core of the management plan. 

The fourth alternative is the “no-action” 

alternative that describes how the national 

seashore is managed now, providing a basis for 

comparing the other alternatives. 

Additional feasibility studies and more detailed 

planning and environmental documentation 

would be required before development 

proposed in any alternative would be built. It is 

also important to remember that implementation of any alternative depends on the availability of funds and could occur in phases. This 

Final General Management Plan will guide 

year-to-year management of the national 

seashore, but full implementation of the plan 

could take many years. 
SUMMARY

iv 

For each alternative there is a concept 

statement or “vision statement,” which is an 

overarching philosophy that directs and shapes 

the desired resource conditions, visitor 

experience, and facilities. Management zones 

describe general desired conditions in specific 

areas of the national seashore that address 

natural resources, cultural resources, and 

visitor experience, as well as levels of 

management, visitor access, and development. 

For each alternative, management zones are 

shown on the alternative maps in different 

locations and configurations based on the 

alternative’s concept. 

Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) 

There would be no change in the current 

management direction for the foreseeable 

future. The National Park Service would 

continue to manage Canaveral National 

Seashore under the overall operational 

direction provided in its enabling legislation 

and interagency/cooperative agreements with 

its two federal agency partners. One agreement 

is between the Department of the Interior and 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). The other agreement 

is between the National Park Service and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which 

manages Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. The latter agreement defines the 

general boundaries of jointly managed areas in 

and around Mosquito Lagoon and delineates 

responsibilities of the two agencies for 

cooperative administration and management 

of the area. 

Impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, 

and wetlands would be negligible to minor 

over both the long and short term, due to 

construction activities and localized increases 

in impervious surfaces. Both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

would be expected under this alternative due 

to continued high visitation with some 

protections for natural resources. No 

substantive change to cultural resources would 

be expected under this alternative and any 

impacts would be negligible to minor. No 

adverse effects would occur on archeological 

resources, historic structures, or cultural 

landscapes; beneficial effects would be realized 

for ethnographic resources and sites of cultural 

importance. Minor adverse impacts on 

soundscapes, noise, and air quality would 

occur in the long term due to increased 

visitation. Visitor experience would largely 

remain the same under the no-action 

alternative, although in the long term, 

projected increases in visitor use levels would 

result in a minor adverse effect. Impacts on 

operations would be long term, adverse, and of 

minor to moderate intensity due to increased 

demands on national seashore staff and 

resources. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Under this alternative, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed to preserve and 

enhance the natural and historic landscape 

features associated with the national seashore’s 

eastern Florida coastal barrier island system. 

Emphasis would be placed on retaining the 

national seashore’s relatively undeveloped 

character and providing uncrowded 

experiences by dispersing visitors via a shuttle 

service or canoe, kayak, hiking and walking 

trails, and bicycle trails. Elements of this 

alternative will support the resilience of the 

national seashore to expected impacts from 

climate change, such as sea level rise, coastal 

erosion, and higher storm surges, all of which 

may affect cultural and natural resources as 

well as visitor experience at the seashore.

Impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, 

and wetlands would be negligible to minor 

over both the long and short term due to 

construction activities and localized increases 

in impervious surfaces. Both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

would be expected under this alternative due 

to improved habitat conditions and visitor 

access near key habitat areas. No substantive 

change to cultural resources would be 

expected under this alternative and any 

impacts would be negligible to minor. No 

adverse effects would occur on archeological 

resources, historic structures, or cultural 

landscapes; beneficial effects would be realized 
Summary 

v 

for ethnographic resources and sites of cultural 

importance. Minor adverse impacts on 

soundscapes, noise, and air quality would 

occur in the long term due to increased 

visitation, although some actions such as a 

slow-speed area in northern Mosquito Lagoon 

would have beneficial impacts on these 

resources. The impacts of alternative B would 

be moderate and beneficial in the long term for 

visitors seeking additional recreational 

opportunities. However, increased future 

visitation may also have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts due to crowding and noise. 

Impacts on national seashore operations 

would be both adverse and beneficial in the 

long term. Adverse impacts may occur due to 

increasing management responsibilities, but 

beneficial impacts would also be realized by 

redesigning facilities such as at Playalinda and 

Apollo beaches and by consolidating 

administrative functions. 

Alternative C 

Under this alternative, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed as a place where 

visitors would explore and experience a wide 

range of opportunities that would be designed 

to provide an in-depth understanding of the 

natural and cultural history of eastern coastal 

Florida. When visitors enter the national 

seashore, they would be presented with 

choices for alternative modes of access to landand water-based natural and cultural features, 

appropriate recreational opportunities, and 

educational pursuits. 

Impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, 

and wetlands would be negligible to minor 

over both the long and short term due to 

construction activities and localized increases 

in impervious surfaces. Both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

would be expected under this alternative due 

to an increase in managed visitor use. No 

substantive change to cultural resources would 

be expected under this alternative and any 

impacts would be negligible to minor. No 

adverse effects would occur on archeological 

resources, historic structures, or cultural 

landscapes; beneficial effects would be realized 

for ethnographic resources and sites of cultural 

importance. Minor adverse impacts on 

soundscapes, noise, and air quality would 

occur in the long term due to increased 

visitation. The impacts of alternative C would 

be major and beneficial in the long term for 

visitors seeking additional recreational 

opportunities. However, increased future 

visitation may also have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts due to crowding and noise. 

Impacts on national seashore operations 

would be both adverse and beneficial in the 

long term. Adverse impacts may occur due to 

increasing management responsibilities, but 

beneficial impacts would also be realized by 

redesigning facilities such as the Apollo Beach 

visitor center, and by consolidating 

administrative functions. 

Alternative D 

Under alternative D, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed to focus on 

enhancing the existing lands, resources, and 

facilities. The national seashore would be 

managed to promote outdoor recreational and 

educational opportunities that are consistent 

with preserving the national seashore’s natural 

and cultural resources. Limited facility 

development would provide more efficient 

NPS administration and operations and 

enhanced visitor amenities. Coordination with 

partners would be increased to provide 

additional educational opportunities and 

programs for visitors and enhanced 

monitoring of Mosquito Lagoon resources. 

Impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, 

and wetlands would be negligible to minor 

over both the long and short term due to 

construction activities and localized increases 

in impervious surfaces. Both adverse and 

beneficial impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

would be expected under this alternative. No 

substantive change to cultural resources would 

be expected under this alternative and any 

impacts would be negligible to minor. No 

adverse effects would occur on archeological 

resources, historic structures, or cultural 

landscapes; beneficial effects would be realized 

for ethnographic resources and sites of cultural 
SUMMARY

vi 

importance. Minor adverse impacts on 

soundscapes, noise, and air quality would 

occur in the long term due to increased 

visitation, although some actions such as a 

slow-speed zone in northern Mosquito 

Lagoon would have beneficial impacts on these 

resources. The impacts of alternative D would 

be moderate and beneficial in the long term for 

visitors seeking additional recreational 

opportunities. However, increased future 

visitation may also have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts due to crowding and noise. 

Impacts on national seashore operations 

would be both adverse and beneficial in the 

long term. Adverse impacts may occur due to 

increasing management responsibilities, but 

beneficial impacts would also be realized by 

redesigning facilities such as at Playalinda and 

Apollo beaches and consolidating 

administrative functions.

NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement includes 

comment letters from other federal, state, and 

local agencies regarding the draft plan and NPS 

responses to those and other individuals’ 

substantive comments. The final plan also 

includes changes and clarifications made in 

response to comments received. Following 

distribution of the Final General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and a 

30-day no-action period, a “Record of 

Decision” approving the final plan will be 

prepared for signature by the director of the 

NPS Southeast Region Office. The “Record of 

Decision” details the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. Upon the 

signing of the “Record of Decision,” the plan 

can be implemented, depending on available 

funding and staffing. 
vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 3

Areas of the National Seashore 3

Natural Resources 4

Cultural Resources 9

Interagency Cooperation 10

NPS Facilities 10

Visitor Activities 11

BACKGROUND 12

Plan Purpose and Need 12

Planning Issues and Concerns 13

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 20

Purpose 20

Significance 20

Fundamental Resources and Values 20

Interpretive Themes 21

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 22

Laws and Policies 27

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 28

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 29

National Park Service 29

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 29

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 29

Other Agency Plans 30

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 33

INTRODUCTION 35

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 36

Next Steps 36

Implementation Funding 36

MANAGEMENT ZONES 37

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT 51

THE ALTERNATIVES 59

Common to All Alternatives – Commercial Fishing 59

IDENTIFICATION OF THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 60

ALTERNATIVE A: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 62

Overall Concept 62

Visitor Experience 62

Resource Protection 63

National Seashore Operations and Facilities 64

Area-Specific Management Actions 64

ALTERNATIVE B: THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 72

Overall Concept 72

Visitor Experience 72

Resource Protection 72

National Seashore Operations and Facilities 73
CONTENTS

Area-Specific Management Actions 73

ALTERNATIVE C 83

Overall Concept 83

Visitor Experience 83

Resource Protection 83

Area-Specific Management Actions 84

ALTERNATIVE D 93

Overall Concept 93

Visitor Experience 93

Resource Protection 93

National Seashore Operations and Facilities 94

Area-Specific Management Actions 94

COST ESTIMATES 103

Alternative A (No Action) 105

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 105

Alternative C 106

Alternative D 107

Land Acquisition 107

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 108

Natural Resources 108

Cultural Resources 110

STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 112

Science 112

Mitigation 112

Adaptation 112

Communication 112

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 114

KEY IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO FOLLOW THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 116

ALTERNATIVES OR ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 118

CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 133

INTRODUCTION 135

NATURAL RESOURCES 136

Natural Resource Impact Topics Considered in This Environmental Impact Statement 136

CULTURAL RESOURCES 173

Historical Overview 173

Archeological Resources 181

Ethnographic Resources 182

Prehistoric/Historic Structures/Buildings 182

Cultural Landscapes 183

Resource Conditions and Threats 184

National Register of Historic Places Evaluations 185

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 187

Visitor Access 187

Visitor Opportunities 191

Visitor Use 195

Public Health and Safety 196

NATIONAL SEASHORE OPERATIONS 197

Organization 197

viii
Contents 

ix 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 203

Introduction 203

Population 203

Income 204

Earnings by Major Industries 206

Employment by Major Industries 207

Unemployment 207

Poverty 209

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Kennedy Space Center 210

Economic Impact of Canaveral National Seashore 210

Other Topics of Interest 212

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 214

Natural Resources 214

Cultural Resources 215

Social Resources 216

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 217

INTRODUCTION 219

Terms and Assumptions 219

Climate Change 219

Cumulative Impacts 220

Impairment of National Seashore Resources 221

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 223

Geologic Resources and Soils 223

Floodplains 230

Wetlands 237

Water Resources 249

Vegetation and Wildlife 257

Soundscapes and Noise 271

Air Quality 278

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 286

Methodology 286

Impacts on Archeological Resources 286

Impacts on Historic Structures 290

Impacts on Cultural Landscapes 291

Impacts on Ethnographic Resources 294

IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE 298

Methodology 298

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) 298

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 300

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 302

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 304

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL SEASHORE OPERATIONS 306

Methodology 306

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) 306

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 307

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 308

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 310

IMPACTS ON REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 312

Methodology 312

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) 312

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 314

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 315
CONTENTS

x 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 316

OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSES 319

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 319

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 319

Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 319

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 319

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 321

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 323

Release of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 325

NPS RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 326

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 338

Federal Agencies 338

State Agencies 338

American Indians 339

LIST OF AGENCIES OR ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS PLAN 340

APPENDIXES, SELECTED REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND INDEX 343

APPENDIX A: CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE LEGISLATION 345

APPENDIX B: DESIRED CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 

353

APPENDIX C: DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 375

APPENDIX D: AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS 379

SELECTED REFERENCES 421

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 434

INDEX 435

MAPS 

Vicinity 5

Federal Land Management 7

Alternative A 67

Alternative B 77

Alternative C 87

Alternative D 97

FIGURE 

Figure 1: Recreation Visits 195

 
Contents 

xi 

TABLES 

Table 1. Management Zones 41

Table 2. Visitor Activities and Developments by Management Zone 48

Table 3. Indicators, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies 53

Table 4: Cost Comparisons for Each Alternative (in 2010 dollars) 104

Table 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives 119

Table 6. Comparison of Impacts 126

Table 7: Topics Analyzed and Dismissed 135

Table 8. Coastal Shark Species and Life Stages with Essential Fish Habitat Identified within the Canaveral 

National Seashore Area 154

Table 9. Special Status Species at Canaveral National Seashore 156

Table 10. Sea Turtle Nest Totals, 1984–2011, Canaveral National Seashore 161

Table 11. Number of Individuals of Each Small Mammal Species Captured by Gaines (2003) 164

Table 12. Marine Mammals Potentially Passing Through Waters of Canaveral National Seashore1 165

Table 13. Typical Outdoor Noise Levels 169

Table 14: Visitor Use 195

Table 15: Percentage Change in Staffing by Fiscal Year 197

Table 16: Population of the Affected Area 203

Table 17: Population Growth 204

Table 18: Per Capita Personal Income 204

Table 19: Median Household Income 205

Table 20: Earnings by Industry 206

Table 21: Employment by Industry (Number of Full- and Part-Time Jobs for 2003) 208

Table 22: Employment Status 2000 209

Table 23. Employment Status 2004 209

Table 24. Poverty 210

Table 25. Visits and Spending by Visitor Segment (2003) 211

Table 26. Economic impacts of Visitor Spending by Sector (2003) 211

Table 27. Commercial Use Permits 212

Table 28. Annual Payments in Lieu of Taxes 212
xii 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is organized 

into five chapters plus appendixes. Each 

section is described below. 

Chapter 1: Introduction describes the 

context for the entire document. It provides an 

overview of Canaveral National Seashore, 

explains why the plan is being prepared, and 

what issues it will address. It provides guidance 

(e.g., national seashore purpose, significance, 

fundamental resources and values, special 

mandates, and servicewide laws and policies) 

for the alternatives that are being considered. 

How this plan relates to other plans and 

projects is also described. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts (see insert box below); 

the alternatives in the next chapter address 

these issues and concerns to varying degrees. 

The primary goal of scoping is to gather 

information and to identify the range of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities to be addressed in the 

management plan. Scoping is done with the 

national seashore staff and with the general public. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, discusses management 

zones, user capacity, and the four management alternatives (the focus of this plan). 

Mitigative measures proposed to minimize or 

eliminate the impacts of some proposed 

actions are described just before the discussion 

of future studies and/or implementation plans 

that would be needed. The evaluation of the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

followed by a discussion of alternatives or 

actions that were dismissed from detailed 

evaluation. The chapter concludes with 

summary tables of the alternative actions and 

the environmental consequences of 

implementing those alternative actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes 

those areas and resources that would be 

affected by actions proposed in the various 

alternatives—natural and cultural resources, 

visitor experience, national seashore 

operations, and regional socioeconomics. It 

also includes a discussion of impact topics 

considered but dismissed from detailed 

analysis. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the anticipated impacts of implementing the alternatives. Methods used to 

assess impacts are outlined at the beginning of 

the chapter and for each topic. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort; it also 

lists agencies and organizations who received 

copies of the document. This chapter also 

includes NPS responses to substantive 

comments on the draft plan. 

The Appendixes present supporting information for the document, agency response letters, 

bibliographic references, a list of the planning 

team and other consultants, and an index. 
Chapter 

Introduction 

1

3 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 

Midway along Florida’s east central coast 

between New Smyrna Beach and the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center in southeast Volusia 

and northeast Brevard counties. Canaveral 

National Seashore was established on 

January 3, 1975 (Public Law 93-626; see 

appendix A for a copy of this legislation). 

Canaveral National Seashore (the national 

seashore) is accessible via Interstate 95 (exits 

220 and 249), U.S. 1, State Route 44, and State 

Route 406/402. The national seashore, which 

represents an excellent example of a relatively 

stable barrier beach backed by a productive 

lagoon system, comprises a barrier island 

ecosystem and contains nearly 58,000 acres of 

barrier island, open lagoon, coastal hammock, 

pine flatwoods, and offshore waters (see 

“Vicinity” map). On its eastern edge, the park 

boundary extends 0.5 mile into the Atlantic 

Ocean. 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 

The seashore has undeveloped beaches and 

limited services. The eastern shore of the 

national seashore is a series of three beaches—

Playalinda Beach, Klondike Beach, and Apollo 

Beach (from south to north). There are 

lifeguards in the summer and access for visitors 

with disabilities in certain areas of Apollo and 

Playalinda beaches. 

Playalinda Beach has an entrance station / 

administrative complex and a lifeguard 

operations area. 

Klondike Beach is a remote 12-mile-long beach 

reached on foot, horseback (seasonally), or 

boat. Access is only by permit. 

Apollo Beach has one entrance station and a 

visitor information center; there is also a ranger 

station and an NPS maintenance complex (for 

the North District) in the area, including 

several storage garages, a carpenter shop, a 

lifeguard office, and a fire cache. Turtle 

Mound, a 35-foot-high mound of oyster shells 

constructed by American Indians, offers a 

magnificent view of the lagoon, ocean, and 

barrier island. There is also a beach operations 

area at Apollo Beach and a boat launch outside 

the national seashore entrance gate, but within 

national seashore boundaries. 

The Eldora Hammock area has a number of 

former residential properties that are currently 

used for NPS administrative purposes such as 

the Hebner, Grey, and Feller properties and 

the Schultz house. The historic Eldora State 

House, which includes a visitor contact station 

and dock, is also in this area. There are two 

interpretive trails (the Eldora Hammock and 

Castle Windy trails), a canoe/kayak landing, 

and access to Mosquito Lagoon. 

Mosquito Lagoon, the northernmost body of 

water in the Indian River Lagoon system, 

making up about two-thirds of the area within 

the boundaries of the national seashore. This 

lagoon is one of the most species-rich and 

diverse estuaries in North America. Species 

composition varies greatly on a seasonal basis. 

The average water depth is about 4 feet, with 

the exception of the Intercoastal Waterway, 

which runs through the northern half of 

Mosquito Lagoon. The lagoon is dominated by 

shallow flats that support dense submerged 

aquatic vegetation, primarily seagrass. There 

are several natural and dredge spoil islands in 

the lagoon. 

The Oak Hill area includes Seminole Rest, the 

10-acre Stuckey property, and Bill’s Hill. There 

is a rehabilitated historic main house and 

caretaker’s house, a dock, and an interpretive 

trail at Seminole Rest. The first floor of the 

main house is a visitor contact station where 

there are exhibits and where an orientation 

film is shown. The Stuckey property and Bill’s 

Hill area are currently undeveloped. 

The Joint Management Area, as the name 

implies, is managed jointly by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. 

This central-southern portion of the Mosquito 

Lagoon area is south of the Gomez Grant line. 

Pole/troll areas (where boaters are required to 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

4 

shut off their outboard motors and switch to a 

nonmotorized power source such as drifting or 

using push poles or paddles) exist in the joint 

management area, and more may be developed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are 

also boat access areas, a boat launch, dock, and 

parking area at Eddy Creek, a manatee viewing 

area, interpretive trails, and several historic 

properties, including Target Rock, Ross 

Hammock, the “Confederate salt works,” the 

old Haulover Canal, the Clifton Schoolhouse 

site, and Dummit Cove. Bio Lab Road and an 

associated boat ramp are also in this area. 

The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

south and west of the national seashore 

boundary, includes the USFWS visitor 

information center, a maintenance facility, 

administrative offices, and a fire cache. Limited 

information about Canaveral National 

Seashore is provided at this visitor center. 

The NPS maintenance area (for the South 

District) is at Wilson’s Corner along Highway 

402 east of the USFWS visitor information 

center. 

The NPS headquarters for the national 

seashore is at 212 South Washington Avenue in 

Titusville. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The barrier island ecosystem in the national 

seashore features a narrow island 24 miles in 

length—the longest stretch of undeveloped 

beach along Florida’s east coast—that 

separates the Atlantic Ocean from Mosquito 

Lagoon. A sandy beach lies on the east side of 

the island. The beach is backed by a single 

dune ridge, averaging 12 feet in height; 

however, in some areas, the dune has been 

breached by storm overwash. The back side of 

the dune is gradually sloping and anchored by 

dense vegetation. High marsh, mangrove, and 

pockets of live oak/cabbage palmetto 

hammock occur along the shore of the lagoon. 

Comprising more than two-thirds of the 

national seashore, Mosquito Lagoon is the 

northernmost body of water in the Indian 

River Lagoon system. Approximately 1 mile 

wide and averaging 4 feet deep, the lagoon 

supports dense growth of submerged aquatic 

vegetation. This lagoon has no outlet, but is 

connected to the ocean by Ponce de Leon Inlet 

(10 miles north of the national seashore) and to 

Indian River by the Haulover Canal on the 

west side of the lagoon. The northern third of 

the lagoon contains numerous islands 

consisting of hammock, mangrove, and high 

marsh vegetation, and features many small, 

intertidal oyster reefs; the southern two-thirds 

of the lagoon are open waters. The lagoon 

supports nationally recognized fisheries for 

finfish, clams, oysters, blue crabs, and shrimp. 

In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, through the National Estuary Program, designated Mosquito Lagoon, along with 

the rest of the 155-mile-long Indian River 

Lagoon complex, as an estuary of national 

significance. The Indian River Lagoon is considered one of the most diverse and productive 

estuaries in North America. The State of 

Florida has designated Mosquito Lagoon and 

the upper Indian River proper as an 

Outstanding Florida Water, a designation 

intended to preserve exceptional ecological 

and recreational resource values. The lagoon 

has also been designated as an aquatic preserve 

by the state because of its exceptional 

biological, aesthetic, and scientific values. 

Mainland portions of the Canaveral National 

Seashore consist of pine flatwoods, live oak/ 

cabbage palm hammock, and live oak scrub. A 

system of ridges and alternating swales can be 

seen in the south end of the national seashore, 

revealing the location of shorelines formed in 

the past. The highest point in the national 

seashore is Turtle Mound, a 35-foot-high 

mound of oyster shells constructed by native 

peoples between AD 800 and AD1400.
C T N

COLUMBIA

CHARLESTON

MONTGOMERY

ATLANTA

26 20

20

59

85

85 75

65

16

Tennessee

Alabama

Chattahoche

NF

TAMPA ORLANDO

ST. PETERSBERG

FORT MEYERS

NAPLES

Lake

Okeechobe

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA

GULF OF MEXICO

ATLANTIC

GEORGIA OCEAN

ALABAMA

TALLAHASSEE

PENSACOLA

MIAMI

75

95

95

10

10

4

75

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

MISSISSIPPI

NORTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE

HA TA OOGA

Canaveral 

National 

Seashore

VICINITY

Canaveral National Seashore

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,240 • DSC • Aug 2009

MOSQUITO LAGOON

ATLANTIC OCEAN

INDIAN RIVER

SALT

LAKE

Loughman

Lake

SOUTH LAKE

St Johns

River

 INDIAN RIVER

BANANA RIVER

To 

Daytona 

Beach

To

Orlando

To Melbourne To Cocoa Beach

Apollo Beach

Klondike Beach

Playalinda Beach

False Cape

Cape

Canaveral

Kennedy Parkway

NASA Parkway

Black Point

Wildlife Drive

Bee Line

Expressway

(toll)

Bio Lab Road

Mims

Canaveral

National 

Seashore

Headquarters

Information

Kennedy Space Center

Visitor Complex

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

Riverbreeze

Park

Seminole

Rest

Observation

Tower

Shuttle 

Landing 

Facility

Launch

Complex 39B

Launch

Complex 39A

Vehicle Assembly

Building JOHN F KENNEDY

SPACE CENTER

(public access controlled)

CAPE CANAVERAL

AIR FORCE STATION

Oak and Palm Hammock Trails

Cruickshank

Trail

one-way

Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge

Visitor Information Center

Canaveral National 

Seashore Visitor 

Information Center

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Stuckey

Property

Wilson’s

Corner

NASA Boundary

COCOA

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

BILL’S

HILL

Self-guiding trail Drinking water

Wheelchair accessible Telephone

Ranger station Boat launch

John F. Kennedy Space Center, 

Cape Canaveral AFS—access controlled

Managed by NPS & USFWS

Trail

Unpaved road

Managed by NPS

Seashore Boundary

Managed by USFWS

North

0

0

5 Miles

1 5 Kilometers

1 Federal Land Management

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,242A • DSC • JULY 2011

Gomez Grant Line 

95

95

95

406

406

524

528

520

520

528

A1A

528

407

405

405

402

A1A

442

3

3

3

50

50

46

5A

44

1

1

1

National Seashore Boundary

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR)

NPS

NPS, USFWS, & NASA

NASA

USFWS & NASA

NPS & NASA

MINWR Pole/Troll Area

NASA Boundary

Intracoastal Waterway

Unpaved road

Trail

Ranger station

Wheelchair accessible

Self-guided trail

Boat launch

Telephone

Drinking water

Overview of the National Seashore 

9 

The summit of Turtle Mount offers a 

magnificent view of the lagoon, ocean, and 

barrier island. 

A 12-foot-deep channel is maintained along 

the northwest side of Mosquito Lagoon for the 

Intracoastal Waterway, which extends 

eastward through Haulover Canal about 

halfway down the west side of the lagoon and 

into the Indian River. 

Canaveral National Seashore has a diverse and 

fascinating variety of aquatic and terrestrial 

fauna and provides habitat for 14 federally 

listed threatened and endangered wildlife 

species, as well as other special status species. 

These special status species include, but are 

not limited to, loggerhead, green, and 

leatherback sea turtles; Florida manatees (a 

subspecies of the West Indian manatee); piping 

plovers; wood storks; peregrine falcons; 

eastern indigo snakes; and Florida scrub-jays. 

Three sea turtle species build approximately 

4,000 nests on the beach each year. Many 

waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds (more 

than 300 species of birds can be found in the 

national seashore) use the national seashore as 

a migratory stopover and wintering ground. 

More than 1,000 species of plants have been 

recorded in the national seashore and 

surrounding area. Located along the frost line, 

the national seashore contains a rich and 

unique mixture of subtropical and temperate 

plants that are found nowhere except central 

Florida. Several temperate species extend no 

farther south than the national seashore, while 

a number of subtropical species occur no 

farther north. Signs of this unusual mixture 

include the hammocks, which contain an 

overstory dominated by temperate species and 

an understory composed of subtropical plants. 

Another sign of this mixture is the significant 

shift in vegetation along the edge of Mosquito 

Lagoon—from salt marsh cord grass, which 

predominates in coastal areas north of the 

national seashore, to mangrove species, which 

predominate to the south. Primary plant 

communities in the national seashore include 

coastal dune, coastal strand, oak scrub, slash 

pine flatwoods, hardwood and palm 

hammocks, mangrove swamps, and salt marsh. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Canaveral, from a word given by Spanish 

explorers meaning “place of canes,” is one of 

the oldest recorded geographical names in 

North America. Merritt Island is thought to 

have been named by Pedro Marratt, a surveyor 

who charted the island in the early 1800s. But 

humans left their imprint here long before 

European explorers ventured ashore. 

American Indians, attracted by the fertile 

estuaries and temperate climate, harvested 

oysters and clams and discarded the shells in 

heaps that archeologists study today in the 

national seashore such as the mounds at 

Seminole Rest, Turtle Mound, and Castle 

Windy. In April 1513, Ponce de Leon claimed 

the land for Spain. Spain retained control until 

1821, except for a 20-year period (1763–1783) 

when the British gained control of Florida’s 

east coast. But the extensive wetlands, clashes 

with Seminole Indians, and clouds of salt 

marsh mosquitoes delayed development until 

the 1830s, when Douglas Dummett (or 

Dummitt in other sources) planted an orange 

grove in the Merritt Island area that began the 

world-renowned Indian River citrus industry. 

During the next century villages near citrus 

groves or water passageways were established, 

but were abandoned because of storms, 

isolation, or occasional killing frosts. One of 

these towns was Eldora, a late-19th century 

community built near Mosquito Lagoon in 

what would later become part of the national 

seashore. Two houses associated with the early 

history of this community have been 

rehabilitated. 

Seminole Rest, site of a prehistoric Indian 

mound, dates from about 4,000 to 500 years 

ago. Archeologists believe that the mound was 

a place for Timucuan Indians to gather and 

process clams. The two late-19thcentury 

rehabilitated residences are at the top of the 

18-foot-high mound. During the early 1900s, 

the owners refused to sell the contents of the 

mound for road construction material, thus 

preserving the evidence of the Timucuan 

people. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

10 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION 

Canaveral National Seashore is a superb 

example of a national park system unit where 

interagency cooperation is paramount. The 

Kennedy Space Center, a NASA property, 

owns approximately 70% of the lands within 

the national seashore boundary (about 39,000 

acres); much of that (34,000 acres) is comanaged by the National Park Service along 

with the adjacent Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was established under 

the administration of the Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife (now the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service) in 1963. (For more detail on 

land management and jurisdiction, please refer 

to the “Special Mandates and Administrative 

Commitments” section later in this chapter.) 

The national seashore is working with these 

agencies on numerous projects, such as feral 

hog control, nonnative plant removal, 

restoration of impacted wetlands, long-term 

monitoring of natural resource conditions, and 

implementation of a prescribed fire program. 

Additional partnerships with state and local 

agencies include seagrass, shorebird, and 

water-quality monitoring; mosquito control; 

and law enforcement patrols. 

Ditches and impoundments were created in 

many wetlands bordering Mosquito Lagoon 

before the national seashore’s establishment. 

Under agreements with the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 

State of Florida, current landowners of 

national seashore property, are required to 

allow mosquito control. NPS staff are working 

with several state and local agencies to 

accomplish this objective in an environmentally sound manner. An extensive system 

of ditches (beginning in the 1920s) and earthen 

dikes (in the 1960s and 1970s) was constructed 

to create impoundments to control water 

levels, salinity, and salt marsh mosquitoes. 

Many of these dikes are currently being 

breached or removed to reconnect valuable 

marsh areas with the lagoon system. 

NPS FACILITIES 

Canaveral National Seashore headquarters are 

in Titusville. The national seashore is divided 

into three districts for administrative purposes. 

The North District complex includes a new 

ranger station, visitor center, and education 

pavilion. The North District includes Apollo 

Beach and the islands north of the Gomez 

Grant Line (see map). There is a ranger station 

in the Oak Hill vicinity that includes Seminole 

Rest (east of U.S. 1 on River Road) and the 

Bill’s Hill area. The South District ranger 

station, in Brevard County, is 12 miles east of 

Titusville on State Route 402. The South 

District includes all lands east of State Route 3 

south of the Gomez Grant Line and north of 

the Kennedy Space Center. 

Besides the visitor information center, the 

North District includes visitor facilities such as 

beach parking areas, island campsites, hiking 

and canoe trails, comfort stations, and boat 

launches. Other sites include maintenance and 

research facilities. 

The Oak Hill area includes a visitor contact 

station, restroom facilities, parking area, and 

trails. 

The South District includes beach parking, 

boat launches, comfort stations, ranger station, 

and pole/troll water trails. 

Self-guided walking nature and historical trails 

(some with interpretive signs) can be found at 

Seminole Rest, Turtle Mound, Castle Windy, 

Eldora, and Eldora Hammock in the North 

District. A canoe trail extends around the 

mangrove islands in the North District. 

The national seashore has 24 miles of 

undeveloped beaches (Apollo Beach in the 

North District, Klondike Beach in the middle 

12 of the 24 miles, and Playalinda Beach in the 

South District). There are no designated picnic 

areas, public telephones, food services, beach 

showers (except at one location in the North 

District), or drinking water. Lifeguards are on 

duty from May 30 to September 1 at Playalinda 

Beach and at Apollo Beach. These beaches 
Overview of the National Seashore 

11 

have boardwalk access from paved parking 

areas to protect the fragile sand dunes from 

foot traffic. Beach access points for visitors 

with disabilities are at Playalinda Beach and at 

Apollo Beach. Klondike Beach, a 12-mile 

stretch between Apollo and Playalinda 

beaches, can only be accessed by foot, boat, 

and horseback (seasonally, with a permit). 

VISITOR ACTIVITIES 

Canaveral National Seashore features pristine 

beaches, picturesque hammocks, several 

historic structures, wide expanses of open 

lagoon, and vast seascape vistas. Visitors to the 

national seashore may enjoy walking the 

nature and historical trails during the cool 

winter months. Throughout the year 

recreational opportunities for visitors (average 

annual visitation is about one million) include 

lagoon and surf fishing, boating, sailing, 

canoeing, kayaking, surfing, sunbathing, 

swimming, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife 

viewing, hunting, and backcountry camping. 

The national seashore and adjacent Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge are well 

known for birding and are favored destinations 

for avid bird-watchers. 
12 

BACKGROUND 

Planning for the national seashore is a 

decision-making process, and general 

management planning is the first and broadest 

level of decision making for national park 

system units such as Canaveral National 

Seashore. General management plans (GMPs) 

are required for all units of the national park 

system and are intended to establish the future 

management direction of a park system unit. 

General management planning focuses on why 

the park unit was established (purpose), why it 

is special (significance, fundamental resources 

and values), and what resource conditions and 

visitor experiences should be achieved and 

maintained (desired future conditions). 

General management plans look years into the 

future and consider the park unit holistically, 

in its full ecological and cultural context and as 

part of a surrounding region. Although a 

general management plan provides the analysis 

and justification for future funding, the plan in 

no way guarantees that money will be 

forthcoming. Requirements for additional data 

or legal compliance and competing national 

park system priorities can delay implementation of actions. Full implementation of a plan 

may extend many years into the future. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) 

was developed by an interdisciplinary team in 

consultation with NPS offices; tribes; federal, 

state, and local agencies; organizations; and 

other interested parties; and substantial input 

and participation from the general public. 

PLAN PURPOSE AND NEED 

This General Management Plan provides 

comprehensive guidance for perpetuating 

natural systems, preserving cultural resources, 

and providing opportunities for quality visitor 

experiences at Canaveral National Seashore. 

Its purpose is to decide how the National Park 

Service can best fulfill the national seashore’s 

purpose, maintain its significance, and protect 

its resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. 

This Final General Management Plan describes 

the general path that the National Park Service 

would follow in managing the national 

seashore during the next 20 years or more. The 

plan does not provide specific and detailed 

answers to every issue facing the national 

seashore, but rather is a framework to assist 

NPS managers in making decisions today and 

in the future. The plan will 

 identify and support the national 

seashore’s purpose, significance, and 

fundamental resources and values 

 provide general guidance for how to 

manage resources and provide for visitor 

use 

 outline a general approach for facilities 

management, access strategies, and 

development patterns 

 clearly define desired resource conditions 

and visitor experience opportunities 

 ensure that the foundation for decision 

making has been developed in consultation 

with the public and adopted by NPS 

leadership after sufficient analysis of the 

benefits, impacts, and economic costs of 

alternative courses of action 

This Final General Management Plan is needed 

to update the management framework for the 

national seashore, address changing issues and 

conditions, and incorporate new resource 

information. The national seashore’s current 

General Management Plan was approved in 

1982 and amended in 1998 to address management issues for the Seminole Rest property that 

was added to the national seashore in 1988. 

Conditions in the national seashore have 

changed substantially since the early 1980s. 

The beach access road in the South District has 

been realigned outside of the primary NASA 

security zone, greatly increasing the number of 

days the district is open to visitation each year. 

Highly popular pontoon boat tours have made 
Background 

13 

Mosquito Lagoon accessible to ever-increasing 

numbers of visitors. 

The Seminole Rest property, with significant 

archeological and historic resources, has been 

added to the national seashore. The historic 

Eldora State House has been rehabilitated and 

opened for public visitation. A shipwreck 

survivor’s camp associated with a French fleet’s 

attempt to establish a settlement in Florida in 

1565 has been discovered in the national 

seashore. As a significant incident in the 

history of colonial North America, the site 

should be interpreted to the public. These 

developments, along with other related issues, 

require more complete integration of archeological, historic, cultural landscape, and 

ethnographic resources into national seashore 

planning and management. 

Other recent developments in the national 

seashore include acquisition of 13 retained use 

and life estates in 2002, thus necessitating a 

decision about what to do with the lands 

associated with those sites. One research 

facility has been established in the national 

seashore under agreement with the University 

of Central Florida, and a number of major 

studies are underway. The national seashore 

has developed several agreements with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, several state 

agencies, and the local mosquito-control 

districts. The agreement for mosquito control 

is currently being renewed, to provide for 

rehabilitation of impounded wetlands in 

several thousand acres of the national 

seashore. 

Additionally, staff of the national seashore is 

encountering critical issues not addressed in 

the 1982 plan as amended in 1988. Population 

pressures in the area are increasingly impacting 

the national seashore. The University of 

Central Florida (UCF) has completed studies 

that show boat wakes are damaging certain 

oyster reefs. The University of Central Florida 

and Dynamac at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (now Innovative Health 

Applications) have documented damage to 

seagrass beds. Anecdotal evidence from anglers 

indicates that their enjoyment decreases as 

boating traffic increases. Studies are currently 

underway to better understand the effects of 

fishing and boat speed on aquatic resources. 

There are increasing pressures to allow 

personal watercraft and provide commercial 

services in the national seashore. On warm 

weekends, the North District parking areas are 

full by 9:00 a.m. and all other visitors must be 

turned away. 

Each of these changes and issues has major 

implications for how visitors access and use the 

national seashore, the facilities needed to 

support those uses, how resources are 

managed, and how the National Park Service 

manages its operations. Thus, a new general 

management plan is essential to provide longrange guidance for handling increasing numbers of visitors, addressing new resource and 

land protection issues, developing adequate 

visitor and administrative facilities, planning 

interpretive opportunities at sites recently 

opened to visitors, and providing an array of 

diverse quality experiences for visitors. 

A general management plan also is needed to 

meet the requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978 and NPS policy, 

which mandate development of a general 

management plan for each unit in the national 

park system. 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

Issues and concerns relating to the national 

seashore were identified during scoping (early 

information gathering) and during public 

review of the draft general management plan. 

Those who participated in this process 

included the general public; NPS staff; 

representatives from other city, county, state, 

and federal government agencies; and 

representatives from various public and private 

organizations. An issue is defined as an 

opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding the 

use or management of public lands. Issues are 

considered in the planning process because 

they represent obstacles to achieving desired 

conditions or goals. 

Comments were solicited at public meetings, 

through planning newsletters, and on the NPS 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

14 

planning website. Comments received during 

scoping and public review of the draft plan 

demonstrated that there is much that the 

public likes about the national seashore—its 

management, use, and facilities. The issues and 

concerns generally involve determining 

appropriate visitor use and types and levels of 

facility development, services, and activities 

that are compatible with desired resource 

conditions. The general management plan 

alternatives provide strategies for addressing 

the issues within the context of the national 

seashore’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. 

The following issues and management concerns were identified for Canaveral National 

Seashore. The issues in this document played a 

part in the identification of the impact topics 

(see chapter 3) analyzed in this document. 

Natural Resources 

The national seashore encompasses a relatively 

stable barrier island backed by a productive 

estuarine lagoon system that provides habitat 

for a variety of species. The national seashore 

provides habitat to 14 federally threatened and 

endangered species as well as other special 

status species. This complex ecological web is 

influenced by water quality degradation; water 

flow alterations; the introduction and spread 

of nonnative, invasive, and nuisance species; 

and increasing recreational uses such as 

boating and fishing. Without strategies to 

address these influences, it will be difficult for 

the national seashore to protect this ecosystem. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What are the desired resource conditions 

for the various natural resources in the 

national seashore, and how should they be 

preserved, managed, and interpreted? 

 What strategies should the national 

seashore use to manage recreation to 

eliminate and/or minimize impacts 

associated with visitor use? 

 What should the National Park Service do 

to restore and or mitigate areas of the 

national seashore that have been impacted 

by historical and ongoing activities such as 

mosquito control efforts? 

 What programs should be established to 

allow terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, 

including threatened and endangered 

species such as nesting sea turtles, to 

prosper in the national seashore while 

providing for visitor use? 

 What opportunities should the national 

seashore pursue to work in partnership 

with other agencies and adjacent landowners to address regional natural 

resource issues such as wildlife protection; 

beach erosion; and nonnative, invasive, 

and nuisance species management? 

Water Quality. The long-term health of 

national seashore resources—naturally 

occurring plant and animal life—is heavily 

dependent on outside influences such as water 

quality. Especially critical is the quality of 

water that enters Mosquito Lagoon from 

adjacent lands and waters. Degradation of the 

lagoon’s water quality occurs from 

surrounding urban development runoff and 

pollution by mercury, lead, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), septic tank leakage and 

overflows, and other contaminants. Mosquito 

Lagoon is part of the Indian River Lagoon 

system for which numerous governmental 

agencies have some level of management 

responsibility. As part of the Indian River 

Lagoon complex, Mosquito Lagoon is 

designated as an Estuary of National Significance. Some areas of Mosquito Lagoon are 

also designated class II shellfish harvesting 

water bodies. The National Park Service 

recognizes that without mutually beneficial 

working relationships and partnerships with 

agencies, organizations, and individuals 

beyond national seashore boundaries, it would 

be difficult to maintain or improve the lagoon’s 

water quality. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What management strategies should be 

adopted to maintain or improve Mosquito 

Lagoon’s water quality? 
Background 

15 

 What partnerships with other agencies and 

adjacent landowners are needed to address 

regional issues such as water quality? 

Fisheries. The appropriateness of fishing, both 

recreational and commercial, was identified as 

a concern by many because of the potential to 

deplete fish stocks, damage fragile seagrass 

beds and oyster reefs, and destroy other 

species through accidental captures. Members 

of the public have noted that some peoples’

livelihoods are dependent on fishing, while 

others have voiced support to provide for 

sustainable fisheries. 

This GMP/EIS does not address changes in the 

management of commercial fishing in 

Canaveral National Seashore. Comments on 

the Draft GMP/EIS brought forth the question 

of the NPS authority to allow commercial 

fishing in the national seashore. After 

additional research, the National Park Service 

has determined that the general regulation (36 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 2.3 [d][4]) 

prohibiting commercial fishing applies at 

Canaveral National Seashore. Due to the 

nature of this issue, the future management of 

commercial fishing will not be addressed in the 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. Existing 

commercial fishing will be retained as an 

element common to all alternatives in this Final 

GMP/EIS, but the National Park Service does 

not intend to leave commercial fishing 

unchanged for the long term. The National 

Park Service intends to separately address 

commercial fishing upon completion of the 

general management plan. 

Existing commercial fishing will be retained as 

an element common to all alternatives in this 

GMP/EIS, but the National Park Service does 

not intend to leave commercial fishing 

unchanged for the long term. The National 

Park Service intends to separately address 

these issues on completion of the general 

management plan. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What is the appropriate type and level of 

recreational fishing that can be provided 

on Mosquito Lagoon while maintaining 

sustainable fisheries and protecting 

seagrass beds and oyster reefs? 

 What partnerships with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

other federal and state agencies are needed 

to ensure sustainable fisheries? 

 What management strategies should be 

adopted to maintain healthy and 

sustainable fish populations while 

providing for visitor use? 

Cultural Resources 

The national seashore’s cultural resources 

were comprehensively surveyed in a 2008 

Canaveral National Seashore Historic 

Resource Study. These cultural resources 

reflect the span of human history in the Florida 

peninsula from 4000 BC to the early 20th 

century. These resources, which are both 

submerged and terrestrial, include more than 

180 identified American Indian middens and 

burial mounds and four historic buildings 

associated with late 19th and early 20th 

century Florida settlement. Four cultural 

landscapes have also been identified. The 

eroding effect of natural processes and human 

activities creates a constant challenge to NPS 

managers for protecting, preserving, and 

interpreting these resources. As visitation 

increases, resources could be compromised, 

artifacts at shipwreck sites and historic fabric 

of historic buildings could be lost and 

archeological sites could lose integrity. 

Without strategies to balance location and 

density of visitor activities, it will be difficult 

for NPS managers to protect and preserve 

cultural resources. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What resource conditions are desired for 

archeological, cultural landscape, historic, 

museum collections, and ethnographic 

resources? 

 In what ways and to what extent should 

Canaveral National Seashore emphasize 

cultural resource protection and 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16 

preservation within the overall context of 

the seashore’s natural landscapes? 

 What would be appropriate levels of 

interpretation and visitor access to cultural 

resource sites? 

Visitor Experience 

Visitors to the national seashore enjoy various 

activities. These include hiking; horseback 

riding; picnicking; running/jogging; scenic 

driving; wildlife viewing; birding; photography; 

motorized boating—recreational and tour 

boating; nonmotorized boating—kayaking, 

canoeing, sailing, and rafting; bicycling; 

primitive camping—backcountry, beach, and 

island; swimming and sunbathing; surfing and 

wind surfing; fishing boat, shoreline, and 

freshwater/salt water; crabbing; and walking. 

Opportunities for activities have opened up at 

sites such as Seminole Rest and the rehabilitated Eldora State House. 

The national seashore’s proximity to the 

growing population of east central Florida is 

increasing pressure for the national seashore to 

accommodate local recreational demands. The 

number of visitors to the national seashore is 

expected to increase as a result of the 

continuing population growth, expansion of 

tourism, and national seashore’s proximity to 

the Kennedy Space Center. The continued 

increase in visitor numbers, as well as urban 

development of the area surrounding the 

national seashore, will likely degrade visitor 

experience and the uncrowded beach and 

lagoon experience anticipated by the national 

seashore’s original congressional sponsors 

could be diminished. With more users, noise 

levels and the demand for services and facilities 

will likely increase, as well as the likelihood of 

visitor conflicts, accidents, and resource 

damage. 

During the past 20 years, boating (associated 

with recreational activities as well as commercial fishing) has increased significantly in the 

national seashore, and the highly popular NPS 

pontoon boat tours have made Mosquito 

Lagoon accessible to ever-increasing numbers 

of visitors. 

Some livelihoods depend on national seashore 

waters, and thus, opposition exists to closing 

any areas to motorized vessels. Some people 

desire more boat launches and docks 

throughout Mosquito Lagoon. However, 

others have voiced concern that some national 

seashore users are abusing its natural and 

cultural resources through irresponsible 

boating activities. Among other resources, 

seagrass beds, oyster reefs, manatees, and 

archeological sites have been adversely 

impacted by boat propellers and speeding 

boats. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What strategies should the national 

seashore initiate to manage anticipated 

visitation increases and diverse visitor 

needs and expectations while maintaining 

high quality visitor experiences and 

preserving national seashore resources? 

 What are the amount, types, and diversity 

of opportunities the national seashore can 

provide while still promoting resource 

preservation and stewardship? 

 What is the appropriate type and level of 

boating activities that can be provided on 

Mosquito Lagoon while protecting and 

interpreting the national seashore’s natural 

and cultural resources? 

 What strategies can the National Park 

Service develop in partnership with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state 

to protect and interpret the national 

seashore’s fragile resources while 

providing for an appropriate type and level 

of boating? 

Interpretation/Education. The national 

seashore needs to upgrade and improve its 

efforts to educate visitors and the general 

public on the ecological significance and values 

of the national seashore and its natural and 

cultural resources within the context of the 

ecosystem that encompasses east-central 

Florida. Various recommendations to enhance 

the national seashore’s interpretive efforts 

include more active and diverse guided and 

unguided interpretive programs—such as boat 

and eco tours, wayside exhibits, interpretive 
Background 

17 

trails, guided walks and talks at significant 

historic and archeological sites, expanded 

museum exhibits, boater education, and formal 

seminar programs. New interpretive 

opportunities have also been provided with the 

addition of the Seminole Rest archeological 

and historic site, rehabilitation of the Eldora 

State House, and discovery of a shipwreck 

survivors camp from a French fleet attempting 

to attack the Spanish in 1565. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What opportunities exist in the national 

seashore to provide for interpretation and 

environmental education for visitors and 

the general public? 

 In what ways could the national seashore’s 

interpretive and educational programs be 

enhanced in partnership with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, local school systems, 

environmental groups, guides, and other 

interested area organizations? 

 What are the appropriate levels of 

interpretation and public access for the 

national seashore’s natural and cultural 

resources? 

Orientation and National Seashore Identity. 

Visitors have access to the national seashore 

from the open waters of Mosquito Lagoon, 

Indian River, the ocean, and the Intracoastal 

Waterway. Access points at land-based 

developed areas include the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge in the southern 

portion of the national seashore and public 

beaches and private development associated 

with the New Smyrna Beach, Edgewater, and 

Oak Hill areas in the northern portion. The 

southern part of the seashore lacks facilities to 

orient visitors. National seashore boundary 

signs are inadequate in certain areas and tend 

to cause visitor confusion because of multiple 

signs relating to the national wildlife refuge, 

national seashore, and adjacent Kennedy Space 

Center. Many visitors—particularly boaters in 

Mosquito Lagoon and the Intracoastal 

Waterway—do not know when they are in the 

national seashore. These factors make it 

difficult for NPS staff to determine the type 

and level of visitor use it receives and provide 

advance information to visitors on recreational 

opportunities, events and activities, rules, 

regulations, and navigational information. 

Thus, many visitors find it difficult to gain a 

comprehensive understanding of the national 

seashore, its significant natural and cultural 

features, and the diversity of recreational 

experiences that it offers within the context of 

the regional ecosystem. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What opportunities are there to develop 

regional partnerships between the national 

seashore and other public and private 

agencies, organizations, and groups to 

provide visitors with advance information 

to take advantage of the national seashore’s 

and region’s recreational opportunities? 

 What strategies can be developed and 

addressed in a regional context that will 

enable visitors to know that they are in a 

unit of the national park system? 

Climate Change 

Climate change refers to any substantial 

changes in average climatic conditions (such as 

average temperature, precipitation, or wind) or 

climatic variability (such as seasonality or 

storm frequencies) lasting for an extended 

period of time (decades or longer). Recent 

reports by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program, the National Academy of Sciences, 

and the United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provide 

clear evidence that climate change is occurring 

and will accelerate in the coming decades. The 

effects of climate change on national parks are 

beginning to emerge as both science and 

impacts become clearer; however, it is difficult 

to predict the full extent of the changes that are 

expected under an altered climate regime. 

The National Park Service recognizes that the 

major drivers of climate change are outside the 

control of the agency. However, climate 

change is a phenomenon whose impacts 

throughout the national park system cannot be 

discounted. The National Park Service has 

identified climate change as one of the major 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18 

threats to national park system units, and has 

developed a Climate Change Response 

Strategy (NPS 2010) that focuses on science, 

adaptation, mitigation, and communication. 

Some climate change impacts are already 

occurring or are expected in Canaveral 

National Seashore in the time frame of this 

management plan. Therefore, climate change is 

included in this document to recognize its role 

in the changing environment of the national 

seashore and provide an understanding of its 

impact; other factors driving environmental 

change include population growth in the area 

(subsidence of water table, increased visitation, 

pollution), shifts in visitor use patterns, and 

land-use change and development around the 

national seashore. 

Although climate change is a global phenomenon, it manifests differently depending on 

regional and local factors. Climate change is 

expected to result in many changes to the 

Atlantic coast of the eastern United States, 

including warming ocean waters, hotter 

summer temperatures and fewer winter 

freezes, sea level rise, and higher storm surges. 

In addition to these likely widespread effects, 

specific impacts on Canaveral National 

Seashore could include shifting shorelines due 

to coastal erosion, erosion of archeological 

sites, saltwater intrusion into soils and 

vegetation, and changes in the output of the 

watersheds feeding into the national seashore 

area. This dynamic environment is expected to 

affect the natural and cultural resources in the 

national seashore, as well as visitor use 

patterns. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What is the contribution of the proposed 

project to climate change such as greenhouse gas emissions and the “carbon 

footprint”? 

 What are the anticipated effects of climate 

change on the national seashore resources 

and visitors that are affected by the 

management alternatives? 

Because the contribution of the proposed project to climate change is negligible under any 

alternative, the former issue has been dismissed. The latter issue, a discussion of the 

anticipated effects of climate change on 

national seashore resources, has been carried 

forward. 

Access/Circulation 

Visitors and the general public have expressed 

varying opinions as to the modes and levels of 

access and circulation that should be provided 

in the national seashore. Some people support 

expansion of the parking area that serves the 

public boat ramp at the national seashore’s 

north entrance; expanded parking for vehicles 

and boat trailers throughout the national seashore; additional access to beaches via more 

dune crossings; access for birders before sunrise; more canoe/kayak access points, hours of 

access, and biking/hiking trails that are connected to adjacent city and county trail 

systems; provision for disabled visitors to 

access and park at appropriate sites throughout 

the national seashore, including the Eldora 

State House. 

Despite the increasing pressure for more 

public access to and enhanced circulation 

within the national seashore, some visitors and 

members of the general public are concerned 

that accommodation of these demands could 

impact significant natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources as well as the high quality visitor 

experiences. In the northern section of the 

national seashore, the parking areas fill up 

quickly, particularly during peak visitation 

periods. With continuing population growth, 

the potential exists for increased traffic, parking congestion, pollution, and public safety 

concerns. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What opportunities are there to provide 

visitors with access to the national seashore 

using alternative transportation modes and 

services other than their personal vehicles? 

 What level of public access and parking is 

appropriate throughout the national 

seashore and how should they be 

provided? 
Background 

19 

 What opportunities are there to circulate 

visitors and connect visitors with various 

places such as cultural resource sites in the 

northern portion of the national seashore? 

Commercial Use 

Commercial services support various visitor 

activities. Although the National Park Service 

as a whole has a management framework for 

commercial services, the national seashore 

lacks the staffing numbers to adequately 

manage commercial services for recreational 

sportfishing. Some users acknowledge the 

value of commercial services but express 

concerns that irreparable damage to the 

sensitive cultural and natural resources could 

result from overuse unless visitation levels and 

types of activities and their locations are 

balanced by resource preservation. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What are the desired amount, type, and 

distribution of recreational and commercial opportunities in Mosquito Lagoon 

and other areas of the national seashore? 

 

Facilities 

Visitors and the general public have expressed 

varying opinions as to the type and level of 

facilities that should be provided in the 

national seashore to support activities and 

visitor use. Some prefer minimal facilities, 

while others would like additional parking 

space, improved restrooms, drinking water, 

and showers at beach access locations. Others 

have indicated interest in more boat launches, 

ramps, and docks with temporary tie-ups 

throughout Mosquito Lagoon; facilities for 

picnicking, horseback riding, and hiking; and a 

diverse range of camping opportunities. There 

also is interest in developing sites for large 

group activities in areas that are near local 

communities to accommodate family and 

organized outings, environmental education, 

and community events. 

The national seashore’s headquarters is in 

Titusville, but congressional legislation in 1988 

provided for a new headquarters and visitor 

center to be located on a 10-acre tract near the 

center of the national seashore on U.S. 

Highway 1. Other recent developments include 

the acquisition of 13 retained use and life 

estates in 2002. Additions to the national 

seashore, such as the Seminole Rest site, 

rehabilitation and opening to the public of the 

Eldora State House, and discovery of the 

French shipwreck survivors’ camp, present 

new opportunities for recreational use, 

interpretation, and resource preservation. 

Utility infrastructure, including the national 

seashore’s comfort stations and water and 

telephone lines, are inadequate and need 

upgrading. Currently, there is an imbalance 

between visitation levels, facility and 

infrastructure capacity, and the need to 

maintain the national seashore’s uncrowded 

and undeveloped qualities into the future in 

accord with its purpose. 

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 Without compromising national seashore 

natural, cultural, and scenic resources, 

what types and levels of facilities are 

needed to provide for visitor use and 

safety, interpretation, resource protection, 

and NPS administration and operations 

while remaining consistent with the 

national seashore’s enabling legislation? 

 Where are the most appropriate areas to 

locate functions and facilities, including the 

national seashore’s headquarters and 

visitor center? 

 What is the appropriate use of the land at 

the Bill’s Hill area? 

 What is the appropriate use of developed 

areas such as Seminole Rest? 

 What level of facilities is needed to support 

visitor use in the Bill’s Hill area? 
20 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

PURPOSE 

Purpose statements convey the reason for 

which the unit was set aside as part of the 

national park system. Grounded in an analysis 

of national seashore legislation (appendix A) 

and legislative history, purpose statements also 

provide primary criteria against which the 

appropriateness of plan recommendations, 

operational decisions, and actions are tested. 

Canaveral National Seashore was set aside 

by Congress to preserve and protect its 

natural, scenic, scientific, ecological, 

archeological, and historic values and 

resources and to provide for public outdoor 

recreational use and enjoyment of those 

resources. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Significance statements capture the essence of 

the park unit’s importance to the nation’s 

natural and cultural heritage. They describe the 

unit’s distinctiveness and describe why an area 

is important within regional, national, and 

global contexts. This helps managers focus 

their efforts and limited funding on protection 

and enjoyment of attributes that are directly 

related to the purpose of the park unit. The 

significance of Canaveral National Seashore 

includes the following five components. 

The 24 miles of beach within Canaveral 

National Seashore constitute the longest 

extent of undeveloped pristine beach along the 

Florida Atlantic Coast and provide 

opportunities for uncrowded seashore 

recreation. 

Mosquito Lagoon is one of the most diverse 

and productive estuaries in North America 

and is designated an estuary of national 

significance and an outstanding Florida 

water. 

The national seashore contains prime habitat 

that provides sanctuary for 14 federally listed 

threatened and endangered species of birds, 

mammals, and reptiles, including nesting 

beach for several thousand protected marine 

turtles. 

The national seashore encompasses a 

transition zone between a variety of 

temperate and subtropical plant and animal 

species, found together only in east central 

Florida, and classic elements of subtropical 

dune and hammock plant communities. 

The national seashore’s cultural resources 

reflect the span of human history in the 

Florida peninsula from 2000 BC to the early 

20th century. These resources include more 

than 180 identified American Indian middens 

and burial mounds and four historic 

buildings associated with late-19th and early20th century Florida settlement. 

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES 

AND VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values are systems, 

processes, features, visitor experiences, stories, 

and scenes that deserve primary consideration 

in planning and management because they are 

critical to maintaining a park unit’s purpose 

and significance. Fundamental resources and 

values are subject to periodic review and 

updates based on new information or changing 

conditions. The following fundamental 

resources and values are only a portion of the 

national seashore’s total resources and values; 

all resources and values were considered in this 

planning effort. 

Prime Terrestrial and Marine Habitat 

 barrier island ecosystem; Mosquito 

Lagoon, an estuary of national significance; 

coastal hammocks; pine flatwoods; and 

ocean waters 

 sanctuary for special status species, 

shorebirds, and migratory waterfowl 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

21 

 prime beach nesting sites for endangered 

sea turtles 

 temperate and subtropical ecosystem 

interface 

Cultural Resources 

 Historic Structures 

o Eldora State House and Cisterns 

o Instone House and caretaker’s 

cottage at Seminole Rest 

o “Confederate salt works” 

o Old Haulover Canal and Portage 

o Schultz House 

o Elliot Plantation 

o Sugar Mill Ruins 

o King’s Road 

o New Haulover Canal 

 Cultural Landscapes (identified, but not 

inventoried or evaluated) 

o Eldora Historic District 

o Haulover Canal 

o Indian River Citrus Landscape 

o Seminole Rest 

 Prehistoric Archeological Sites 

o Turtle Mound (shell middens) 

o Castle Windy (shell middens) 

o Seminole Rest (shell middens) 

o Ross Hammock (shell middens, 

burial mounds, and Timucuan Indian 

Village site) 

 Museum Collections 

Recreational, Educational, 

and Scenic Values 

 There is a wide range of outstanding 

aquatic-based recreational opportunities 

including traditional beach activities, 

boating, and sportfishing. 

 There are interpretive and educational 

programs that provide opportunities for 

visitors to discover, understand, and 

appreciate the national seashore’s natural 

and cultural history. 

 The 24 miles of relatively undeveloped 

coastline and inland waters of the national 

seashore provide visitors opportunities to 

experience the outstanding scenery of 

Florida’s east central coast in an 

uncrowded setting. 

INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Interpretive themes describe ideas, concepts, 

or messages about a unit in the national park 

system that are so important all visitors should 

have the opportunity to understand them. 

They provide guidelines for selecting 

interpretive stories and for planning facilities 

and activities to tell those stories. 

All interpretation should relate to the primary 

theme; each subtheme should be addressed by 

some part of the national seashore interpretive 

program. 

Primary Theme 

From ancient times to the present, this barrier 

island ecosystem has provided sanctuary and 

sustenance to humans of many cultures; traces 

of their existence, along with the water, 

wildlife, and plant life, provide us with a 

timeless view of old Florida and a glimpse into 

the future. 

Subthemes 

1. The flora found here between the subtropical and temperate climates provide 

enjoyment for the amateur botanist and 

allow scientists to study this unique 

blending of plant life. 

2. Although the national seashore serves as a 

retreat for visitors, Mosquito Lagoon provides a safe spawning ground and nursery 

for saltwater fish, crustaceans, marine 

mammals, and countless invertebrates. 

3. Numerous shell mounds and burial sites 

spanning 4,000 years are a testament to 

early inhabitants’ will and determination to 

reap the benefits found in this area and to 

remain steadfastly a part of this harsh and 

unyielding environment. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22 

4. From early advances in farming and fishing 

to the latest space technology, this area has 

been a proving ground for many scientific 

discoveries. 

5. Humans have been drawn to the waters of 

Canaveral for survival, travel, economics, 

and recreation; we must find a way to 

protect aquatic resources that we are prone 

to destroy. 

6. Canaveral’s beaches provide nesting 

habitat for three species of endangered and 

threatened sea turtles and offer visitors 

opportunities to observe this amazing 

natural process and understand the plight 

of these animals. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative commitments refer to requirements that are specific to 

each national park system unit, in this case the 

national seashore. These formal requirements 

are often defined in the enabling legislation 

authorizing a new unit of the national park 

system. Public Law 93-626, which established 

Canaveral National Seashore as a new unit on 

January 3, 1975, stated that the national 

seashore was established to “preserve and 

protect the outstanding natural, scenic, 

scientific, ecological, and historic values of 

certain lands, shoreline, and waters of the State 

of Florida, and to provide for public outdoor 

recreation use and enjoyment of the same.” 

Earlier, on December 11, 1974, the Senate 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

reported that the national seashore’s enabling 

legislation was intended “to ensure the 

continuing protection of the natural features 

and to afford opportunities for leisure activities 

in an undeveloped uncrowded setting.” 

Public Law 93-626 included the following 

stipulations: 

Section 1 provided for a maximum size of 

the national seashore not to exceed 67,500 

acres of land and water. Minor revisions of 

the boundary are permitted by the secretary 

of the Department of the Interior after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Section 2 specified that 

no new construction or development 

shall be permitted within the national 

seashore except for the construction of 

such facilities as the Secretary deems 

necessary for the health and safety of 

visitors or for proper administration of 

the Seashore. 

Section 3 provided that, except for property 

deemed necessary for visitor facilities or for 

access to or administration of a seashore, 

owners of private noncommercial 

residential property may retain for themselves and their successors or assigns, a 

right of use and occupancy for a definite 

term not to exceed 25 years or for a term 

ending at the death of the owner or spouse, 

whichever is later. 

Section 4 provided for hunting, fishing, and 

trapping on the lands and waters that are 

specifically authorized in accordance with 

the appropriate state and federal laws. Any 

restrictions can be effective only after consulting with the appropriate state agency. 

Section 5 provided for continued management of sections of the national seashore 

for wildlife purposes by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service at the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. A delineation of 

management areas between the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Park 

Service was generally indicated in section 

5(c)1, which also provided for transfer of 

some NASA land at the center of the 

national seashore to the National Park 

Service. 

This land, in the Oak Hill Area amounting 

to 1,088 acres near the junction of U.S. 1 

and State Route 3, “may be used for the 

purpose of establishing such facilities as are 

needed for the administration of the 

seashore, for the construction of the 

principal visitor center which shall be 

designated as the ‘Spessard L. Holland 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

23 

Visitor Center,’ and for a central access to 

the seashore.” Any portion of this area, as 

well as any other of the NASA lands, may be 

closed to the public when necessary for 

space operations upon the request of the 

NASA Administrator. 

In administering the shoreline and adjacent 

lands of the national seashore the Secretary 

would retain such lands in their natural and 

primitive conditions, prohibit vehicular 

traffic on the beach except for administrative purposes, and develop only those 

facilities deemed necessary for public health 

and safety. 

Section 6 established the Canaveral 

National Seashore Advisory Commission to 

terminate 10 years from the date of 

establishment of the national seashore. The 

commission was terminated formally on 

January 2, 1985. 

Section 7 provided that the NASA 

Administrator grant such use of the 

Kennedy Space Center area to the National 

Park Service as he determines is “not 

inconsistent with public safety and the 

needs of the space and defense programs of 

the Nation.” Furthermore, “any portions of 

the John F. Kennedy Space Center within 

the Seashore not transferred to the 

Secretary shall remain under the control 

and jurisdiction of the Administrator.”

Section 8 directed that within a three-year 

period of the national seashore’s 

establishment, lands within the national 

seashore be reviewed for “suitability or 

non-suitability . . . for preservation as 

wilderness.” A wilderness study was 

completed in 1982. As a result of this 

review, the National Park Service found 

that none of the lands or waters within 

Canaveral National Seashore was suitable 

for wilderness. The jurisdiction by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and subsequent management by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of about 70% 

of the national seashore is legislatively 

authorized and covered by a mandated 

agreement to ensure use of the lands in a 

manner that is consistent with the needs of 

the space and defense programs. More than 

20% of the national seashore is owned by 

the State of Florida, and by legislation state 

lands can only be acquired by donation. 

(The amount of state lands is difficult to 

determine because these lands are 

submerged lands, literally under water.) 

Future land transfers are expected to 

contain jurisdictional limitations to provide 

the continuation of mosquito control 

activities. Because of these jurisdictional 

limitations, the National Park Service 

cannot ensure that management of the 

national seashore would be consistent with 

the Wilderness Act. 

Section 9 imposed a limit of $500,000 on the 

development of “essential public facilities.” 

Section 9(a) also set a limit of “not more 

than $7,941,000 for the acquisition of lands 

and interest in lands.” 

Interagency Agreements 

Canaveral National Seashore is unusual among 

national park system units in that most of the 

area within its boundaries is under shared 

jurisdiction with other agencies. The national 

seashore is managed under existing interagency/cooperative agreements between (1) 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, which has jurisdiction over 

about 70% of the national seashore’s acreage, 

and the Department of the Interior, and (2) 

between the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The provisions in 

these agreements provide much of the national 

seashore’s operational direction. In addition, 

the National Park Service is pursuing a 

memorandum of understanding with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission that outlines the commitment of 

both agencies to collaborate on the proposed 

fishery management plan for the national 

seashore. 

Agreement between the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and 

the Department of the Interior, April 2, 

1975. On April 2, 1975, the National 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

transferred 1,088 acres in the Oak Hill area, 

generally known as the “Bill’s Hill” tract, to the 

National Park Service to be administered by 

Canaveral National Seashore pursuant to 

provisions in the national seashore’s enabling 

legislation. 

An agreement dated the same day as the deed 

transfer established the basis for national 

seashore use of NASA lands pursuant to the 

national seashore’s enabling legislation. This 

agreement specified several important conditions to be imposed upon the Department of 

the Interior, including the requirement that 

any or all of the NASA lands and waters could 

be closed to the public upon request by the 

director of the Kennedy Space Center when 

called for by the nation’s space program. In 

general, all programs of the Department of the 

Interior on NASA lands shall be undertaken 

only after specific NASA approval, and no 

“permanent” facilities shall be constructed 

except those on the lands specifically deeded 

to the National Park Service for administrative 

purposes [i.e., the 1,088-acre “Bill’s Hill” tract]. 

Even on this 1,088-acre tract, the agreement 

required that the siting and nature of 

“permanent” facilities be coordinated with the 

Kennedy Space Center to “assure consistency 

with public safety and with the needs of the 

space defense programs of the Nation.” 

Section 1 of the agreement stated that the 

portion of Kennedy Space Center lands 

transferred by the enabling act to the 

Department of the Interior — 

described in the Act as bounded by the 

northern boundary of the H. M. 

Gomez Grant and containing 1,088 

acres more or less . . . shall be used in 

accordance with the Act for the 

purpose of establishing such facilities 

as are needed for the administration of 

the Seashore. . . 

Section 2 of the agreement provides that the 

Department of the Interior “shall enter upon 

and use the remainder of the property 

(between 39,000 and 40,000 acres) for Seashore 

and Refuge purposes” and have “primary 

administration” of the area for all purposes 

unrelated to the U.S. space program (under 

some conditions that were listed). 

Memorandum of Understanding between 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, July 10, 1975. This 

document, which has been updated, 

renegotiated, and/or amended as an 

interagency agreement on a periodic basis 

since 1975 (the current agreement is dated 

January 15, 1996, and was signed February 7, 

1997), established the individual and joint 

responsibilities of the two bureaus for 

administration of those lands and waters as 

described in section 5 (1) of Public Law 93-626, 

the national seashore’s enabling legislation. 

The document established the basis for 

cooperation on mutual programs between the 

two bureaus for an overlap area, comprising 

34,345 acres in and around Mosquito Lagoon, 

which it referred to as the “Joint Management 

Area.” (See all Alternatives maps.) 

Article 2, section 1 of the July 10, 1975, 

document stated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service shall administer those lands and waters 

as described in section 5 (1) of Public Law 93-

626, and 

both agencies agree that the line 

between the ‘marsh and the dunes’ as 

specified in this section shall refer 

specifically to the western toe of the 

primary dunes or eastern edge of the 

original ‘sand trail’ between the 

northern boundary of H. M. Gomez 

Grant Line extending southerly to the 

south end of the ‘sand trail’ near 

Camera Pad 10 and continuing 

southerly along the west edge of the 

Beach Road and/or beach parking 

areas, including the Eddy Creek launch 

site, to the intersection with the 

railroad and continuing westerly on 

Max Hoeck Wildlife Drive along the 

north edge of the railroad to the 

junction with State Road 3, and 

continuing north along the east side of 

State Road 3 to Gomez Grant Line and 

then easterly along Gomez Grant Line 

and an extension of said Grant Line 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

25 

across Mosquito Lagoon to the 

beginning. The FWS will continue to 

manage for refuge purposes all of the 

lands and waters south of the Gomez 

Grant Line and west of the primary 

dunes and Beach Road, north of the 

government railroad track and east of 

State Road 3, including the mainland, 

Mosquito Lagoon, and east side of the 

barrier island. For the purposes of this 

agreement, this area was designated as 

the ‘Joint Area.’ 

The July 10, 1975, document also contained a 

note that stated the following: 

Upon completion of the Playalinda 

Beach Access Road . . . , Article II. 1 will 

read as follows: The FWS shall 

administer those lands and waters as 

described in section 5 (1) of Public Law 

93-626, and both agencies agree that the 

line between the ‘marsh and the dunes’ 

as specified in this section shall refer 

specifically to the western toe of the 

primary dunes or eastern edge of the 

original sand trail between the northern 

boundary of the H. M. Gomez Grant 

Line southerly to the north end of the 

beach road near Camera Pad 10, and 

continuing southerly along the west edge 

of the beach road and/or beach parking 

areas to the intersection with State Road 

402 and continuing westerly on the 

north edge of SR 402 to the junction of 

Max Hoeck Road, continuing westerly 

on the south edge of Max Hoeck Road 

to the junction with State Road 3, 

continuing northerly on the east side of 

State Road 3 to H. M. Gomez Grant Line 

and continue easterly along Gomez 

Grant Line and an extension of said 

Grant Line across Mosquito Lagoon to 

the beginning. The FWS will continue to 

manage for refuge purposes all of the 

lands and waters south of the Gomez 

Grant Line and west of the primary 

dunes and Beach Road, north of State 

Road 3, including mainland, Mosquito 

Lagoon and west side of the barrier 

land.” For the purposes of this 

agreement, this area was designated as 

the “Joint Area.” 

The July 10, 1975, document also included a 

series of stipulations, paraphrased in the 

following list. 

 The fire management plan covering the 

Joint Area is the overall responsibility of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although 

various cooperative and coordinated 

efforts would be undertaken as specified. 

 Search-and-rescue operations in all areas 

of the refuge and seashore would be 

provided by either bureau upon request on 

an “as available” basis. 

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

act as the lead agency in any studies in the 

Joint Area involving wildlife species, 

including species listed by federal law as 

threatened or endangered. All studies 

would be conducted under USFWS permit. 

 Information and/or interpretive signs or 

exhibits, including costs of purchase and 

maintenance within the Joint Area, would 

be the responsibility of the National Park 

Service upon consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Any signing or 

exhibits relating specifically to wildlife or 

the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would be the responsibility of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service upon 

consultation with National Park Service. 

All signing would be included in the 

USFWS sign plan for the refuge. 

 Maintenance of the “sand trail,” dike road, 

or improved dike road adjacent to the line 

referred to in section 1 of the agreement 

would be the responsibility of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The Beach Road and 

parking areas, Eddy Creek boat ramp, 

dock, and parking area, and informational 

and interpretive signs related to these areas 

would be the maintenance responsibility of 

the National Park Service. 

 Administration of the citrus groves in the 

refuge and seashore would be the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Research, interpretation, and protection of 

archeological and historical sites in the 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

26 

Joint Area would be the primary responsibility of the National Park Service. Any site 

protection and/or development of these 

cultural resource sites would be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

 The National Park Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service would have shared 

jurisdiction in the Joint Area. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service would act as the lead 

agency in enforcement activities in the 

Joint Area, and any enforcement actions in 

the Joint Area by the National Park Service 

could be approved informally. 

 Mosquito control coordination in Brevard 

County would be conducted by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and that in 

Volusia County will be coordinated by the 

National Park Service. All planned 

overflights by Mosquito Control personnel 

would be coordinated with the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and 

comply with existing regulations. Any 

changes to the Mosquito Control 

Agreement desired by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or National Park Service 

within the NASA boundary would be 

coordinated jointly with the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and 

the Brevard Mosquito Control District. 

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed 

to: make a specified portion of its office 

complex/visitor information center 

available to the National Park Service; 

provide shop or building space at the 

USFWS maintenance compound to the 

National Park Service to facilitate its field 

operations; and provide parking space at 

the maintenance compound for NPS 

government-owned motor vehicles and 

employee parking, etc. 

Mutual Aid Agreements. In addition to the 

aforementioned agreements/memoranda of 

understanding, current mutual aid agreements 

between Canaveral National Seashore and 

other agencies include the following: 

Volusia and Brevard Counties, Local 

Municipalities—Rural Fire Agreements 

Brevard County Sheriff’s Department – 

Dispatch Services (800 MHz radio system) 

Volusia County Sheriff’s Department – 

Backup dispatch services 

Agreements with the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration provide for backup law enforcement patrols as well as fire 

and emergency medical services on an “as 

available basis.”

The National Park Service requested and the 

State of Florida granted concurrent law 

enforcement jurisdiction to all park areas in the 

state. Concurrent jurisdiction was later 

extended to all lands within the national 

seashore, including NASA-owned areas. 

Brevard and Volusia counties have undertaken 

substantial mosquito control efforts in the 

form of ditching and diking around the edge of 

Mosquito Lagoon and on some of the islands 

within the Lagoon. The Department of the 

Interior is directed to “cooperate to the fullest 

extent possible” with the districts by the 

agreement between the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration and the department. 

Public Law 100-564, which was enacted into 

law on October 31, 1988, provided for expansion of Canaveral National Seashore by 

authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 

acquire 25 acres of land known as Seminole 

Rest and approximately 10 acres of land 

known as Stuckey’s. The Seminole Rest lands 

were to be managed “for the primary purpose 

of protecting and interpreting their 

archaeological and historic resources,” and the 

Stuckey’s property “for the primary purpose of 

establishing an administrative headquarters 

and visitor center within Volusia County.” 

Section 2 of Public Law 100-564 amended 

section 9(b) of the national seashore’s enabling 

act by striking out “not more than $500,000” 

and inserting “$2.6 million in addition to the 

sums previously appropriated” as the 

legislative limitation for development of 

essential public facilities in the national 

seashore. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

27 

LAWS AND POLICIES 

NPS Laws and Policies 

There are other laws and executive orders that 

are applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; 

the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system; and 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

(1998). See appendix B for more detail on how 

these laws apply at the national seashore. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 United States Code 

[USC] 1) provides the fundamental 

management direction for all units of the 

national park system: 

“[P]romote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations . . . by such 

means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (16 USC 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that while all 

national park system units remain “distinct in 

character,” they are “united through their 

interrelated purposes and resources into one 

national park system as cumulative expressions 

of a single national heritage.” The act makes it 

clear that the NPS Organic Act and other 

protective mandates apply equally to all units 

of the system. Further amendments state that 

NPS management of park units should not 

“derogat[e] the values and purposes for which 

these various areas have been established . . . .” 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual entitled NPS Management 

Policies 2006. 

More General Laws and Policies 

As well as the specific mandates and commitments and NPS-specific laws and policies just 

described, national park system unit managers 

have management guidance from various other 

laws and policies that direct many of the 

management decisions that ensure that the 

resources are “preserved unimpaired for 

present and future generations.” For example, 

there are laws and policies about managing 

environmental quality (such as the Clean Air 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”); laws governing the preservation of 

cultural resources (such as the National 

Historic Preservation Act and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act); and laws about providing public services 

(such as the Americans with Disabilities Act)—

to name only a few. In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide that 

it is appropriate to protect special status 

species, control exotic species, protect historic 

and archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or 

provide for access for disabled persons. Laws 

and policies have already decided those and 

many other things for us. See appendix B for 

more detail on how these laws apply at the 

national seashore. 

All alternatives considered in this management 

plan incorporate and comply with the 

provisions of these mandates and policies—

this guidance that provides the “givens.”
28 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

As part of general management planning, the 

National Park Service is required to identify 

and evaluate boundary adjustments that may 

be necessary or desirable to carry out the 

purposes of the park unit. Boundary 

adjustments may be recommended to 

1. protect significant resources and 

values, or to enhance opportunities 

for public enjoyment related to park 

purposes, 

2. address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or 

the need for boundaries to 

correspond to logical boundary 

delineations such as topographic or 

other natural features or roads, or 

3. otherwise protect park resources that 

are critical to fulfilling park purposes 

For a boundary adjustment to be recommended, at least one of the above criteria 

must be met. Additionally, all recommendations for boundary changes must meet the 

following two criteria: 

1. The added lands will be feasible to 

administer considering their size, 

configuration, and ownership; costs; 

the views of and impacts on local 

communities and surrounding jurisdictions; and other factors such as the 

presence of hazardous substances or 

nonnative species. 

2. Other alternatives for management 

and resource protection are not 

adequate. 

The 1998 General Management Plan Amendment Development Concept Plan / Environmental Assessment for the Seminole Rest area 

included a minor boundary revision and 

identified additional lands for acquisition. 

Under the approved plan amendment, the 

boundary would be expanded to connect the 

site to the rest of the national seashore, which 

lies 1,000 feet away across Mosquito Lagoon. 

This would add approximately 66 acres of 

submerged land in the lagoon (currently 

owned by the State of Florida) to the national 

seashore. The land would continue to be 

owned by the state but would be dedicated to 

and managed by the National Park Service. 

Two privately owned parcels would also be 

added to the national seashore pending a 

willing-seller situation and fund availability. 

Approximately 38 acres adjacent to and south 

of Seminole Rest would be acquired for 

resource preservation and to serve as an 

undeveloped vehicle entrance corridor along 

the existing River Road, and about 3.6 acres 

adjacent to and north of the site would be 

acquired to provide visitor use facilities. 

No action has been taken to date to complete 

these minor boundary adjustments. Pending 

a willing-seller situation and fund availability, 

these minor changes are still considered valid 

under this general management plan. Even 

though all the alternatives considered under 

this plan do not propose developing the 3.6 

acres north of the site for visitor facilities, 

acquisition of the land would still be sought 

to help protect the Seminole Rest site from 

any future visual/audible intrusions that may 

be generated by development of the adjacent 

site. 
29 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 

Several plans for areas within or near the 

national seashore could influence or be 

influenced by actions presented in this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and must be considered. These 

relevant plans and studies are listed below. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Fire Management Plan 

A fire management plan for Canaveral National 

Seashore was written in 1998 and revised in 

2007. This plan consists of a program of 

activities designed to meet management 

objectives for protection of resource values, 

life, and property. Naturally ignited and 

human-ignited wildland fires function as 

appropriate management tools that allow fire 

to perform its natural role in the environment. 

In addition, an Omnibus Prescribed Fire Plan 

was completed in 2009 covering NPS-managed 

lands. A fire management plan is a detailed 

document that supplements the general 

direction of the general management plan. 

Water Resources Management Plan 

A Water Resources Management Plan, 

completed 2001, provides an overview of the 

water resources of the national seashore, 

related legislation, a summary of the hydrology 

and hydrologic environments within the 

national seashore, and it identifies waterrelated issues. This plan was used in the 

production of this general management plan. 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

A comprehensive interpretive plan for the 

national seashore is in draft form. Because it 

tiers from the general management plan, it will 

be completed following the issuance of the 

final general management plan. This plan 

establishes a long-range vision for the 

interpretation of the national seashore and 

outlines the short-range actions necessary to 

achieve that vision. It includes all personal and 

nonpersonal interpretive and informational 

services for all audiences. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Similar to the policy of the National Park 

Service to provide general management plans 

for all units of the national park system, it is the 

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

manage all lands within the national wildlife 

refuge system in accordance with an approved 

comprehensive conservation plan. These plans 

outline a vision for each refuge; guide management decisions; and outline goals, objectives 

and strategies to achieve the visions and purposes of each refuge unit. The plans will 

provide other agencies and the public with an 

understanding of the management strategies to 

be implemented. Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge completed their comprehensive management plan in 2008. Of 

particular interest are the goals and strategies 

outlined in the plan that have set the baseline 

for resource management and visitor use 

within the Joint Management Area of the 

national seashore, and these are considered 

part of the existing management framework for 

this area of the national seashore. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan 

prepared by Team ZHA, 2002 

The Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan 

provides leadership vision for land use 

management of the entire Cape Canaveral 

Spaceport, the unofficial name referring to the 

geographic area encompassing Cape Canaveral 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

30 

Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center. 

The purpose of this document is to anticipate 

future challenges and to continue to provide 

assured and enhanced access to outer space. Of 

particular concern is the area reserved for 

future horizontal launching facilities located 

just inside the national seashore along the 

southern national seashore boundary. Because 

the primary purpose of this section of the 

national seashore is to support the space 

program, portions of the national seashore may 

at some future point be closed to public access. 

Therefore, development of visitor use facilities 

in this area is limited. 

OTHER AGENCY PLANS 

Indian River Lagoon Surface Water 

Improvement and Management Plan 

The Florida legislature enacted the Surface 

Water Improvement and Management 

(SWIM) Act in 1987 and revised it in 1991. This 

act declares that many natural surface water 

systems in Florida, including the Indian River 

lagoon (IRL) system, which includes Mosquito 

Lagoon, have been or are becoming degraded. 

Factors contributing to this degradation 

include point and nonpoint sources of 

pollution and the destruction of natural 

habitats. The act directed the South Florida 

and St. Johns River water management districts 

(SFWMD and SJRWMD), with the 

cooperation of state agencies and local 

governments, to design and implement a plan 

for the improvement of surface waters and 

habitats in the Indian River Lagoon. The 

districts complied with this mandate in the 

development of the 1989 SWIM plan for the 

Indian River Lagoon. The three major goals of 

that plan include the following: 

1. To attain and maintain water and sediment 

of sufficient quality to support a healthy 

estuarine lagoon ecosystem. 

2. To attain and maintain a functioning healthy 

ecosystem which supports endangered and 

threatened species, fisheries, commerce and 

recreation. 

3. To achieve heightened public awareness and 

coordinated interagency management of 

the Indian River Lagoon ecosystem. 

The 1989 SWIM plan was updated in 1994 and 

most recently in 2002. The 2002 update 

(Steward 2003) includes a status report on the 

state of the lagoon, a summary of progress on 

projects undertaken since the last update, and 

recommendations for future projects and other 

actions. Programs of interest for national 

seashore resource management include the 

seagrass and water quality program and the 

coastal wetlands program. 

The seagrass and water quality program 

focuses on assessing the health of the lagoon’s 

seagrass resource, defining impacts on this 

resource, setting restoration targets or 

performance measures, and recommending 

and evaluating strategies to achieve those 

targets. The St. Johns River Water Management District performs aerial reconnaissance 

and mapping of Mosquito Lagoon every two to 

three years to enable the detection of any 

short-term changes. Areas of seagrass loss or 

gain are determined by comparison with 

previous year’s coverage. The ground transects 

extending across the seagrass beds are also 

monitored semiannually by the St. Johns River 

Water Management District to monitor 

changes. 

The coastal wetlands program is engaged in the 

rehabilitation of impacted coastal wetlands, 

with a focus on reconnecting and managing 

mosquito control impoundments. 

Canaveral National Seashore’s Water 

Resources Management Plan (NPS 2001c) 

states the need to coordinate with other 

agencies on improving the management of land 

use and user activities throughout the 

watershed to better protect national seashore 

resources. Seashore staff will pursue 

opportunities for conducting cooperative 

studies on possible impacts on seagrass and 

water quality (e.g., septic tank discharge and 

commercial and recreational uses in Mosquito 

Lagoon). The St. Johns River Water Management District has reviewed the plan with NPS 

staff for possible collaboration on such studies, 
Relationship of the General Management Plan to Other Planning Efforts 

31 

particularly those that may help answer some 

questions relative to the troubling water quality 

trends revealed in the southern Mosquito 

Lagoon. 

Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan 

With the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

designation of the Indian River Lagoon as an 

“estuary of national significance,” the Indian 

River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRL 

NEP) was established. The plan covers the 

entire 156-mile length of Indian River Lagoon; 

Canaveral National Seashore, and Mosquito 

Lagoon comprise the northern section. This 

program is a nonregulatory, stakeholderdriven, collaborative approach to coastal 

watershed restoration and protection based on 

the following four cornerstones: 

1. a watershed focus that moves beyond 

political jurisdictions, 

2. integration of good science with sound 

decision making, 

3. collaborative problem solving and 

4. public involvement 

In 1996, a Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan was developed in close 

coordination with the goals and objectives of 

the Indian River Lagoon SWIM plan described 

above. The 2008 plan update reviewed the 

original action items in the 1996 plan to 

determine if they were still relevant, identified 

the need for new actions, described the goal 

and objectives to address new concerns, 

reviewed the prioritization of action items, and 

updated the financing mechanism. 

Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic 

Preserve Management Plan 

In Volusia County, the Mosquito Lagoon 

Aquatic Preserve includes 4,740 acres of 

submerged lands and islands of Mosquito 

Lagoon. Immediately adjacent to the northern 

boundary of the national seashore, the aquatic 

preserve provides an extended buffer zone to 

the northern portion of Mosquito Lagoon in 

the national seashore. 

The Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve is part 

of a network of 41 aquatic preserves designated in the state of Florida whose purpose is 

to preserve aquatic areas of exceptional 

biological, aesthetic, and scientific values as 

sanctuaries. Aquatic preserves are managed on 

behalf of the state by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection’s Office of 

Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. This 

preserve management plan was improved and 

updated in 2009. 

The Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve 

fosters strong working partnerships with 

multiple agencies, including the National Park 

Service, and researchers, and as needed 

supports research projects and monitoring 

programs. The preserve also supports multiagency efforts to restore wetland impoundments and seagrass habitat. Education and 

outreach is another management focus area 

that encourages responsible recreational use 

and promotes public participation in the 

stewardship of the preserve. The preserve 

works directly with Canaveral National 

Seashore on projects of mutual concern such 

as exotic plant control, water quality 

monitoring, and salt marsh restoration.

 

Chapter 

North

0

0

5 Miles

5 Kilometers 1

1

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors

have been enlarged in certain areas.

Alternative D

Canaveral National Seashore United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,245A • DSC • Mar 2010

95

95

406

406

402

A1A

442

3

5A

44

1

1

M O S Q U I T O L A G O O N

Haulover

Canal

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

I N D I A N R I V E R

South Lake

Eddy Creek

Lifeguard

Support

To 

Daytona 

Beach

Klondike Beach

Pardon 

Island

Cucumber

Island

Turtlepen

Point

Playalinda Beach

Apollo 

 

 Beach

Kennedy Parkway

Black Point

Wildlife Drive (road closed to public)

Bio Lab Road

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Mims

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park

Seminole 

Rest

Castle Windy

Launch

Complex 39B

Launch Complex 39A

John F Kennedy

Space Center (public access controlled)

Manatee 

Viewing Area

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitor 

Information Center

Canaveral National Seashore 

Visitor Information Center

Dummits

Cove

Eldora State House

Schultz House

Stuckey Property

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

Gomez Grant Line 

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

AT L A N T I C O C E A N

Visitor 

information 

center

Turtle 

Mound

A p o l l o B e a c h

Mosquito

Lagoon

Castle

 Windy

Dock

Eldora

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Dock

Eldora

Hammock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed restricted area

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Schultz 

House Eldora

State

House Shipyard

Island

Orange Island 

Old Channel NASA Boundary 

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

Self-guiding trail

Boat launch

Ranger station

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation

Backcountry

Sensitive Resource

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

Nonmotor or pole/troll area

NASA Security and

Safety Clearance zone

Slow speed restricted area

Alternatives, Including 

The Preferred Alternative

2

North

0

0

5 Miles

5 Kilometers 1

1

Alternative C

Canaveral National Seashore United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,244A • DSC • Mar 2010

To 

Daytona 

Beach

Shipyard

Island Apollo Beach

Klondike Beach

Pardon 

Island

Cucumber

Island

Turtlepen

Point

Playalinda Beach

Black Point

Wildlife Drive (road closed to public)

Bio Lab Road

Mims

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park

Seminole 

Rest

Eldora State House

Castle Windy

Launch Complex 39B

Launch

Complex 39A

John F Kennedy Space Center (public access controlled)

Manatee 

Viewing Area

Old Channel

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

Visitor Information Center

Canaveral National

Seashore Visitor

Information

Center

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Schultz House

Old Haulover

Dummits 

Cove

NASA Boundary

Canaveral National Seashore 

Visitor Center / Headquarters

Slow speed restricted area

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

Gomez Grant Line 

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors

have been enlarged in certain areas.

95

95

406

406

402

A1A

442

3

5A

44

1

1

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

I N D I A N R I V E R

South Lake

Eddy 

Creek

Lifeguard

Support

M O S Q U I T O L A G O O N

Kennedy Parkway

Stuckey Property

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

AT L A N T I C O C E A N

Turtle 

Mound

A p o l l o B e a c h

Castle

Windy

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Eldora

Eldora

Hammock

Orange Island 

Schultz 

House

Visitor 

information 

center

Mosquito

Lagoon

Dock

Dock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Eldora

State

House

Wilson’s

Corner

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

Self-guiding trail

Boat launch

Ranger station

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation

Backcountry

Sensitive Resource

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

NASA Security and

Safety Clearance zone

Slow speed restricted area

Seashore headquarters

Visitor Center

North 

0 

0 

5 Miles 

5 Kilometers 1 

1 

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors 

have been enlarged in certain areas. 

Alternative B

Canaveral National Seashore United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,243A • DSC • Mar 2010

95 

95 

406 

406 

402 

A1A 

442 

3 

5A 

44 

1 

1 

M O S Q U I T O L A G O O N 

Haulover 

Canal 

A T L A N T I C O C E A N 

I N D I A N R I V E R

South Lake 

Eddy Creek 

Lifeguard 

Support 

To 

Daytona 

Beach 

Klondike Beach 

Pardon 

Island 

Cucumber 

Island 

Turtlepen 

Point 

Playalinda Beach 

Apollo Beach

Kennedy Parkway 

B al ck Po ni t

Wildlife Drive (road closed to public) 

Bio Lab Road

Scrub 

Ridge 

Trail 

Mims 

Turtle Mound 

Eldora Hammock 

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park 

Seminole 

Rest 

Castle Windy 

Launch Complex 39B 

Launch 

Complex 39A 

John F Kennedy 

Space Center (public access controlled) 

Manatee 

Viewing Area 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge

Visitor Information Center

Canaveral National 

Seashore Visitor 

Information Center

Dummits 

Cove 

Eldora State House

Schultz House 

Stuckey Property 

Canaveral

National

Seashore Headquarters

TITUSVILLE 

OAK 

HILL 

BETHUNE 

BEACH 

EDGEWATER 

NEW 

SMYRNA 

BEACH 

Gomez Grant Line 

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

AT L A N T I C O C E A N 

Turtle 

Mound

A p o l l o B e a c h 

Castle

 Windy

Eldora

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Eldora

Hammock

Slow speed restricted area

Self-guiding trail 

Boat launch 

Ranger station 

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones 

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation 

Backcountry 

Sensitive Resource 

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station 

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

Nonmotor or pole/troll area

NASA Security and 

Safety Clearance zone 

Slow speed restricted area

Schultz 

House

Shipyard 

Island 

Orange Island

O dl Channel NASA Boundary 

Visitor 

information 

center

Mosquito

Lagoon

Dock

Dock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Eldora

State

House

Wilson’s

Corner

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

35 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents four alternatives, 

including the NPS preferred alternative, for 

future management of Canaveral National 

Seashore. The alternatives were developed in 

concert with an ongoing public involvement 

process, described in detail in “Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination.” The four 

alternatives, each of which is consistent with 

the national seashore’s purpose, significance, 

and fundamental resources and values, are 

alternative A, continue current management 

trends (“no-action” alternative); alternative B 

(NPS preferred alternative); alternative C; and 

alternative D. The no-action alternative is 

included as a baseline for comparing the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

each “action” alternative. To truly understand 

the implications of an alternative, it is 

important to combine the national seashorewide desired conditions and management 

strategies and servicewide laws and policies 

described in chapter 1 with the management 

actions described in each alternative. 

This chapter also includes sections on 

implementation of the general management 

plan, management zones, user capacity, 

mitigative measures common to all action 

alternatives, and the environmentally preferred 

alternative. A table that compares the attributes 

of each alternative and another that compares 

the anticipated environmental consequences of 

implementing each alternative is provided at 

the end of the chapter.
36 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement includes 

comment letters from other federal, state, and 

local agencies, regarding the draft plan, and 

NPS responses to those and other individuals’ 

substantive comments. The final plan also 

includes changes and clarifications made in 

response to comments received. Following 

distribution of the Final General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and a 

30-day no-action period, a “Record of 

Decision” approving the final plan will be 

prepared for signature of the director of the 

NPS Southeast Region Office. The “Record of 

Decision” documents the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. With the 

signing of the “Record of Decision,” the plan 

can then be implemented, depending on 

available funding and staffing. 

IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING 

Although this general management plan 

provides the analysis and justification for 

future national seashore funding proposals, 

this plan does not guarantee future NPS 

funding. Many actions would be necessary to 

achieve the desired conditions for natural 

resources, cultural resources, recreational 

opportunities, and facilities as envisioned in 

this plan. The National Park Service will 

request funding to achieve these desired 

conditions; although hoping to secure this 

funding and preparing accordingly, the 

national seashore may not receive enough 

funding to achieve all desired conditions. 

Because NPS funding may be insufficient to 

accomplish the goals set by the plan, national 

seashore managers will need to continue to 

pursue other options, including expanding the 

service of volunteers, drawing upon existing or 

new partnerships, and seeking alternative 

funding sources, including the philanthropic 

community. Many people care deeply about 

their national parks, and these people are likely 

to continue to offer assistance in meeting NPS 

goals that matter most to them. Many potential 

partner groups exist whose missions are 

compatible with that of the national seashore, 

and these groups are likely to offer to work 

with NPS staff for mutual benefits. 

Even with assistance from supplemental 

sources, national seashore managers may be 

faced with difficult choices when setting 

priorities. The general management plan

provides the framework within which to make 

these choices. 
37 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones describe how different 

areas of the national seashore would be 

managed. Each management zone specifies 

complementary natural resource conditions, 

cultural resource conditions, opportunities for 

visitor experiences, and appropriate facilities, 

and combines these into a possible 

management strategy that could be applied to 

locations within the national seashore. As such, 

management zones give an indication of the 

management priorities for various areas. 

The following seven management zones have 

been developed for the national seashore—

visitor orientation/NPS administration, 

environmental/historical education, 

recreation, backcountry, sensitive resource, 

NASA security/safety clearance, and joint 

management area. The action alternatives 

presented later in this chapter each propose a 

different configuration of the management 

zones within the national seashore based on 

the concept for each alternative. In every 

management zone, the national seashore 

intends to preserve and protect natural and 

cultural resources to the greatest extent 

possible given available funds. An overview of 

the management zones is provided on the 

following pages, with more detail in tables 1 

and 2 that follow. The tables describe desired 

resource conditions, allowable visitor 

opportunities and activities, and the 

appropriate level of development for each 

management zone. 

A number of these zones address management 

of fishing-related activities. The National Park 

Service will coordinate with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in 

accordance with the memorandum of 

understanding (discussed in the “Interagency 

Agreements” section of chapter 1 and 

elsewhere throughout the document) prior to 

developing and implementing management 

actions that modify current management of 

fishing activities or fishing vessel operations 

within the national seashore. A fishery 

management plan will be developed to guide 

fishing-related activities and address impacts 

of vessel operation on fisheries resources. (See 

the “Fisheries” section under alternative B in 

chapter 2 for more information about the 

fishery management plan.) Fisheries-related 

management strategies associated with certain 

zones may be modified or refined based on 

outcomes from the proposed fishery 

management plan.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

Visitor Orientation / NPS Administration Zone 

This zone includes most facilities dedicated to 

visitor information/orientation and national 

seashore management. The zone would receive 

a high level of visitor use. 

Environmental / Historical Education Zone 

This zone would contain resources that are both 

environmental and historical with high 

interpretive or educational value. These areas 

would receive occasional high visitor use. 

Recreation Zone 

This zone is primarily used by visitors for active 

and passive recreational opportunities, most 

often associated with the surrounding waters. 

This zone includes some of the most heavily 

used areas of the national seashore. 

 
Management Zones 

39 

Backcountry Zone 

This zone allows visitors to access areas of the 

national seashore that provide a more solitary, 

tranquil opportunity to experience the sights, 

smells, and sounds of nature. 

Sensitive Resource Zone 

This zone protects primarily natural resources 

that are sensitive to or easily damaged by 

human use, such as the dune ridge between the 

Atlantic and Mosquito Lagoon. Visitor access 

into this zone would be restricted to 

designated trail corridors. Access beyond 

designated trail corridors would be by special 

permit only. 

 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

Joint Management Zone 

This zone encompasses the portion of Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge that overlaps 

the southern two thirds of the national seashore. 

The area is principally managed for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. 
Management Zones 

41 

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT ZONES

Visitor Orientation /

NPS Administration Zone 

Environmental / Historical 

Education Zone 

Overview This zone includes most facilities dedicated to 

visitor information / orientation and national 

seashore management. The zone would 

receive a high level of visitor use. 

This zone would contain resources that are both 

environmental and historical with high 

interpretive or educational value. These areas 

would receive occasional high visitor use. 

Natural 

Resource 

Conditions 

Impacts resulting from visitor use and 

administrative facilities would be minimized to 

the extent possible. Any new development 

would be sited and designed to minimize 

impacts and to be compatible with its 

environment. Natural sights and sounds would 

be diminished by human sights and sounds. 

Fires would be suppressed. Noxious invasive 

species would be managed to the fullest extent 

possible. 

Natural resources would be managed to 

highlight their interpretive and educational 

values. Impacts resulting from visitor use and 

administrative facilities would be minimized to 

the extent possible. Any new development 

would be sited and designed to minimize 

impacts and to be compatible with the natural 

environment or with the historic landscape. 

Natural sights and sounds would be diminished 

by human sights and sounds. Fires would be 

suppressed. Noxious invasive species would be 

managed to the fullest extent possible. 

Cultural 

Resource 

Conditions 

National register-listed (or eligible) properties 

would be preserved or rehabilitated to 

accommodate visitor use and national seashore 

operations. 

National register-listed (or eligible) properties 

would be preserved, rehabilitated to 

accommodate another interpretive or 

educational use, or restored to a historic state. 

The historic character of the surrounding 

landscape would be protected. 

Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

This zone would be the primary orientation 

area where overall interpretive themes are 

introduced to the visitor. Exhibits, formal talks, 

walks, guided hikes, and other organized or 

self-directed visitor opportunities would occur 

in this zone. 

Public use would be limited in certain parts of 

this zone, such as NPS maintenance and 

administrative facility areas. 

Visitors would be exposed to a variety of on-site 

interpretive services designed to enhance 

educational exploration of the national 

seashore. Visitor opportunities would include 

programs, guided tours, talks and roving 

rangers, self-guided activities, viewing and 

learning about the national seashore’s flora, 

fauna, and cultural resources. 

Visitor use would be managed to prevent 

resource damage. 

Visitor Skill 

Levels Needed 

None required. None required. 

NPS 

Management 

Activities 

This is the primary zone for NPS visitor, 

administrative, and maintenance facilities. 

When appropriate, management actions------

especially those related to resource 

management------would be interpreted. 

NPS staff would be on-site. 

This is the primary zone for NPS visitor 

educational and interpretive facilities and 

activities. NPS management activities would 

include those necessary to preserve and protect 

resources. When appropriate, management 

actions------especially those related to resource 

management------would be interpreted. 

NPS staff would often be on-site. 

Commercial 

Services 

Commercial services that support visitor use 

and NPS administrative activities would be 

appropriate if compatible with desired resource 

conditions and visitor experience goals. 

Commercial services that support visitor use and 

NPS administrative activities would be 

appropriate if compatible with desired resource 

conditions and visitor experience goals. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42 

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT ZONES

Visitor Orientation /

NPS Administration Zone 

Environmental / Historical 

Education Zone 

Types of 

Facilities 

Facilities would reflect a high level of 

development for the purposes of meeting 

visitor orientation and NPS administrative 

needs. Visitor facilities could include 

orientation centers, visitor centers, museums, 

historic buildings, comfort stations, boat 

ramps, formalized interpretive trails, picnic 

areas, paved and unpaved roads, and parking. 

Formalized design features such as boardwalks 

or signs would be used to help manage the 

high level of use within this zone. Appropriate 

administrative facilities could include staff 

and/or volunteer housing, maintenance, 

storage, offices, roads, parking areas, RV trailer 

pads, and comfort stations. 

Adaptive reuse of facilities would be 

encouraged before initiating new 

development. 

If new development is needed, it would reflect 

thoughtful design in composition, setting, 

structure, and materials indigenous to the 

area. Areas of low resource sensitivity would 

be targeted. If appropriate, some facilities 

could be placed outside national seashore 

boundaries. 

Facilities would reflect a moderate level of 

development for the purposes of enhancing 

visitor understanding and education of the 

national seashore’s vast array of environmental 

and historical resources. The range of facilities 

might include historic buildings, roads, parking 

areas, boat ramps, courtesy docks, comfort 

stations, surfaced trails to direct use and access, 

boardwalks, wildlife blinds, viewing decks, 

pavilions, interpretive panels, kiosks, bulletin 

boards, navigation aids, and signs. 

Adaptive reuse of facilities would be 

encouraged before initiating new development. 

If new development is needed, it would reflect 

thoughtful design in composition, setting, 

structure, and materials indigenous to the area. 

Areas of low resource sensitivity would be 

targeted. 
Management Zones 

43 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.)

Recreation Zone Backcountry Zone 

Overview This zone is primarily used by visitors for active 

and passive recreational opportunities, most 

often associated with the surrounding waters. 

This zone includes some of the most heavily 

used areas of the national seashore. It applies 

to both terrestrial and aquatic areas of the 

national seashore, including off-shore waters 

extending to the national seashore boundary 

0.5 mile into the Atlantic Ocean. 

This zone allows visitors to access areas of the 

national seashore that provide a more solitary, 

tranquil opportunity to experience the sights, 

smells, and sounds of nature. This zone applies 

to both terrestrial and aquatic areas of the 

national seashore, including off-shore waters 

extending to the national seashore boundary 

0.5 mile into the Atlantic Ocean. 

Natural 

Resource 

Conditions 

The natural setting would be maintained and 

natural processes encouraged. Noxious invasive 

species would be managed to the fullest extent 

possible. The natural landscape could be 

modified to allow development of scenic vistas, 

allow visitor access and use, or to allow 

resource protection activities. Natural sights and 

sounds could be diminished by human sights 

and sounds. Natural fires would be suppressed. 

Activities designed to preserve and maintain an 

intact ecosystem would be implemented. 

Restoration of degraded or impacted resources 

would occur. Otherwise, natural processes 

would be allowed to continue. Natural sights 

and sounds would prevail. Fires would be 

suppressed unless prescribed for ecosystem 

management. Noxious invasive species would 

be managed to the fullest extent possible. 

Cultural 

Resource 

Conditions 

National register-listed (or eligible) properties 

would be preserved or rehabilitated to 

accommodate another function appropriate to 

the recreational emphasis of the zone. The 

historic character of the surrounding landscape 

would be protected. 

National register-listed (or eligible) properties 

would be preserved or rehabilitated to 

accommodate another backcountry use. 

Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

Visitors could hike, boat, fish, picnic, surf, take 

scenic drives, participate in beach activities, 

take photographs, and study nature. Limited 

horseback riding could occur in designated 

areas. Interpretation would be provided 

through informal programs, guided tours, talks, 

roving rangers, and waysides. 

Visitation levels would be low to high. Levels 

could be highest at access locations throughout 

this zone. 

Visitor use would be managed to limit resource 

impacts. 

Visitors could explore natural elements of the 

national seashore with minimal distraction from 

modern intrusions or other visitors. Boating 

would be allowed in this zone. Some areas may 

be designated pole/troll areas. Visitors could 

also participate in beach activities, study nature, 

hike, take photographs, camp in primitive 

camping area, and fish. Limited horseback 

riding could occur in designated areas. Minimal 

on-site interpretation would be related to 

management and protection of natural and 

cultural resources. 

Visitor access would be primarily by means such 

as hiking, kayaking, and canoeing. Marked 

channels to allow controlled motorized access 

could be designated. Visitation levels would be 

low. Visitor use would be dispersed throughout 

the zone. 

Visitor use would be managed to limit resource 

impacts. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.)

Recreation Zone Backcountry Zone 

Visitor Skill 

Levels 

Needed 

Visitors would need to be self-sufficient and 

have an understanding of opportunities and 

hazards associated with natural seashore lands 

and waters. Challenge, adventure, and 

discovery would be greatest further away from 

basic facilities. 

Visitors would need to be self-sufficient and 

have an understanding of backcountry 

etiquette and skills to safely experience this 

portion of the national seashore. 

NPS 

Management 

Activities 

On-site NPS management would be provided to 

help support the basic needs of visitors------such 

as access, information, and public health and 

safety. NPS staff would periodically patrol. 

Periodic on-site NPS management activities 

would include mitigation of threats to 

resources and public safety. NPS staff would 

periodically patrol. 

Commercial 

Services 

Commercial services that support visitor use 

and NPS administrative activities could be 

provided if compatible with resource conditions 

and visitor experience goals. 

Guided fishing would be restricted and capped 

in 2013 in the Joint Management Area as 

outlined in the USFWS Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Commercial fishing would 

be eliminated in the Joint Management Areas 

by 2018, as also outlined in the USFWS plan. 

Guided and unguided recreational fishing 

might be allowed in designated areas. 

Outside the Joint Management Area, 

recreational fishing activities classified as 

commercial services, i.e., guides) will be 

conducted in the manner specified in the 

fishery management plan once it is developed 

and completed. Please refer to the introduction 

of the alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

Limited commercial services that support visitor 

use and NPS administrative activities could be 

provided if compatible with resource conditions 

and visitor experience goals. 

Guided fishing would be restricted and capped 

in 2013 in the Joint Management Area as 

outlined in the USFWS Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Commercial fishing would 

be eliminated in the Joint Management Areas 

by 2018 as also outlined in the USFWS plan. 

Guided and unguided recreational fishing 

might be allowed in designated areas. 

 Outside the Joint Management Area, 

recreational fishing activities classified as 

commercial services, i.e., guides) will be 

conducted in the manner specified in the 

fishery management plan once it is developed 

and completed. Please refer to the introduction 

of the alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

Types of 

Facilities 

Facilities would reflect a moderate level of 

development, particularly at key entry points for 

the purposes of safely accommodating recreational activities and protecting national seashore resources. The range of facilities may 

include roads, parking areas, boat ramps, 

courtesy docks, small-scale fishing piers, 

comfort stations, surfaced trails to channel use 

and access, boardwalks, interpretive panels, 

kiosks, bulletin boards, navigation aids, and 

signs. 

Adaptive reuse of facilities would be 

encouraged before initiating new development. 

If new development is needed, it would reflect 

thoughtful design in composition, setting, 

structure, and materials indigenous to the area. 

Areas of low resource sensitivity would be 

targeted for development of facilities. 

Facilities generally would not be provided 

except for the protection of resources. Trail 

structures for resource protection might include 

sand ladders and narrow boardwalks for visitor 

access across the dunes. Other small-scale 

structures for resource protection might include 

limited signs to designate primitive campsites, 

fire rings, picnic tables, navigational aids and 

markings for water corridors, courtesy docks 

and mooring areas, markings for turtle nests, 

etc. 
Management Zones 

45 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.)

Sensitive Resource Zone NASA Security / Safety 

Clearance Zone 

Joint Management Area

Zone 

Overview This zone protects primarily 

natural resources that are 

sensitive to or easily damaged 

by human use, such as the 

dune ridge between the 

Atlantic and Mosquito 

Lagoon. Visitor access into this 

zone would be restricted to 

designated trail corridors. 

Access beyond designated trail 

corridors would be by special 

permit only. 

This zone is periodically closed 

to all visitors before and 

during a launch. Access would 

be by special permit only. 

This zone encompasses the 

portion of Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge that 

overlaps the southern two 

thirds of the national seashore. 

The area is principally 

managed for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. 

Natural 

Resource 

Conditions 

The natural environment 

would be managed to 

preserve and protect 

exceptional and critical 

ecosystems, habitats, and 

processes. Noxious invasive 

species would be managed to 

the fullest extent possible. 

Fires would be suppressed 

unless prescribed for 

ecosystem management 

purposes. 

The natural environment could 

be modified to accommodate 

NASA or NPS support facilities 

or activities. Otherwise, 

natural conditions and natural 

processes would predominate. 

Noxious invasive species 

would be managed to the 

fullest extent possible. Fires 

would be suppressed unless 

prescribed for ecosystem 

management purposes. 

This zone would be managed 

primarily under USFWS 

management guidelines with 

cooperation from the National 

Park Service. The natural 

environment would be 

managed to preserve and 

protect exceptional and critical 

ecosystems, native wildlife, 

habitat diversity, and natural 

processes. Migratory shorebird 

and waterfowl habitat would 

be preserved and enhanced. 

Noxious invasive species would 

be managed to the fullest 

extent possible. Fires would be 

suppressed unless prescribed 

for ecosystem management 

purposes. 

Cultural 

Resource 

Conditions 

National register-listed (or 

eligible) properties and 

associated landscapes would 

be preserved or rehabilitated 

commensurate with the 

sensitive nature of the 

resources in this zone. 

National register-listed (or 

eligible) properties would be 

preserved or rehabilitated. 

National register-listed (or 

eligible) properties would be 

preserved or rehabilitated. 

Cultural resources might be 

adapted to accommodate 

interpretive and educational 

efforts. 

In consultation with refuge 

staff, NPS staff would continue 

to take the lead in research, 

interpretation, and protection 

of archeological and historic 

sites. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.)

Sensitive Resource Zone NASA Security / Safety 

Clearance Zone 

Joint Management Area

Zone 

Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

Visitation would be restricted 

in this zone to protect 

sensitive resources. Any and 

all visitor activities would be 

highly directed or led by NPS 

guides. The significance of the 

resources would primarily be 

interpreted in the visitor 

orientation/NPS administration 

zone through interpretive and 

educational exhibits and 

programs. 

Visitor access would be 

restricted or highly directed 

and controlled over 

established pathways. 

Visitation would be restricted 

in this zone, consistent with 

NASA security needs. Visitors 

would be able to see the area 

from roadside turnouts with 

associated interpretive signs. 

Additional resource information would be available in the 

visitor orientation/NPS 

administration zone. 

Visitor opportunities would 

include wildlife viewing, 

fishing, motorized and 

nonmotorized boating, nature 

study, and photography. 

Interpretation would include a 

combination of on-site 

interpretation (i.e., occasional 

wayside exhibits, brochures) 

and off-site interpretation in 

the visitor orientation/NPS 

administration zone. 

Visitation levels would be low 

to high. Levels could be 

highest at access locations 

throughout this zone. 

Visitor Skill 

Levels 

Needed 

Minimal as visitors must stay 

on existing trails. 

None required. In some areas, visitors would 

need to be self-sufficient and 

have an understanding of the 

opportunities and hazards 

associated with national 

seashore lands and waters. 

Challenge, adventure, and 

discovery would be greatest 

further away from basic 

facilities. 

Management 

Activities 

NPS staff and other 

researchers would occasionally 

be present and involve 

permitted research and 

monitoring activities, 

mitigation of threats to 

resources, and improving 

habitat for targeted species. 

NPS staff would periodically 

patrol. 

NPS staff and permitted 

activities would occasionally 

be present and involve NASA 

security; other concerns would 

include public safety, research 

and monitoring activities, and 

mitigation of threats to 

resources. 

NPS staff would periodically 

patrol. 

NPS and USFWS staff and 

other researchers would 

occasionally be present and 

involve permitted research and 

monitoring activities, 

mitigation of threats to 

resources, improvement of 

habitat for targeted species, 

and efforts to improve public 

safety. 

There would be USFWS patrols 

with assistance from NPS staff 

when requested. 

Commercial 

Services 

Not available. Not available. Commercial services would be 

managed in accord with the 

USFWS Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. 
Management Zones 

47 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.)

Sensitive Resource Zone NASA Security / Safety 

Clearance Zone 

Joint Management Area

Zone 

Types of 

Facilities 

Facilities would be limited to 

those essential for resource 

protection, research, and 

monitoring purposes. 

Facilities would be limited to 

those essential for NASA 

security, resource protection, 

research, and monitoring 

purposes. 

Facilities would reflect a low 

level of development, particularly at key entry points for 

safely accommodating 

recreational activities and 

protecting national seashore 

resources. Facilities might 

include roads, parking areas, 

wayfinding and interpretive 

signs. Other facilities might be 

developed for resource 

protection and research. 
48

An “X” means the activity occurs. A blank means the activity does not occur. Text explains exceptions. 

TABLE 2. VISITOR ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

Types of Visitor Activities and Developments 

Visitor Orientation / 

NPS Administration

Environmental / 

Historical Education Recreation Backcountry Sensitive Resource 

Secu

Cl

Orientation X Interpretation X X X minimal, on-site in Bill’s Hill only off-site Guided Tours X X X X limited to NPS guided tours Motor Touring X X Motorized Transportation X X X Bicycling X Hiking / Walking X X X X 

only over 

designated dune 

crossover trails 

Horseback Riding Bill’s Hill; Apollo Beach (limited) Bill’s Hill only Boating – Motorized & Nonmotorized X X X nonmotor only Pole / Troll X X Canoeing / Kayaking X X X X Fishing X X X Sightseeing / Nature Study X X X X ro

tu

Photography X X X X Sunbathing / Swimming X X Camping X X X Picnicking X X X Special Events X X limited locations
49

TABLE 2. VISITOR ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

Types of Visitor Activities and Developments 

Visitor Orientation / 

NPS Administration

Environmental / 

Historical Education Recreation Backcountry Sensitive Resource 

Secu

Cl

Scientific Research X X X X X ocCommercial Services X X X limited Alternative Transportation X X X Roads X X X adm

u

Parking Areas X X X Boardwalks X X X X X Trails – Paved X X X Trails – Unpaved X X X X Trails – Horse use Bill’s Hill, Apollo Beach (limited) Bill’s Hill only Boat Ramps X X X Docks X X X X Navigational Aids X X X Signs X X X minimal Kiosk X X Wayside Exhibits X X X Bill’s Hill only X ro

tu

Viewing Decks X X X X Campsites – Primitive X Comfort Stations X X X Concession Facilities X X X Shelters X X Picnic Areas X X tables 
50

TABLE 2. VISITOR ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

Types of Visitor Activities and Developments 

Visitor Orientation / 

NPS Administration

Environmental / 

Historical Education Recreation Backcountry Sensitive Resource 

Secu

Cl

Visitor Center, Headquarters, Maintenance, Ranger Station, Storage 

X 

NASA maintrangelifegumana

Research Facilities X X X unobtrusive unobtrusive Staff Housing X X 
51 

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT 

The National Park Service defines user 

capacity as the types and levels of visitor use 

that can be accommodated while sustaining 

the quality of park resources and visitor 

experiences consistent with the purposes of 

the park. General management plans for 

national park system units are required by 

law to identify and address implementation 

commitments for user capacity, also known 

as carrying capacity. Managing user capacity 

in national parks is inherently complex and 

depends not only on the number of visitors, 

but also on where they go, what they do, and 

the “footprints” they leave behind. In 

managing for user capacity, the park staff and 

partners rely on a variety of management 

tools and strategies rather than relying solely 

on regulating the number of people in a park 

or simply establishing limits on visitor use. In 

addition, the ever-changing nature of visitor 

use in parks requires a deliberate and 

adaptive approach to user capacity 

management. 

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this general management plan 

are purpose, significance, special mandates 

and management zones. The purpose, 

significance, and special mandates define why 

the national seashore was established and 

identify the most important resources and 

values, including visitor opportunities that 

would be protected and provided. The 

management zones in each alternative 

describe the desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences, including appropriate 

types of activities and general use levels, for 

different locations throughout the national 

seashore. The zones, as applied in the 

alternatives, are consistent with and help the 

national seashore achieve its specific 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

As part of the National Park Service’s 

commitment to implement user capacity, the 

national seashore staff would abide by these 

directives for guiding the types and levels of 

visitor use that would be accommodated 

while sustaining the quality of national 

seashore resources and visitor experiences 

consistent with the purpose of the national 

seashore. 

In addition to these important directives, this 

plan also includes indicators and standards 

for the national seashore. Indicators and 

standards are measureable variables that 

would be monitored to track changes in 

resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

The indicators and standards help NPS staff 

ensure that desired conditions are being 

attained, supporting the fulfillment of the 

national seashore’s legislative and policy 

mandates. The general management plan also 

identifies the types of management actions 

that would be taken to achieve desired 

conditions, and related legislative and policy 

mandates. 

User capacity decision making is a form of 

adaptive management. It is an iterative 

process in which management decisions are 

continuously informed and improved by 

monitoring the indicators and standards. 

Adjustments are made as appropriate. As 

monitoring of the national seashore’s 

conditions continues, managers may decide 

to modify or add indicators if better ways are 

found to measure important changes in 

resource and social conditions. Information 

on the NPS monitoring efforts, related visitor 

use management actions, and any changes to 

the indicators and standards would be 

available to the public. 

Canaveral National Seashore is a popular, 

highly visited national park system unit, with 

extensive and diverse visitor opportunities 

that are in great demand. In addition, the 

national seashore contains unique natural 

and cultural resources including oyster reefs, 

seagrass, and dune vegetation that are highly 

vulnerable to visitor use impacts. Further, 

visitor use opportunities occur over an 

extensive area of land and water with 

multiple access points, use areas, and types of 

resources that make regulating use levels, 

activities, and patterns complex. Managing 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

user capacity in this unique setting is highly 

challenging. 

For all areas of the national seashore, the 

management zones provide the most 

important implementation commitment for 

user capacity, because they describe the 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences—including appropriate types 

and levels of use, visitor services, and 

development—for all sites within the national 

seashore. These management zones are 

consistent with and help achieve the national 

seashore’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. Further, there are many existing 

visitor use management strategies already in 

use that would continue to be implemented 

to help NPS staff achieve these desired 

conditions. Examples of some of these 

existing management strategies include the 

following: 

 visitor education on low-impact practices 

(e.g., Leave No Trace principles) 

 maximum group size limits (e.g., no more 

than 10 people at campsite 4) 

 closure of sensitive resource areas (e.g., 

no visitor access to vegetated dune areas) 

 regulations on visitor activities (e.g., 

beach access restricted to dune 

walkovers) 

 permit requirements (e.g., all access in the 

backcountry requires a permit) 

In addition to the implementation 

commitments for the desired conditions, 

NPS staff have selected user capacity 

indicators and standards. Table 3 includes 

the indicators, standards, and potential future 

management strategies (allocated by 

management zones) that would be 

implemented as a result of this planning 

effort. The planning team considered many 

potential issues and related indicators that 

would identify impacts of concern, but those 

described below were considered the most 

salient given the importance and vulnerability 

of the resource or visitor experience affected 

by visitor use. These indicators were also 

evaluated for their feasibility with regards to 

long-term evaluation. Standards that 

represent the management decision on the 

minimum acceptable condition for each 

indicator were then assigned, taking into 

consideration the qualitative descriptions of 

the desired conditions, data on existing 

conditions, relevant research studies, staff 

management experience, current management policies, and scoping on public 

preferences. 

The priority resource indicators for 

Canaveral National Seashore are associated 

with the following issues: 

 impacts from boat activities on seagrass 

and oyster reefs 

 amount of auto use 

 levels of visitor use in the backcountry 

 resource impacts on campsites 

The conditions of these resources are already 

being monitored and managed in various 

forms, but the indicators identified below 

would help NPS staff track specific influences 

to these resources as a result of visitor use. 

Impacts on seagrass from visitor activities 

include scarring from propellers, vessel 

groundings, and anchoring. These impacts 

can be widespread, with dense scarring found 

in more shallow depths and near areas that 

are heavily used by boats. The loss of seagrass 

from boating activities is a significant concern 

because seagrass beds are highly productive 

and provide food and shelter to a host of 

animals including macroinvertebrates, 

manatees, sea turtles, and many fish species, 

including the highly sought red drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) and common snook 

(Centropomus undecimalis). In fact, Mosquito 

Lagoon is considered one of the most diverse 

and productive estuaries in North America. 

In addition, minimizing propeller scarring 

from seagrass through management of 
Visitor Use Management 

53 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

General Visitor 

Impact Topic Indicators Assigned Zone Recommended Standard Potential Management Strategies 

Levels of use in 

the backcountry 

beach areas, 

which influences 

opportunities for 

solitude, resource 

conditions, and 

visitor safety 

Number of 

people per day 

in Klondike 

Beach 

Backcountry No more than 25 people 

per day accessing 

Klondike Beach by way 

of Apollo Beach 

No more than 25 people 

per day accessing 

Klondike Beach by way 

of Playalinda Beach 

Continue permitting system to these 

areas of the national seashore. 

Greater efforts towards public 

education on NPS regulations and 

to encourage voluntary 

redistribution of use. (Visitors would 

have knowledge and appreciation 

to space themselves out on the 

beach, to preserve their own and 

others’ experiences, rather than 

dictating spacing through site 

management such as designated 

camping areas.) 

Better posting of regulations for 

access to these areas. Increased 

enforcement. 

Levels of 

overnight use, 

which influences 

opportunities for 

solitude and 

resource 

conditions 

Number of 

groups per 

campsite 

Backcountry No more than one 

group* at any one time 

at each designated 

campsite 

*Each campsite has an 

existing group size limit 

that would continue to 

be enforced 

Continue permitting system for 

backcountry camping. 

Greater efforts towards public 

education on regulations and 

campsite availability. 

Better posting of regulations for 

access to campsites. Increased 

enforcement. 

Amount of auto 

use in the 

national 

seashore, which 

influences 

resource 

conditions (e.g., 

unauthorized 

parking in 

nondesignated 

areas) and 

crowding 

conditions on the 

beach 

Number of cars 

in the national 

seashore 

Recreation No additional cars in any 

district beyond the 

authorized number of 

spaces for each parking 

lot

Continue to actively redistribute auto 

use to areas with available parking. 

Greater efforts towards public 

education on regulations and 

toward encouraging voluntary 

redistribution of use (includes 

advanced planning information that 

encourages visitation to lesser-used 

areas or at off-peak times). 

Provide real-time information on 

parking availability. 

Continue temporary district gate 

closures when parking lots are full 

for that district. 

Evaluate alternative modes of 

transportation access to the 

national seashore. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

General Visitor 

Impact Topic Indicators Assigned Zone Recommended Standard Potential Management Strategies 

Amount of prop 

scarring 

Level of 

scarring* 

*exact metric 

to be 

determined in 

collaboration 

with the St. 

Johns Water 

Management 

District, Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 

and the U.S. 

Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

and other 

subject-area 

experts 

Recreation 

Backcountry 

The recommended 

standard is to be 

determined in 

collaboration with the 

St. Johns Water 

Management District, 

FWC, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and 

other subject-area 

experts based on recent 

and upcoming baseline 

condition assessments 

(Dynamac 2008) 

Greater efforts towards education 

and awareness of regulations and 

sensitive resources. 

Increase in staff and greater 

enforcement of regulations. 

Better posting of regulations, 

including pole/troll areas. 

Better marking of shallows, and other 

improved aids to navigation. 

Expansion of pole/troll areas.* 

Increased idle or slow-speed areas.* 

Mandatory education and/or 

permits.* 

Access limitations (e.g., regulations 

for sizes of boats) and/or area 

closures.* 

Influence of boat 

wakes on oyster 

reefs 

Change in 

oyster reef 

mortality 

(extent of 

visible dead 

shells) at 

individual reefs, 

both adjacent 

to primary boat 

corridors and in 

the national 

seashore’s 

more remote 

waters 

Note: Problem 

analysis would 

be needed to 

isolate visitorcaused impacts 

from naturally 

caused oyster 

reef mortality. 

Exact metric to 

be determined 

in coordination 

with FWC. 

Recreation 

Backcountry 

No more than a 5% 

increase in mortality 

above the 2009 baseline for any individual 

oyster reef directly 

adjacent to any of the 

following primary boat 

channels: Old Channel, 

Government Cut, 

Slippery Creek, and 

Shotgun 

No additional mortality 

above the 2009 baseline for any individual 

oyster reef in the 

national seashore’s 

more remote waters 

(any reefs not directly 

adjacent to the primary 

boat channels as noted 

in the above standard) 

Note: The recommended 

standard is to be 

determined in 

coordination with FWC 

Greater efforts towards education 

and awareness of regulations and 

sensitive resources. 

Increase in staff and greater 

enforcement of regulations. 

Better posting of regulations, 

including pole/troll areas. 

Better marking of shallows, and other 

improved aids to navigation. 

Expansion of pole/troll areas.* 

Increased idle or slow-speed areas.* 

Mandatory education and/or 

permits.* 

Access limitations (e.g., regulations 

for sizes of boats) and/or area 

closures.* 

Resource impacts 

associated with 

camping 

activities 

Maximum 

campsite size in 

square feet 

Backcountry Achieve and maintain at 

least 80% of natural 

campsites within 500–

750 square feet; 

achieve and maintain at 

Increase education on campsite 

regulations and Leave-No-Trace 

techniques. 

Relocate campsites to more durable 

and naturally constrained areas. 
Visitor Use Management 

55 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

General Visitor 

Impact Topic Indicators Assigned Zone Recommended Standard Potential Management Strategies 

least 80% of humanmade campsites within 

1,000 to 1,550 square 

feet.

Increase site management and 

maintenance (e.g., site boundary 

delineation, site ruination of 

periphery areas). 

Further regulate group size limitations 

per campsite. 

Designate use areas (e.g., tenting, 

cooking). 

Add visitor facilities (e.g., picnic 

tables, primitive toilets). 

Resource impacts 

associated with 

camping 

activities 

Number of fire 

and latrine sites 

on each 

campsite 

Backcountry No more than 15% of 

campsites with more 

than one fire and one 

latrine site 

Increase education on campsite 

regulations and Leave-No-Trace 

techniques. 

Designate use areas (e.g., tenting, 

cooking). 

Add visitor facilities (e.g., picnic 

tables, primitive toilets). 

Regulate activities (e.g., no open 

fires). 

Consider permanent or temporary 

closures of sites 

Note: Indicators and standards associated with propeller scarring and boat wakes may be modified or refined based on outcomes from 

the proposed fishery management plan. 

*If adopted, the National Park Service will coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, pursuant to the memorandum of 

understanding (discussed in the Interagency Agreements section of chapter 1 and elsewhere throughout the document) prior to 

developing and implementing management actions that modify current management of fishing activities or fishing vessel operations. 

Once the fishery management plan is developed and completed, it will address these management strategies. 

boating activities is important because 

although active restoration of damaged 

seagrass communities is technically possible, 

it is expensive and time consuming (NPS 

2008d). 

Recent assessments of propeller scarring of 

seagrass have been conducted in the south 

end of Mosquito Lagoon for the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. The 

National Park Service is currently 

coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the St. Johns Water Management 

District, and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection to expand this 

propeller scarring assessment, using the same 

methodology, to the seagrass beds within the 

boundaries of the national seashore. This 

baseline assessment will not be completed in 

time for consideration during this plan, but 

the National Park Service is committed to 

further development of the indicator(s) and 

standard(s) for propeller scarring in 

coordination with these other managing 

entities upon completion of the assessment. 

Given the importance of this issue to the 

health of the lagoon and the need to 

strategically and comprehensively manage 

boating activities, NPS staff believe that a 

coordinated and long-term approach to this 

issue is necessary and prudent. Some of the 

management activities that NPS staff have 

already been employing in relation to this 

issue include visitor education, regulation of 

watercraft in specific areas, speed zones, and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

channel marking. Further, this general 

management plan calls for the addition of 

pole/troll areas to the lagoon to minimize the 

extent and intensity of propeller scarring. 

This is a management technique that is 

becoming more regularly applied throughout 

Florida’s coastal areas, and has also recently 

been employed in the national wildlife refuge 

(NPS 2008d). 

Visitor use impacts from boating activities 

can also disturb the health and extent of 

oyster reefs in the intertidal and subtidal 

zones in the northern portion of Mosquito 

Lagoon. The reefs in the northern end of the 

lagoon are declining along the outer edges, 

and research by Dr. Linda Walters at the 

University of Central Florida has indicated 

that the reef decline may be influenced by 

boat wakes (Walters et al. 2007). Ray Grizzle 

from the University of New Hampshire has 

mapped the oyster reefs within Mosquito 

Lagoon and has found a 9.1% mortality 

amongst the oyster reef segments (2000 

personal communication Ray Grizzle to John 

Stiner). The indicator and standard for oyster 

reef mortality was developed in consultation 

with the oyster reef experts that have been 

conducting research in the lagoon for a 

number of years. Similar to the strategies 

used to minimize propeller scarring of 

seagrass, the National Park Service has 

already been employing a variety of 

management techniques in relation to this 

issue—including visitor education, 

regulations on size and types of watercraft in 

specific areas, speed zones, and channel 

marking. Please note that indicators and 

standards associated with prop scarring and 

boat wakes may be modified or refined based 

on outcomes from the proposed fishery 

management plan. 

The national seashore is home to several 

types of nesting sea turtles including the 

loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green 

sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and more recently 

the Kemp’s Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys 

kempii). These animals are very sensitive to 

disturbance during nesting activities. Given 

the high degree of visitor interest in viewing 

sea turtle nesting and the need for education 

and structure for these activities, the state of 

Florida regulates the frequency of turtle 

watch tours and the amount of people per 

tour. In earlier stages of the planning process, 

indicators and standards were developed to 

monitor the number of visitors participating 

in turtle watches. However, because the 

limits on participants and turtle watch tours 

are set by the state of Florida, and therefore 

cannot vary or be adjusted by the national 

seashore as a means of visitor use management, these indicators and standards were 

later deleted. The national seashore staff 

would continue its ongoing monitoring of sea 

turtles and impacts on sea turtles from 

human use in accordance with NPS, state, 

and federal policies. 

Currently the amount of auto use in the 

national seashore is strictly regulated for both 

the protection of resources as well as visitor 

experiences. Informal parking in 

nondesignated areas can cause a variety of 

resource concerns including vegetation loss 

and erosion directly associated with parked 

vehicles. In addition, parking in nondesignated areas encourages visitors to access the 

beach and other use areas outside the 

designated dune walkovers and trails—

causing additional vegetation loss, disturbance to wildlife, and possible impacts on 

cultural resources. The visitor experience 

concerns regarding the amount of auto use 

are described below. The indicator and 

standard for auto use was based on the 

national seashore’s existing management 

policy, which has proven to effectively minimize informal parking in the national seashore. Some of the management activities the 

National Park Service has already been 

employing in relation to this issue include 

visitor education to encourage voluntary 

redistribution of use to off-peak times, signs 

on national seashore regulations and 

permitted parking areas, active redistribution 

of use to areas with available parking, 

restriction of foot traffic to dune walkovers 

and other designated use areas, and closure 

of districts when the parking spaces are full. 
Visitor Use Management 

57 

The National Park Service also currently 

regulates the amount of use at campsites and 

in the backcountry to protect resources and 

visitor experiences. The amount of use at 

campsites is limited by the number and size of 

each campsite to ensure that overnight 

activities are well contained within the facility 

footprint that has been established for those 

activities. The indicator and standard for 

groups at campsites reflects the current group 

size limits established by the national 

seashore. 

Camping is a popular activity within the 

national seashore that can impact resources. 

A widely used indicator related to camping is 

the maximum campsite size, which relates to 

the total amount of vegetation and soil 

disturbance resulting from camping activities. 

The national seashore staff would maintain 

natural campsites to no more than 500–750 

square feet for 80% of the sites. The manmade sites (dredge spoil islands) have been 

designed to accommodate larger groups, and 

therefore the standard for campsite size 

would be higher—up to 1,000 to 1,550 square 

feet for 80% of human-made sites. In 

addition to campsite size, the national 

seashore staff would track the number of fire 

and latrine sites on campsites because both of 

these impacts present resource and visitor 

experience concerns. To minimize these 

impacts, most of the national seashore’s 

campsites would only have one latrine and 

one fire site allowed. The National Park 

Service would employ management strategies 

such as Leave-No-Trace education programs, 

group size regulations, and signs to achieve 

these campsite related standards. 

In addition, the amount of use to the national 

seashore’s backcountry is managed via a 

permitting system to protect resources and 

visitor experiences. The seashore is highly 

valued for the significant amount of 

undeveloped, pristine shoreline within its 

boundaries. To protect those qualities, the 

backcountry area of the national seashore has 

minimal visitor facilities, so rationing the 

amount of use helps NPS staff minimize the 

amount and intensity of vegetation loss, 

wildlife disturbance, litter, and other 

resource concerns. In addition, the permitting system provides NPS staff direct contact 

with visitors entering the backcountry, 

allowing for improved education and 

awareness associated with resource concerns 

and regulations. The indicator and standard 

for backcountry use is based on the current 

permitting system being used by the national 

seashore, which has proven to be effective in 

aiding the protection of resources in this area 

of the national seashore. The visitor 

experience concerns for use at campsites and 

in the backcountry area are described below. 

The management strategies being employed 

for these issues have already been described 

and include permitting, visitor education, and 

enforcement of NPS regulations. 

Some of the resource issues and related 

indicators noted for Canaveral National 

Seashore, such as impacts on seagrass and 

oyster reefs and disturbance to dune 

vegetation, are also highly influenced by 

regional and global threats such as pollution, 

disease, and climate change. Isolating visitor 

use impacts on these resources is not easy 

and may seem less significant than these 

other serious threats. However, there are 

visitor management actions that can help 

minimize these impacts and reduce the stress 

on resources, providing tangible resource and 

social benefits. 

The priority social indicators selected for 

Canaveral National Seashore are associated 

with the following issues of crowding and 

conflict: 

 amount of auto use 

 number of groups at campsites 

 amount of use in the seashore’s 

backcountry 

Informal parking as a result of too much auto 

use in the national seashore can cause a 

variety of visitor experience issues, including 

additional crowding at already high-use 

beach areas, visitor safety concerns along the 

seashore’s narrow roadways, and visual 

impacts from parked cars blocking the views. 

Given these concerns along with the resource 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

issues already noted, the national seashore 

currently regulates the amount of auto use via 

a variety of strategies, and the indicator and 

standard in table 3 reflects the current 

management policy. 

The amount of use in the backcountry can 

lead to the perception of crowding and use 

conflicts if visitors are frequently seeing or 

hearing other groups while visiting an area 

where the expectation to see and hear other 

visitors is relatively low. Similarly, the 

number and size of groups at campsites can 

influence visitors’ ability to camp out of sight 

and sound of other visitors, which contributes to perceptions of solitude and connection with nature. Part of the national 

seashore’s purpose is to provide an 

“uncrowded” experience to Florida’s coastal 

environment, and some of the best places for 

that experience are in the backcountry and 

during overnight visits. As noted previously, 

the indicators and standards for these issues 

are based on the current management policy 

that has proven effective at protecting the 

“uncrowded” nature of the visitor experience 

to the national seashore’s backcountry area 

and campsites. 

Currently, Canaveral National Seashore 

receives about 3,500 visitors per day during 

the peak season. This level of use is, and 

would continue to be, closely regulated 

through the amount of auto use permitted in 

the various districts of the national seashore. 

Given the NPS knowledge of resource and 

social conditions in the national seashore, it is 

expected that this amount of use would 

continue to allow the National Park Service 

to protect resources and provide high quality 

visitor experiences, including meeting the 

standards outlined below. As the approved 

alternative for Canaveral is implemented, and 

new visitor opportunities and transportation 

into the national seashore are offered, it is 

possible that incremental increases in the 

levels of visitor use may be accommodated. It 

is expected that the proposed management 

actions in the approved alternative would 

allow NPS staff to better accommodate, 

distribute, and manage use throughout the 

national seashore. However, increases in use 

levels would be approached very carefully, 

and in an incremental and experimental way 

using monitoring data and related research, 

to ensure that NPS implementation 

commitments to the desired conditions (and 

related standards) are always being achieved. 

NPS staff would continue general monitoring 

of use levels and patterns throughout the 

national seashore. In addition, NPS staff 

would monitor the user capacity indicators. 

The rigor of monitoring the indicators (e.g., 

frequency of monitoring cycles, amount of 

geographic area monitored) may vary 

considerably depending on how close 

existing conditions are to the standards. If the 

existing conditions are far from exceeding 

the standard, the rigor of monitoring may be 

less than if the existing conditions are close to 

or trending towards the standard. 

In addition, the initial phases of monitoring 

for the indicators and standards defined 

below would help the National Park Service 

determine if any revisions are needed. The 

initial testing of the indicators and standards 

would determine if the indicators are 

accurately measuring the conditions of 

concern and if the standards truly represent 

the minimally acceptable condition of the 

indicator. NPS staff may decide to modify the 

indicators or standards and revise the 

monitoring program if better ways are found 

to measure changes caused by visitor use. 

Most of these types of changes should be 

made within the first several years of 

initiating monitoring. After this initial testing 

period of monitoring indicators and 

standards, adjustments would be less likely to 

occur. 

Finally, if use levels and patterns change 

appreciably, NPS staff may need to initiate 

additional monitoring of new indicators to 

ensure that desired conditions are protected. 

This iterative learning and refining process is 

the strength of the NPS user-capacity 

management program, in that it can be 

adapted and improved as knowledge grows. 

 
59 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Regardless of this planning effort, the National 

Park Service would continue to follow special 

mandates and servicewide laws and policies as 

noted in chapter 1. Similarly, desired 

conditions for the entire national seashore 

(and potential strategies to achieve those 

conditions) for topics ranging from ecosystem 

management to accessibility are presented in 

chapter 1 and would apply regardless of which 

alternative is ultimately selected for 

implementation. As this General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was 

being developed, the national seashore was 

proceeding with a number of projects that are 

planned or already underway; these projects, 

discussed in chapter 4 (cumulative impacts), 

would also occur regardless of this planning 

effort. The alternatives described on the 

following pages, each of which is consistent 

with maintaining the national seashore’s 

purpose, significance, and fundamental 

resources and values, present different choices 

for how to manage resources, visitor use, and 

facilities within the national seashore. 

Each alternative is presented first with a 

general discussion of the overall vision for the 

national seashore, outlining future visitor 

experience and resource conditions. These 

guiding concepts are then followed by a more 

specific description of actions and activities for 

each area of the national seashore. 

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES – 

COMMERCIAL FISHING1

As discussed in chapter 1, the National Park 

Service has determined that the future 

management of commercial fishing in 

Canaveral National Seashore will be addressed 

separately. For this Final GMP/EIS, all 

 

1 Commercial fishing refers to fishing that involves the sale 

of the harvest. This not to be confused with commercial 

guided fishing, which does not involve the sale of the 

harvest. Commercial guided fishing is defined as “fishing 

from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire who is engaged 

in recreational fishing.” These definitions can be found in 

section 2101 of Title 46 United States Code. 

alternatives assume the same level of 

commercial fishing. The national seashore 

would continue to renew permits to existing 

commercial fishing permit holders and strictly 

enforce the use of catch logs. The seashore 

would also continue to adopt the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s 

commercial fishing regulations and actively 

monitor and patrol fishing activities in 

Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state regulations 

are met. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided 

to stop commercial fishing in 2018 within the 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, which 

includes the NPS/USFWS joint management 

area of the national seashore (where U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has primary jurisdiction 

over natural resources and the National Park 

Service has primary jurisdiction over cultural 

resources). This part of the seashore is 

administered for refuge purposes through the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act. This USFWS decision was 

addressed and announced as part of the 

finalization of the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan in 2007. Until 2018, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would continue to manage 

fishing in this area according to state 

regulations and commercial fishing would 

continue through the existing joint 

NPS/USFWS permit system. The USFWS 

determination to stop commercial fishing in 

2018 is independent of the NPS determination 

of the appropriate long-term action it will take 

regarding commercial fishing. 
60 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Identification of the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative involved evaluating the 

alternatives using an objective analysis process 

called “choosing by advantages.” This process 

included a multiday workshop in which staff 

members representing all divisions of the 

national seashore worked together to identify 

and compare the relative advantages of each 

alternative according to a set of predetermined 

factors. These factors were selected based on 

the benefits or advantages of each alternative 

to fulfill the purpose of the plan while 

addressing the planning issues identified in 

chapter 1. These factors include 

Factor 1 — maximize resource protection 

Factor 2 — maximize diversity of visitor 

experiences 

Factor 3 — improve operational effectiveness and efficiencies 

Decisions during the “choosing by advantages” 

process were based on the importance of 

advantages between the alternatives. This 

involved the identification of the attributes or 

characteristics of each alternative relative to 

the factors; a determination of the advantages 

for each alternative for each factor; and then 

weighing of importance of each advantage. The 

relationship between the advantages and costs 

of each alternative was also established. This 

information was used to identify the alternative 

that gives the National Park Service and the 

public the greatest advantage for the most 

reasonable cost. 

The results of the “choosing by advantages” 

process identified alternative B as the agency’s 

preferred alternative. This alternative provides 

the best combination of strategies to protect 

the national seashore’s unique resources and 

diversity of visitor experiences while 

improving the national seashore’s operational 

effectiveness and efficiencies. Ultimately, 

alternative B’s significant advantage to natural 

resource protection was one of the largest 

determining factors in identifying it as the 

agency’s preferred management alternative. 

Key advantages for resource protection 

include the following: 

 The largest portion of the national 

seashore would be zoned as backcountry, 

which is designed to preserve and maintain 

intact ecosystems. 

 There would be increases in protection of 

oyster beds, fish spawning grounds, and 

seagrass habitat through the use of slowspeed and pole/troll boating areas. 

 Habitat for threatened and endangered 

species would be improved, including 

scrub-jay habitat at Bill’s Hill and the 

Stuckey property (if acquired). 

 The national seashore’s pristine 

environment would be improved by 

moving utility lines underground. 

 Collaboration on resource projects with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

increase. 

 Viewsheds would improve through 

screening facilities. 

 Inventory, monitoring, and protection 

opportunities for archeological resources 

would increase. 

 A broader range of research opportunities 

would be provided. 

Alternative B advantages for maximizing the 

diversity of visitor experiences include 

enhanced opportunities for information, 

education, and interpretation at Apollo Beach, 

Eldora State House, Seminole Rest, and Bill’s 

Hill. The availability of sales, services, and 

supplies would also be enhanced at Apollo 

Beach. Improvements in hiking trail access and 

parking would occur in the Bill’s Hill area. A 

greater number of visitors would be allowed 

throughout the national seashore when 

parking lots are full because of a proposed 

shuttle service. Furthermore, alternative B 

provides more consistent security and 
Identification of the NPS Preferred Alternative 

61 

operating hours at the northern entrance near 

Apollo Beach. 

Alternative B advantages for improving the 

operational effectiveness and efficiencies of the 

national seashore include more conveniently 

located facilities that provide quick access for 

visitors to beach and lagoon areas. Select 

national seashore facilities would also be 

strategically located to increase efficiencies in 

managing critical beach and lagoon resources, 

as well as to separate public and administrative/maintenance traffic for enhanced 

visitor experiences. In comparison to the other 

alternatives, alternative B would also require 

the least amount of additional maintenance 

work because it proposes the least number of 

new structures. Facilities would also be in areas 

of the national seashore that better withstand 

storms, lessening the potential for repairs due 

to storm damage.
62 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

(CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

OVERALL CONCEPT 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, serves 

as a basis for comparison between Canaveral 

National Seashore’s current management and 

the other alternatives and thus provides a 

baseline for evaluating changes and impacts in 

the other alternatives considered in this plan. 

This alternative is also useful in understanding 

why the National Park Service or the public 

may believe that changes in management 

direction are needed. 

Under this alternative the National Park 

Service would continue to manage Canaveral 

National Seashore under the overall 

operational direction provided in its enabling 

legislation (PL 93-626 and as amended by PL 

100-564), previous planning documents, and 

interagency/cooperative agreements between 

(1) the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, which has jurisdiction over 

about 70% of the national seashore acreage, 

and the Department of the Interior (April 2, 

1975), and (2) between the National Park 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(July 10, 1975), which manages the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. The latter 

agreement, which is periodically updated, 

defines the general boundaries of an overlap 

area (designated the “Joint Management 

Area”) in and around Mosquito Lagoon and 

delineates responsibilities of the two agencies 

for cooperative administration and management of the area. Under this agreement the 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS management direction and 

initiatives as outlined in the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (2008), assist that agency in 

preserving this area’s cultural resources, and 

partner with them in seeking grants to support 

enhanced resource management efforts. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

coordinate and comply with NASA security 

concerns and policies as they relate to the 

national seashore. 

For the foreseeable future there would be no 

major change in the management direction of 

the national seashore. Current legislation, NPS 

policies, management guidelines, administrative commitments, and plans, such as the 

national seashore’s approved 1982 General 

Management Plan and 1998 General 

Management Plan Amendment for Seminole 

Rest, would continue to provide the guidance 

for managing the national seashore. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Most visitors would arrive at the national 

seashore by automobile via Florida State Route 

A1A from New Smyrna Beach on the north or 

via Florida 406/402 from Titusville and Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge on the south. 

Seminole Rest, east of U.S. 1 in Oak Hill, would 

continue to be accessed via River Road. 

Visitors arriving at the Seminole Rest / Bill’s 

Hill area would be able to visit the prehistoric 

Indian mound and two historic structures. 

Exhibits and visitor information about 

Canaveral National Seashore would be 

available. Trails through Bill’s Hill would be 

available. 

Visitors would continue to have access to the 

national seashore from the open waters of the 

Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean. 

Visitor confusion would be expected to continue because of the inadequacy of national 

seashore boundary signs in some areas and the 

multiplicity of signs relating to the national 

wildlife refuge, national seashore, and adjacent 

Kennedy Space Center in other areas. Some 

visitors—particularly boaters in the Mosquito 

Lagoon and Intracoastal Waterway—would 

not know when they are in the national 

seashore because there is a lack of boundary 

signs. Boaters would continue to be subject to 

Florida state and U.S. Coast Guard regulations. 
Alternative A: No-action Alternative 

63 

The national seashore’s Apollo Beach visitor 

information center, 7 miles south of New 

Smyrna Beach on Florida State Route A1A, is 

currently under construction. An interim 

facility is in place, providing limited orientation 

and visitor information as well as permitting 

and administrative ranger activities. Although 

the South District would continue to lack 

facilities for orienting visitors, the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge Visitor 

Information Center, 4 miles east of Titusville 

on Florida State Route 402, would continue to 

provide information for national seashore 

visitors. 

The current imbalance among visitation levels 

within the various zones, facility and infrastructure capacity, and the need to maintain 

the national seashore’s uncrowded and 

undeveloped qualities in accord with its 

purpose would continue under this alternative. 

Despite efforts to manage the national 

seashore to accommodate low-density visitor 

use, some beach areas could be expected to 

have high-density use and overcrowding at 

times. 

However, the national seashore would 

continue to feature safe and diverse lowimpact, water-based recreational opportunities 

within the context of relatively pristine and 

undeveloped beaches (Apollo Beach on the 

north and Playalinda Beach on the south)—

with parking lots, restrooms, and boardwalk 

access across the dunes from the parking 

areas—and would continue to provide limited 

visitor services. There would be no designated 

picnic areas, telephones, food, drinking water, 

or beach showers (with the exception of an 

unscreened outdoor shower facility at parking 

lot 1 in the North District). The 12-mile 

Klondike Beach, between Apollo and 

Playalinda beaches, would continue to be 

accessible by permit only. National seashore 

areas would continue to be closed if parking 

lots are filled or during shuttle launches at the 

Kennedy Space Center. Daily use fees to enter 

the national seashore would be continued. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Under this alternative current and ongoing 

resource management programs in the national 

seashore would continue as NPS staff and 

funding permit. Resource stewardship and 

provision of appropriate recreational and 

educational opportunities would continue to 

be overriding considerations for management. 

The natural resource management program 

would continue to focus on protection, 

preservation, and restoration of special status 

species, the dune system, water quality, the 

soundscape, and other significant resources 

associated with the national seashore’s ecosystem, as well as inventorying and monitoring 

resources and pursuing applied research. An 

existing agreement and partnership with the 

University of Central Florida Science Research 

Station would continue for inventorying and 

monitoring resources. 

Beaches. Beaches would remain relatively 

pristine and undeveloped, with emphasis on 

preserving a healthy dune system, using 

boardwalks for public access across the dunes, 

and restoring impacted areas. 

Additional agreements and partnership with 

educational institutions could be developed for 

research and inventory and monitoring of 

national seashore resources. 

Cultural Resources. The cultural resource 

program would continue to focus on 

protection, preservation, and interpretation of 

the national seashore’s more than 180 

archeological resources and historic structures 

(e.g., Eldora State House, and the main house 

and caretaker’s house at Seminole Rest). 

Fisheries. Under this alternative, the National 

Park Service would continue to voluntarily 

adopt the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s fishing regulations within 

the national seashore. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

actively monitor and patrol fishing activities in 

Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state regulations 

are met. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

The national seashore is not currently 

managing species in the Atlantic Ocean, but 

works with state and federal agencies to 

monitor fishery health. 

Please refer to the introduction of the 

alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

NATIONAL SEASHORE 

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Under this alternative the national seashore’s 

administrative headquarters would continue to 

be in a leased building in Titusville and 

function under a three-district framework 

(North—Apollo Beach, Eldora Hammock, and 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon; Central—

Seminole Rest and Bill’s Hill; and South—

Playalinda Beach). The North District would 

continue to be supported by the Apollo Beach 

maintenance area and the replaced ranger 

station at Apollo Beach. The Central District 

would continue to be supported by a small 

satellite maintenance staging area and ranger 

station at Seminole Rest. The South District 

would be supported by the Playalinda Beach 

maintenance area on USFWS land at Wilson’s 

Corner and the Playalinda Beach entrance 

station and administrative complex, which 

includes curatorial storage and a garage. 

Under this alternative some national seashore 

facilities would continue to be inadequate and 

outdated. Utility infrastructure, including the 

national seashore’s comfort stations and water 

and telephone lines, would continue to be 

inadequate and require upgrading. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

foster its relationships with NASA and USFWS 

staff as well as partnerships with other federal, 

state, and local government agencies, American 

Indian tribes, private organizations, and 

academic institutions for resource management, preservation, interpretation, visitor 

recreational opportunities and protection, 

mosquito control, and other administrative 

purposes. The current Volunteers-in-the-Park 

program would continue to assist NPS staff in 

such activities as conducting the sea turtle 

protection program each summer; staffing the 

Apollo Beach visitor information center, 

Eldora State House, and Seminole Rest; 

assisting with environmental education 

programs and other public interpretive 

programs; conducting turtle programs in area 

schools; and helping with maintenance 

projects. 

AREA-SPECIFIC 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Playalinda Beach Area 

Playalinda Beach. Current management 

trends, such as maintaining relatively pristine 

beach conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting special status species, and providing 

for safe recreational opportunities, would 

continue. Preservation of the primary dune 

system and restriction of visitor access only to 

designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Playalinda Beach Access. The access road, 13 

beach parking areas that accommodate 1,032 

cars and 18 recreational vehicles, chemical 

toilets, and access to the beach via boardwalk 

dune crossovers would be retained. 

Temporary closures of the Playalinda Beach 

area to visitor use before scheduled NASA 

activities may continue. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the existing entrance station and fee booth. 

Administrative Complex. The complex, 

including ranger station, curatorial storage 

facility, and garage, would continue to serve 

their current functions. 

Lifeguard Operations Area. Structures 

supporting beach operations (garage, lifeguard 
Alternative A: No-action Alternative 

65 

building, and petroleum/oil/ lubrication 

building) would be retained just south of the 

intersection of the Playalinda Beach access 

road and State Route 402. 

Beach access for all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for 

national seashore operations, such as 

responding to beach emergencies and 

supporting the resource management program, 

would continue over the administrative 

boardwalk dune crossover. 

Lands/Waters South of State Route 402. To 

comply with NASA security concerns, public 

access to this area would continue to be 

restricted. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities.

Klondike Beach Area 

Current management trends that emphasize 

preserving pristine beach conditions and 

protecting special status species would 

continue. Public access to Klondike Beach 

would continue to be by permit only and 

would be limited to 25 persons per day on the 

south end of the beach and 25 persons per day 

on the north end of the beach. Limits on and 

registration of visitor use are intended to 

provide opportunities for solitude, maintain 

pristine beach conditions, protect special 

status species, and ensure public safety. NPS 

staff would maintain an active resource 

monitoring and dune restoration program to 

repair areas of the dune system that become 

denuded by unlawful visitor-created (social) 

trails. 

Apollo Beach Area 

Apollo Beach. Current management trends, 

such as maintaining relatively pristine beach 

conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting specials status species, and 

providing for safe recreational opportunities, 

would continue. Preservation of the primary 

dune system and restriction of visitor access 

only to designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would continue to 

maintain an active resource monitoring and 

dune restoration program to repair areas of the 

dune system that have been denuded by 

unlawful visitor-created (social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Access. The access road, five 

beach parking areas accommodating a total of 

194 cars, exterior shower facility at beach 

parking area 1, and chemical toilet facilities at 

all beach parking areas would be retained. 

Provision for convenient visitor access to 

beach areas via designated dune crossovers 

would continue. 

Temporary closures of beach parking area 5 

and half of 4 may continue before scheduled 

NASA launches. 

When parking areas reach capacity, temporary 

restrictions on additional vehicular access into 

the Apollo Beach area would continue to be 

managed at the entrance station. 

Public use of the unpaved parking area near 

the administrative boardwalk would continue 

to be allowed for trailer parking and beach 

access for seasonal horseback riding along the 

shoreline areas between beach parking areas 1 

and 2 for a distance of about 1 mile. 

The overhead power and telephone lines 

paralleling the roadway would remain in place. 

 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the entrance station and fee booth. The current 

configuration of the entrance station and gate 

would continue to allow for unrestricted 

access to the boat ramp area. 

Apollo Beach Visitor Information Center. 

The new Apollo Beach Visitor Center and 

pavilion continues to serve as the main hub of 

visitor activities, including space for 

showcasing interpretive exhibits and an 

orientation film. The small Eastern National 

sales outlet would continue to operate at the 

site. Canoe rental for campers only would 

continue. The range of functions for this site 

would continue to include interpretation, 

information, permitting, and administrative 

ranger activities. The current level of 

interpretive and educational opportunities 

would be maintained, including school 

programs hosted at the new education 

pavilion, Turtle Mound, and public pontoon 

boat tours. These tours originate at the visitor 

center and showcase Mosquito Lagoon, the 

Eldora State House, and Turtle Mound. 

Turtle Mound. Current management trends, 

including provisions for mound protection, 

maintenance of the self-guided interpretive 

boardwalk trail, waysides, and parallel parking 

for 11 cars along Apollo Beach Road, would 

continue. 

North District Maintenance Area. North 

District maintenance operations would 

continue to be based from the existing site 

opposite the visitor information center. The 

maintenance shop, equipment repair shop, 

pole shed, petroleum/oil/lubrication building, 

and storage building would be retained. 

Beach Operations Area. The garages would 

continue to provide storage space for lifeguard 

operations, interpretation and resource 

management, law enforcement, and 

maintenance. The fire cache would remain. 

Beach access for all terrain vehicles to respond 

to beach emergencies as well as to support the 

turtle management program would continue 

over the existing administrative boardwalk 

dune crossover. 

Eldora Hammock Area 

Eldora Hammock Access. NPS staff would

continue to maintain the paved access road 

and four parking areas (accommodating a total 

of 53 cars) that provide visitor access to the 

Eldora historic area, interpretive trails, the 

canoe/kayak landing, and Mosquito Lagoon 

The overhead power and telephone lines that 

parallel the roadway would remain in place. 

Eldora Historic Area. The Eldora State House 

and dock would continue to be preserved. Staff 

office space and exhibits would be retained at 

the Eldora State House, and public access to 

the first floor would continue. 

Eldora Hammock Interpretive Trail. The 

trail and its series of wayside exhibits would be 

retained. Interpretive opportunities, such as 

guided interpretive tours, would be continued. 

Castle Windy Interpretive Trail. Current 

management trends, with provision for mound 

protection, use of beach parking lot 3 

(accommodating 25 cars) as trailhead parking, 

and maintenance of the self-guided interpretive hammock trail to the east shoreline of 

Mosquito Lagoon would continue. 

Marine Science Educational Station. The 

national seashore would continue to pursue 

supporting research operations at these 

facilities. 

Former Hebner Property. The garage would 

continue to provide for national seashore 

operations. Existing utilities would continue to 

be maintained. 

Former Feller Property. The house and dock 

would continue as a research station. 

Agreements and partnerships for resource 

inventory and monitoring would be continued. 

The trailer pad would remain.
North

0

0

5 Miles

1 5 Kilometers

1

95

95

406

406

402

A1A

442

3

5A

44

1

1

MOSQUITO LAGOON

Haulover

Canal

ATLANTIC OCEAN

INDIAN RIVER

South Lake

Eddy Creek

Lifeguard

Support

To 

Daytona 

Beach

Klondike Beach

Pardon 

Island

Cucumber

Island

Turtlepen

Point Playalinda Beach

Apollo 

 

Beach

Kennedy Parkway

Black Point

Wildlife Drive

(road closed to public)

Bio Lab Road

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Mims

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park

Seminole 

Rest

Castle Windy

Launch

Complex 39B

Launch

Complex 39A

John F Kennedy

Space Center (public access controlled)

Manatee 

Viewing Area

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitor 

Information Center

Canaveral National Seashore 

Visitor Information Center

Dummits

Cove

Eldora State House

Schultz House

Stuckey Property

Canaveral

National

Seashore

Headquarters

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

Gomez Grant Line 

Shipyard

Island

Orange Island

Old

Channel NASA Boundary

Self-guiding trail

Boat launch

Ranger station

Trail

Unpaved road

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

Alternative A

Canaveral National Seashore

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,242A • DSC • Mar 2010

Alternative A: No-action Alternative 

69 

Former Schultz Property. The Schultz house 

would be preserved and would continue to be 

used for administrative purposes such as for 

staging special events or housing mainly for 

researchers, and may accommodate other hires 

such as Student Conservation Association 

interns, other interns, and volunteers. The 

garage would be removed because of its poor 

condition. If needed for storage or restrooms, 

it could be replaced with a compatible 

structure. 

Lands South of Eldora Hammock. The 

southern portion of the Eldora Hammock 

(Schultz house to the Gomez grant line) would 

continue to be protected and preserved. The 

area would continue to be undeveloped and 

inaccessible by foot and would remain closed 

to visitors except for shoreline areas accessed 

by boat and the Castle Windy Interpretive 

Trail. The site of the French shipwreck survivors’ camp would continue to be protected 

and preserved. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon 

(Gomez Grant line to NPS north boundary) 

Boat Access Areas. A boat launch ramp, paved 

22-space boat trailer parking area, and 

restroom facility across from Apollo Beach 

parking area 1 would be maintained. Public 

access to the launch ramp would remain 

available 24 hours per day. 

The paved boat access ramp and kayak 

launching area across from Apollo Beach 

parking area 5, as well as the undelineated 

gravel parking area, would be retained. 

The canoe and kayak landing area accessing 

Mosquito Lagoon from the Eldora Hammock 

area would continue to be maintained. 

Lagoon Waters. Diverse, low-impact, waterbased recreational opportunities would 

continue to be provided in lagoon waters while 

maintaining the quality of resource conditions. 

NPS staff would continue to enhance resource 

stewardship partnerships with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, and other partners 

for Mosquito Lagoon. 

Lagoon Islands. The National Park Service 

would continue to provide for diverse, lowimpact, backcountry opportunities on lagoon 

islands while maintaining the quality of 

resource conditions. Fourteen designated 

backcountry campsites with picnic tables and 

grills would continue to be maintained and 

made available for public use by permit only. 

Oak Hill Area 

Seminole Rest. Management of the area 

would continue to focus on protection and 

preservation of the archeological resources 

and the rehabilitated historic main house and 

caretaker’s house. A small Eastern National 

sales outlet would continue to operate. A 

visitor contact station has been established on 

the first floor of the main house and provides 

space for a visitor orientation film and exhibits 

pursuant to completion of a permanent exhibit 

plan. The upper floor of the main house would 

continue to be used for NPS administrative 

purposes. The caretaker’s house would 

continue to be used intermittently as a ranger 

station and maintenance field office. The 

maintenance shed would remain. 

The interpretive trail would remain, and the 

area would continue to be staffed by 

volunteers. 

The concrete parking area that accommodates 

2 handicapped parking spaces, 11 regular and 6 

parallel vehicle pull-ins, 1 bus drop-off, and the 

satellite gravel overflow parking area 

accommodating 10 vehicles would continue to 

be maintained. 

Stuckey Property. As legislatively mandated, 

the Stuckey property would be purchased on a 

willing seller basis. 

Bill’s Hill Area. Current management and 

protection of resources would continue, and 

access during daylight hours would continue. 

Staff monitoring is currently very limited, and 

no services, sales, or supplies are available at 

the site. The area would remain undeveloped 

in character. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area 

Resources management within the Joint 

Management Area would be governed by 

National Park Service laws and policies and by 

the USFWS Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan. 

Access. Temporary closures of portions of the 

Joint Management Area to visitor use before 

scheduled NASA launches and landings may 

continue. 

Central/Southern Mosquito Lagoon. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS-led management direction 

and recreational activities (boating, fishing, and 

waterfowl hunting) for the lagoon area south 

of the Gomez Grant line. Existing designated 

pole/troll areas would continue to be 

monitored by USFWS staff to assess their 

effectiveness in providing protection of 

sensitive seagrass bed habitat. Additional 

pole/troll areas may be designated by USFWS 

staff if resource conditions indicate a need for 

additional protective measures. The National 

Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration would continue to enhance 

resource management and protection of 

lagoon resources. The National Park Service 

would support potential USFWS canoe trails at 

Beacon 42, Max Hoeck Creek, and Bull Camp. 

Boat Access Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue to provide public boat 

access to central Mosquito Lagoon via two 

boat launching facilities along Kennedy 

Parkway (State Route 3) and a third along Bio 

Lab Road. A nonmotorized launch area for 

canoes is proposed along the south end of Bio 

Lab Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

At the Eddy Creek boat launch area, at the 

south end of the lagoon, the management 

agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for NPS maintenance of the public boat 

launch ramp, dock, parking area (28 cars/10 

boat trailers), pavilion, and waysides would 

remain. 

The management agreement with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service for the National Park 

Service to provide on-site school group 

environmental education programs in the 

Eddy Creek area would also continue. 

Lands North of Haulover Canal. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities for this area. Deer 

and feral hog hunting areas may be considered 

on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

lands north of Haulover Canal to control 

populations of these species. 

Manatee Viewing Area. The National Park 

Service would continue to support USFWS 

lead management direction and self-guided 

interpretive opportunities for this area. 

Scrub Ridge Interpretive Trail. The National 

Park Service would continue to support 

USFWS and NASA lead management direction 

and self-guided interpretive opportunities for 

this area. 

Sand Road/Trail. The National Park Service 

would continue to support USFWS lead 

management direction for this resource and 

assist that agency in preserving the trail and its 

associated World War II observation towers. 

Historic Properties. NPS staff would 

continue to assist USFWS staff and NASA staff 

with its primary responsibility in the 

management of cultural resources in the Joint 

Management Area (such as Target Rock, Ross 

Hammock, “Confederate salt works,” Old 

Haulover Canal, Clifton Schoolhouse site, and 

Dummit Cove). The current level of opportunities for information, interpretation, and 

education would continue. (With the 

exception of the Clifton Schoolhouse site, 

these features are not currently interpreted or 

marked.) 

Bio Lab Road. USFWS staff would continue to 

maintain public access along Bio Lab Road for 

wildlife viewing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, 

and boat access to Mosquito Lagoon. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

the NASA tracking facilities. 
Alternative A: No-action Alternative 

71 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS Visitor Information Center. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remain 

the lead agency for visitor information in the 

South District. Visitor orientation to the 

features available at the national seashore and 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to be provided at the USFWS 

visitor information center, just west of the 

national seashore boundary. Limited national 

seashore orientation (e.g., brochures and 

maps) would continue. 

NPS South District Maintenance Area. The 

USFWS Wilson’s Corner site would continue 

to be used for the NPS South District maintenance operations, including the maintenance 

shop; east and west pole sheds; Bally building; 

and petroleum, oil, and lubrication building. 

Titusville Area 

National Seashore Headquarters. The lease 

arrangement for national seashore headquarters in downtown Titusville would be 

extended. As provided in the national seashore 

legislation, acquisition of the Stuckey property 

would be appropriate on a willing seller basis 

only. A determination of this site’s 

appropriateness for a future park headquarters 

would be made sometime following 

acquisition. 
72 

ALTERNATIVE B: THE NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

OVERALL CONCEPT 

Under alternative B, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed to preserve and 

enhance the natural and historic landscape 

features associated with the national seashore’s 

eastern Florida coastal barrier island system. 

Emphasis would be placed on retaining the 

seashore’s relatively undeveloped character 

and providing uncrowded experiences by 

dispersing visitors via a shuttle service or 

canoe, kayak, hiking and walking trails, and 

bicycle trails. Coordination with landmanaging partners would be increased to 

provide additional educational opportunities 

and programs for visitors and enhanced 

monitoring of Mosquito Lagoon resources. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Visitors entering the national seashore would 

experience the relatively pristine natural 

setting of the national seashore and lagoon that 

are mostly free of unnecessary distractions. 

Opportunities for experiencing an uncrowded 

natural environment would be easily found 

throughout the national seashore. High visitor 

use levels might be encountered at visitor 

contact centers or at portals to the beach and 

lagoon, but emphasis would be placed on 

encouraging visitors to experience areas of the 

seashore that are relatively undeveloped. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Natural resource management efforts would 

focus on protection, preservation, and 

rehabilitation of species and ecosystem 

features, inventorying and monitoring of 

resources, and applied research efforts as well 

as the preservation of the national seashore’s 

soundscape and water quality. Coordination 

with land-managing partners would be 

increased to provide a comprehensive 

approach to ecosystem and cultural resource 

management as well as additional educational 

opportunities and programs for visitors. 

Agreements and partnership with educational 

institutions could be developed for research 

and inventory and monitoring of national 

seashore resources. 

Beaches. Beaches would remain relatively 

pristine and undeveloped, with emphasis on 

preserving a healthy dune system, using 

boardwalks for public access across the dunes, 

and restoring impacted areas. 

Restoration of disturbed areas to natural 

conditions would be a principal focus of 

resource management efforts. Travel in 

shallow water areas in the national seashore 

could be limited to pole/troll or nonmotorized 

methods to protect fragile seagrass and fish 

spawning areas and oyster beds, and to 

minimize coastal erosion caused by boat 

wakes. 

Cultural Resources. Cultural resource 

management efforts would continue to focus 

on protection, preservation, and interpretation 

of more than 180 archeological sites and 

historic structures such as the Eldora State 

House, and main house and caretaker’s house 

at Seminole Rest. In selected areas, such as 

Seminole Rest and the Eldora Hammock area, 

key cultural landscape features would be 

rehabilitated to reflect historic conditions 

associated with their periods of significance. 

In addition, resource management personnel 

would work with interpretive staff to highlight 

appropriate themes for the educational 

program. 

Fisheries. Under this alternative, the National 

Park Service would develop a separate fishery 

management plan. The plan would include a 

public involvement and environmental 

compliance process and would be developed in 

partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and other federal and state 

agencies. In the interim, the National Park 

Service would develop a memorandum of 

understanding with the Florida Fish and 
Alternative B: The NPS Preferred Alternative 

73 

Wildlife Conservation Commission that 

outlines the commitment of both agencies to 

collaborate in the management of fisheries 

within the national seashore and become 

cooperating agencies in the development of the 

fishery management plan. 

Once the fishery management plan is developed and completed it will address fishing 

activities within the national seashore in order 

to better protect park resources including 

valuable fisheries resources and to determine 

sustainable harvest levels found within 

boundaries of the national seashore. Impacts of 

vessel operations on fisheries resources will 

also be addressed. The National Park Service 

would use the best available science in order to 

make informed decisions in the fishery 

management plan. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service will coordinate with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission pursuant to the memorandum of 

understanding (discussed in the Interagency 

Agreements section of chapter 1 and elsewhere 

throughout the document) prior to developing 

and implementing management actions that 

modify current management of fishing 

activities or fishing vessel operations. 

Management actions include but are not 

limited to new or modified use of management 

strategies that limit the use of internal 

combustion motors (e.g., pole and troll areas), 

or limit vessel speed (e.g., idle/slow speed 

zones), permitting requirements for fishing 

activities, access limitations, or area closures. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service would continue to 

adopt the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s fishing regulations and 

actively monitor and patrol fishing activities in 

Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state regulations 

are met. 

Please refer to the introduction of the 

alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

NATIONAL SEASHORE 

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Readily identifiable visitor contact facilities for 

orientation and educational purposes and 

ranger stations would be conveniently located 

and provide quick access to beach and lagoon 

areas. Other support facilities for national 

seashore operations, such as administration, 

resource management, and maintenance, 

would be visually screened from visitor use 

areas, but would be conveniently located to 

critical beach and lagoon resource areas to 

promote efficient operations. Efforts would be 

undertaken to separate public and administrative/ maintenance traffic to provide for 

enhanced visitor experiences and safety. 

Access to areas within the national seashore 

would be accommodated with low-key 

structures that blend with their natural 

surroundings to avoid impacts on fragile 

resources such as dune vegetation and 

shoreline edges, scenic views, and cultural sites 

and landscapes. 

AREA-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS 

Playalinda Beach Area 

Playalinda Beach. Current management 

trends would continue, such as maintaining 

relatively pristine beach conditions, preserving 

the dune system, protecting special status 

species, and providing for safe recreational 

opportunities. Preservation of the primary 

dune system and restriction of visitor access 

only to designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

The high-maintenance chemical toilet facilities 

at all beach parking areas would be replaced 

with a more efficient and sustainable system. 

Playalinda Beach Access. The access road, 13 

beach parking areas that accommodate 1,032 

cars and 18 recreational vehicles, and access to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

the beach via boardwalk dune crossovers 

would be retained. 

Temporary closures of the Playalinda Beach 

area to visitor use before scheduled NASA 

launches and landings may continue. 

A bicycle path connecting with the proposed 

USFWS bike path along State Route 402 into 

Playalinda Beach would be developed. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the entrance station and fee booth. 

Administrative Complex. The complex, 

including ranger station, curatorial storage 

facility, and garage, would continue to serve 

their current functions, although a small visitor 

contact station would be accommodated in the 

ranger station. 

Lifeguard Operations Area. The desirability 

of moving lifeguard operations to Eddy Creek 

would be evaluated. Structures might be 

removed or used for storage. The administrative boardwalk dune crossover would also be 

reconfigured in that area to accommodate 

ATV emergency access. 

Lands/Waters South of State Route 402. To 

comply with NASA security concerns, public 

access to this area would continue to be 

restricted. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities. 

Klondike Beach Area 

Current management trends that emphasize 

preserving pristine beach conditions and 

protecting special status species would 

continue. Public access to Klondike Beach 

would continue to be by permit only and 

limited to 25 persons per day on the south end 

of the beach and 25 persons per day on the 

north end of the beach. Limits on and 

registration of visitor use are intended to 

provide opportunities for solitude, maintain 

pristine beach conditions, protect special 

status species, and ensure public safety. NPS 

staff would maintain an active resource 

monitoring and dune restoration program to 

repair areas of the dune system that may 

become denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Area 

Apollo Beach. Current management trends, 

such as maintaining relatively pristine beach 

conditions, protecting special status species, 

and providing for safe recreational opportunities, would continue. Preservation of the 

primary dune system and restriction of visitor 

access only to designated dune crossover trails 

would continue. NPS staff would maintain an 

active resource monitoring and dune 

restoration program to repair areas of the dune 

system that have been denuded by unlawful 

visitor-created (social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Access. The access road, five 

beach parking areas accommodating a total of 

194 cars, and exterior shower facility at beach 

parking area 1 would remain. Provision for 

convenient visitor access to beach areas via 

designated dune crossovers would continue. 

Temporary closures of beach parking area 5 

and half of 4 would continue before scheduled 

NASA launches per NASA requirements. 

When parking areas reach capacity, temporary 

restrictions on additional vehicular access into 

the Apollo Beach area would go into effect at 

the entrance station. However, opportunities 

to provide alternative transportation into the 

area would be pursued, such as establishing 

bike trails along national seashore roads that 

extend and connect with existing county bike 

trail systems and coordinating with the Volusia 

County Public Transit System to extend shuttle 

bus service into the national seashore. A 

commercial service arrangement could also be 

developed to provide for shuttle service into 

the area. 

Public use of the unpaved parking area near 

the administrative boardwalk would continue 
Alternative B: The NPS Preferred Alternative 

75 

to be allowed for trailer parking and beach 

access for seasonal horseback riding along the 

shoreline areas between beach parking areas 1 

and 2. 

The high-maintenance chemical toilet facilities 

at all beach access parking areas would be 

replaced with a more efficient and sustainable 

system. 

To remove man-made visual intrusions and 

enhance scenic views, existing overhead power 

and telephone lines would be removed, and 

lines would be placed underground. Removal 

of these above-ground lines could also 

enhance visitor safety during storms, and 

prevent service disruptions. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the entrance station and fee booth; however, 

the structure and entrance gate would be 

relocated towards the north boundary to 

enhance security and safety, allow for 

controlled entry into the launch ramp area, and 

provide a safe turnaround area for visitors 

when parking areas have reached capacity. 

Apollo Beach Visitor Information Center. 

The Apollo Beach Visitor Center and pavilion 

would continue to serve as the primary hub for 

visitor activities. The current level of school 

programs hosted at the visitor information 

center pavilion and Turtle Mound and public 

pontoon boat tours—which originate at the 

visitor information center and showcase 

Mosquito Lagoon, the Eldora State House, and 

Turtle Mound—would be expanded. 

Turtle Mound. Current management provisions for mound protection, maintenance of 

the self-guided interpretive boardwalk trail, 

waysides, and parallel parking configuration 

for 11 cars along the beach access road would 

continue. 

North District Maintenance Area. North 

District maintenance operations would 

continue to be based from the site opposite the 

visitor information center. However, the 

maintenance complex would be reconfigured 

or redesigned to improve efficiency and 

eliminate internal circulation problems, 

provide adequate turnaround, and separate 

visitor traffic from maintenance traffic. 

Facilities would be screened from the view of 

visitors. 

Beach Operations Area. The garages would 

continue to provide storage space for lifeguard 

operations, interpretation and resource 

management, law enforcement, and 

maintenance. The fire cache would remain. 

Beach access for all terrain vehicles to respond 

to beach emergencies as well as support the 

turtle management program would continue 

over the existing administrative boardwalk 

dune crossover. 

Eldora Hammock Area 

Eldora Hammock Access. NPS staff would

continue to maintain the existing access road 

and four parking areas (accommodating a total 

of 53 cars) that provide visitor access to the 

Eldora historic area, interpretive trails, canoe/ 

kayak landing, and Mosquito Lagoon. 

To remove man-made visual intrusions and 

enhance scenic views, overhead power and 

telephone lines would be removed, and lines 

would be placed underground. 

Eldora Historic Area. The Eldora State 

House, Cisterns, and Dock would be 

preserved. Public access to the first floor 

would continue to be provided. Visitor 

understanding of this late 19th century Florida 

waterway community; the early 20th century 

Florida environmental movement; and the 

interconnectedness of the natural 

environment, hammock community, and 

lagoon setting with these cultural conditions 

would be expanded/improved. Interpretation 

of the Eldora historic area would continue with 

permanent exhibits and administrative office 

space in the Eldora State House. The area 

would be studied as a cultural landscape, and 

key features would be rehabilitated to reflect 

historic conditions associated with their period 

of significance. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76 

An exhibit area would be maintained in the 

state house pursuant to the permanent exhibit 

and historic furnishings plans. 

Eldora Hammock Interpretive Trail. The 

trail and its series of wayside exhibits would 

remain. Interpretive opportunities, such as 

guided interpretive tours, would be continued. 

Castle Windy Interpretive Trail. Current 

management trends, with provision for mound 

protection, use of beach parking lot 3 

(accommodating 25 cars) as trailhead parking, 

and maintenance of the self-guided 

interpretive hammock trail to the east 

shoreline of Mosquito Lagoon, would 

continue. In addition, the trail would be 

extended along the shoreline to provide a 

looped segment to enhance interpretive and 

environmental education opportunities.
North 

0 

0 

5 Miles 

1 5 Kilometers 

1 

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors 

have been enlarged in certain areas. 

Alternative B

Canaveral National Seashore

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,243A • DSC • Mar 2010

95 

95 

406 

406 

402 

A1A 

442 

3 

5A 

44 

1 

1 

MOSQUITO LAGOON 

Haulover 

Canal 

ATLANTIC OCEAN 

INDIAN RIVER

South Lake 

Eddy Creek 

Lifeguard 

Support 

To 

Daytona 

Beach 

Klondike Beach 

Pardon 

Island 

Cucumber 

Island 

Turtlepen 

Point Playalinda Beach 

Apollo

 Beach

Kennedy Parkway

Black Point

Wildlife Drive

(road closed to public) 

Bio Lab Road

Scrub 

Ridge 

Trail 

Mims 

Turtle Mound 

Eldora Hammock 

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park 

Seminole 

Rest 

Castle Windy 

Launch 

Complex 39B 

Launch 

Complex 39A 

John F Kennedy 

Space Center 

(public access controlled) 

Manatee 

Viewing Area 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge

Visitor Information Center

Canaveral National 

Seashore Visitor 

Information Center

Dummits 

Cove 

Eldora State House

Schultz House 

Stuckey Property 

Canaveral

National

Seashore

Headquarters

TITUSVILLE 

OAK 

HILL 

BETHUNE 

BEACH 

EDGEWATER 

NEW 

SMYRNA 

BEACH 

Gomez Grant Line 

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

ATLANTIC OCEAN 

Turtle 

Mound

Apollo Beach 

Castle

 Windy

Eldora

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Eldora

Hammock

Slow speed restricted area

Self-guiding trail 

Boat launch 

Ranger station 

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones 

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation 

Backcountry 

Sensitive Resource 

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station 

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

Nonmotor or pole/troll area

NASA Security and 

Safety Clearance zone 

Slow speed restricted area

Schultz 

House

Shipyard 

Island 

Orange Island

Old

Channel NASA Boundary

Visitor 

information 

center

Mosquito

Lagoon

Dock

Dock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Eldora

State

House

Wilson’s

Corner

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

Alternative B: The NPS Preferred Alternative 

79 

Marine Science Educational Station. The 

national seashore would continue to pursue 

supporting research operations at these 

facilities. 

Former Hebner Property. The garage would 

continue to be used for national seashore 

operations. 

Former Feller Property. Use of the property 

would be offered to a broad range of 

universities and institutions for research and 

inventorying and monitoring activities. The 

trailer pad would remain. 

Former Schultz Property. The Schultz house 

would be preserved and would continue to be 

used for administrative purposes such as 

intermittent housing for new hires, 

researchers, and interns, or for staging special 

events. The garage would be removed because 

of its poor condition; repair would require 

virtual replacement of the entire structure. If 

needed for storage or restrooms, it could be 

replaced with a compatible structure. 

Lands South of Eldora Hammock. The 

southern portion of the Eldora Hammock 

(Schultz house to Gomez Grant line) would 

continue to be protected and preserved. The 

area would continue to be undeveloped and 

inaccessible by foot and would remain closed 

to visitors except for shoreline areas accessed 

by boat and the Castle Windy interpretive trail. 

The site of the French shipwreck survivors’ 

camp would be protected and preserved. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon 

(Gomez Grant line to NPS north boundary) 

Boat Access Areas. The boat launch area 

across from Apollo Beach parking area 1 would 

continue to be maintained; however, 24-hour 

public access would be phased out over time 

and transitioned into controlled entry to 

enhance security. The entrance area (gate/fee 

booth) would be relocated north to the 

national seashore boundary to control public 

access to the launch area. Use of the boat ramp 

area would be included in the national 

seashore entrance fee. 

The paved boat access ramp and kayak 

launching area across from Apollo Beach 

parking area 5, as well as the undelineated 

gravel parking area, would remain. 

The canoe and kayak landing area accessing 

Mosquito Lagoon from the Eldora Hammock 

area would continue to be maintained. 

Lagoon Waters. Diverse, low-impact, waterbased recreational opportunities would be 

provided in lagoon waters while maintaining 

the quality of resource conditions. 

NPS staff would continue to enhance its 

resource stewardship partnership with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Aeronautic and Space Administration for 

Mosquito Lagoon, as well as increase its 

monitoring efforts to better assess changes or 

trends in resource conditions related to the 

effects of public boating activities, commercial 

guiding and/or recreational fishing activities in 

the lagoon. Public activities would continue to 

be permitted unless documented trends in 

resource conditions require changes to visitor 

use management. 

Complementing recent USFWS efforts for 

providing proactive resource protection 

measures for areas containing oyster beds, fish 

spawning, and seagrass beds in other areas of 

Mosquito Lagoon, the National Park Service 

would establish a nonmotorized or pole/ troll 

area to protect resources in the Shipyard Island 

area of the lagoon. The general location of this 

pole/troll area is shown on the alternative map, 

but it may be adjusted as needed to protect 

resources while providing appropriate boating 

access. Other such areas might also be 

established if monitoring indicates that 

resources are being impacted by overuse. 

In order to formally designate the pole/troll 

area, the National Park Service would pursue 

rulemaking in the Federal Register to establish a 

special regulation for this area. This would 

include substantial input from agencies and the 

public on the location, size, and boundaries of 

this area. It is anticipated that this input would 

be solicited as part of the preparation of the 

fishery management plan. Also to better inform 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

this process, the National Park Service would 

consider a pilot test of the pole/troll area and 

solicit public and agency feedback during the 

pilot test period 

To provide for wildlife viewing and shoreline 

protection, a slow-speed area would be 

established for boats between the Eldora State 

House, parking lot 7, and the first island to the 

west. 

Lagoon Islands. The National Park Service 

would continue to provide for diverse, lowimpact, recreational opportunities on lagoon 

islands while maintaining the quality of 

resource conditions. Fourteen designated 

backcountry campsites with picnic tables and 

grills would continue to be maintained and 

made available for public use by permit only. 

Oak Hill Area 

Seminole Rest. Management of the area 

would continue to focus on protection and 

preservation of the archeological resources 

and the rehabilitated historic main house and 

caretaker’s house. A small Eastern National 

sales outlet would continue to operate. A 

visitor contact station has been established on 

the first floor of the main house and provides 

space for a visitor orientation film and exhibits. 

The upper floor of the Seminole Rest main 

house is used for NPS administrative purposes. 

The caretaker’s house is used as a maintenance 

field office. The maintenance shed would 

remain. The interpretive trail would remain. 

Interpretive and educational programs would 

be expanded. The area would be studied as a 

cultural landscape, and key features would be 

rehabilitated to reflect historic conditions 

associated with their period of significance. 

The concrete parking area that accommodates 

2 handicapped parking spaces, 11 regular, and 

6 parallel vehicle pull-ins, and 1 bus drop-off, 

and the satellite gravel overflow parking area 

accommodating 10 vehicles would remain. 

Stuckey Property. As legislatively mandated, 

the Stuckey property would be purchased on a 

willing-seller basis. Once acquired, a decision 

as to whether it should be developed as a new 

visitor facility or restored to natural conditions 

would be made. Since the legislation was 

signed, a visitor facility has been developed at 

Seminole Rest. 

Bill’s Hill Area. Opportunities for dispersed 

backcountry hiking would be provided. 

Expanded interpretive opportunities via 

marked trails and wayside exhibits would be 

developed. 

A canoe/kayak landing and water trail 

connection with the proposed USFWS 

canoe/kayak trail along the west side of the 

Intracoastal Waterway south of the Gomez 

Grant line would be established. Additional 

routes would be developed through the 

mangrove islands and connect to the 

canoe/kayak launch area at parking lot 7 in the 

Eldora Hammock area. 

Access and parking for designated trailheads 

for hiking would be provided. 

Cultural and natural resources monitoring 

efforts would be increased in response to 

providing limited access for visitor backcountry experience. An archeological survey

would be implemented to document sites. 

Resource monitoring would be provided by 

staff stationed nearby at Seminole Rest. 

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area 

Access. Temporary closures of portions of the 

Joint Management Area to visitor use before 

scheduled NASA launches and landings may 

continue. 

Central/Southern Mosquito Lagoon. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lead 

management direction and recreational 

activities (boating, fishing, and waterfowl 

hunting) for the lagoon area south of the 

Gomez Grant line. Existing designated 

pole/troll areas would be monitored by 

USFWS staff to assess their effectiveness in 

providing protection of sensitive seagrass bed 
Alternative B: The NPS Preferred Alternative 

81 

habitat. Additional pole/troll areas may be 

designated by USFWS staff if resource 

conditions indicate a need for additional 

protective measures. The National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration would continue to enhance resource 

management and protection of lagoon 

resources. The National Park Service would 

support potential USFWS canoe trails at 

Beacon 42, Max Hoeck Creek, and Bull Camp. 

Boat Access Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue to provide public boat 

access to central Mosquito Lagoon via two 

boat launching facilities along Kennedy 

Parkway (State Route 3) and a third along Bio 

Lab Road. A nonmotorized launch area for 

canoes is proposed along the south end of Bio 

Lab Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

At the Eddy Creek boat launch area, at the 

south end of the lagoon, the management 

agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for NPS maintenance of the public boat 

launch ramp and parking area would continue. 

The existing management agreement with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the National 

Park Service to provide on-site school group 

environmental education programs in the 

Eddy Creek area would continue. 

Lands North of Haulover Canal. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities for this area. Deer 

and feral hog hunting areas may be considered 

on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

lands north of Haulover Canal to control 

populations of these species. 

Manatee Viewing Area. The National Park 

Service would continue to support USFWS 

lead management direction and self-guided 

interpretive opportunities for this area. 

Scrub Ridge Interpretive Trail. The National 

Park Service would continue to support 

USFWS lead management direction and selfguided interpretive opportunities for this area. 

Sand Road/Trail. The National Park Service 

would continue to support USFWS lead 

management direction for this resource and 

assist that agency in preserving the trail and its 

associated World War II observation towers. 

Historic Properties. NPS staff would 

continue to assist USFWS staff and NASA staff 

with its primary responsibility in the 

management of cultural resources in the joint 

management area (such as Target Rock, Ross 

Hammock, “Confederate salt works,” Old 

Haulover Canal, Clifton Schoolhouse site, and 

Dummit Cove). The current level of 

opportunities for information, interpretation, 

and education would continue. 

Bio Lab Road. USFWS staff would continue to 

maintain public access along Bio Lab Road for 

wildlife viewing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, 

and boat access to Mosquito Lagoon. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS Visitor Information Center. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remain 

the lead agency for visitor information in the 

South District. Visitor orientation to the 

features available at the national seashore and 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to be provided at the USFWS 

visitor information center, just west of the 

national seashore boundary. Limited national 

seashore orientation (e.g., brochures and 

maps) would be available.

NPS would work with the USFWS to explore 

whether combined administrative headquarters functions in the South District would 

be the best strategy for administration of the 

national seashore. If it is determined that such 

a combined facility is not an appropriate 

option for administration of the national 

seashore, NPS staff would look elsewhere in 

the South District for such a facility location. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82 

NPS South District Maintenance Area. The 

USFWS Wilson’s Corner site would continue 

to be used for the NPS South District maintenance operations, including the maintenance 

shop; east and west pole sheds; Bally building; 

and petroleum, oil, and lubrication building. 

Titusville Area 

National Seashore Headquarters. The lease 

arrangement for national seashore headquarters in downtown Titusville would be 

extended. As provided in the national seashore 

legislation, acquisition of the Stuckey property 

would be appropriate on a willing seller basis 

only. A determination of this site’s appropriateness for a future park headquarters 

would be made sometime following 

acquisition.
83 

ALTERNATIVE C 

OVERALL CONCEPT 

Under alternative C, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed as a place where 

visitors would explore and experience a wide 

range of opportunities designed to provide an 

in-depth understanding of the natural and 

cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. 

When visitors enter the national seashore, they 

would be presented with a menu of choices for 

alternative modes of access to land- and waterbased natural and cultural features, 

recreational opportunities, and educational 

pursuits. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Visitors entering the national seashore would 

be provided with a full range of educational 

opportunities, including knowledge about the 

natural and cultural resources of the area, 

recreational pursuits, resource sensitivity 

issues, and public safety messages. Information 

regarding educational opportunities would be 

made available in a centralized location as well 

as at a number of specific areas in the national 

seashore. The central visitor orientation facility 

would be in the Bill’s Hill area, and there 

would be a second information center at 

Apollo Beach; smaller satellite visitor contact 

areas using historic structures, new facilities, or 

wayside exhibits would be in various locations 

in the national seashore. For the unprepared 

visitor, recreational rental equipment would be 

available near significant areas of interest, thus 

making it more convenient to leave 

automobiles behind and access the unique 

natural and cultural areas of the national 

seashore through various nonmotorized 

methods. Land- and water-based trails would 

be expanded; interpretation of cultural sites 

would be increased; and on-site environmental 

education activities, emphasizing safety and 

resource sensitivity, would be routinely 

scheduled. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Natural resource management efforts would 

focus on protection, preservation, and 

rehabilitation of species and ecosystems, 

inventorying and monitoring resources, and 

applied research efforts, as well as preservation 

of the national seashore’s soundscapes and 

water quality. Coordination with landmanaging partners would be increased to 

provide a comprehensive approach to 

ecosystem and cultural resource management 

as well as additional educational opportunities 

and programs for visitors. 

Beaches. Beaches would remain relatively 

pristine and undeveloped, with emphasis on 

preserving a healthy dune system, using 

boardwalks for public access across the dunes, 

and restoring impacted areas. 

In addition, resource management personnel 

would work with interpretive staff to highlight 

appropriate themes for the educational 

program. 

Agreements and partnership with educational 

institutions could be developed for research 

and inventory and monitoring of national 

seashore resources. 

Cultural Resources. Cultural resource 

management would continue to emphasize 

protection, preservation, rehabilitation, 

appropriate adaptive use, and interpretation of 

more than 180 archeological sites and historic 

structures, such as the Eldora State House, 

Schultz House, and main house and caretaker’s 

house at Seminole Rest, within the context of 

the national seashore’s natural terrestrial and 

cultural landscapes and scenic views. 

Fisheries. Under this alternative, the National 

Park Service would develop a separate fishery 

management plan. The plan would include a 

public involvement and environmental 

compliance process, and would be developed 

in partnership with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Fish 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84 

and Wildlife Service, and other federal and 

state agencies. In the interim, the National Park 

Service would develop a memorandum of 

understanding with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission that 

outlines the commitment of both agencies to 

collaborate in the management of fisheries 

within the national seashore and become 

cooperating agencies in the development of the 

fishery management plan. 

Once the fishery management plan is 

developed and completed, it will address 

fishing activities within the national seashore in 

order to better protect park resources 

including valuable fisheries resources and to 

determine sustainable harvest levels found 

within boundaries of the national seashore. 

Impacts of vessel operations on fisheries 

resources will also be addressed. The National 

Park Service would use the best available 

science in order to make informed decisions in 

the fishery management plan. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service will coordinate with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission pursuant to the memorandum of 

understanding (discussed in the “Interagency 

Agreements” section of chapter 1 and 

elsewhere throughout the document) prior to 

developing and implementing management 

actions that modify current management of 

fishing activities or fishing vessel operations. 

Management actions include but are not 

limited to new or modified use of management 

strategies that limit the use of internal 

combustion motors (e.g., pole and troll areas), 

or limit vessel speed (e.g., idle/slow speed 

zones), permitting requirements for fishing 

activities, access limitations, or area closures. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service would continue to 

adopt the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission’s fishing regulations 

and actively monitor and patrol fishing 

activities in Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state 

regulations are met. 

Please refer to the introduction of the 

alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

NATIONAL SEASHORE OPERATIONS 

AND FACILITIES 

Visitor contact facilities would be located at 

specific areas throughout the national seashore 

to orient visitors and provide them with 

information regarding educational and 

recreational opportunities. NPS administrative 

functions would be relocated from the leased 

structure in Titusville to a new facility in the 

Bill’s Hill area. 

AREA-SPECIFIC 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Playalinda Beach Area 

Playalinda Beach. Current management 

trends, such as maintaining relatively pristine 

beach conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting special status species, and providing 

for safe recreational opportunities, would 

continue. Preservation of the primary dune 

system and restriction of visitor access only to 

designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Temporary closures of the Playalinda Beach 

area to visitor use before scheduled NASA 

launches and landings may continue. 

The high-maintenance chemical toilet facilities 

at all beach access parking areas would be 

replaced with a more efficient and sustainable 

system. 

Playalinda Beach Access. The access road, 13 

beach parking areas that accommodate 1,032 

cars and 18 recreational vehicles, and access to 

the beach via boardwalk dune crossovers 

would be retained. 
Alternative C 

85 

A bicycle path connecting with the proposed 

USFWS bike path along State Route 402 into 

Playalinda Beach would be developed. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the existing entrance station and fee booth. 

Administrative Complex. The complex, 

including ranger station, curatorial storage 

facility, and garage, would continue to serve 

their current functions. 

Lifeguard Operations Area. The operations 

would be relocated closer to the beach. 

Structures would be converted to a small 

satellite maintenance staging area. 

Lands/Waters South of State Route 402. To 

comply with NASA security concerns, public 

access to this area would continue to be 

restricted. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities. 

Klondike Beach Area 

Current management trends that emphasize 

preserving pristine beach conditions and 

protecting special status species would 

continue. Public access to Klondike Beach 

would continue to be by permit only and 

limited to 25 persons per day on the south end 

of the beach and 25 persons per day on the 

north end of the beach. Limits on and 

registration of visitor use are intended to 

provide opportunities for solitude, maintain 

pristine beach conditions, protect special 

status species, and ensure public safety. NPS 

staff would maintain an active resource 

monitoring and dune restoration program to 

repair areas of the dune system that may 

become denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Area 

Apollo Beach. Current management trends, 

such as maintaining relatively pristine beach 

conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting special status species, and providing 

for safe recreational opportunities, would 

continue. Preservation of the primary dune 

system and restriction of visitor access only to 

designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Access. The access road, five 

beach parking areas accommodating a total of 

194 cars, and exterior shower facility at beach 

parking area 1 would be retained. Provision for 

convenient visitor access to beach areas via 

designated dune crossovers would continue. 

Parking area 1 would be redesigned to 

accommodate oversized vehicles. 

Unpaved parking for horse trailers and a 

primitive trail to administrative boardwalk 

access for horses would be provided. 

Temporary closures of beach parking area 5 

and half of 4 may continue before scheduled 

NASA launches. 

When parking areas reach capacity, temporary 

restrictions on additional vehicular access into 

the Apollo Beach area would go into effect at 

the entrance station. However, a bicycle path 

would be established along national seashore 

roads (that extends and connects with the 

existing county bike trail systems) to provide 

an alternative mode of access. 

Chemical toilet facilities would be replaced by 

a more sustainable system, showers would be 

added, and water and sewer lines would be 

connected to all comfort stations. 

Apollo Beach Entrance Station. Visitor 

contact by NPS personnel would continue to 

be provided at the entrance station and fee 

booth. The entrance area would be 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

reconfigured for safety and to provide a 

turnaround when parking lots are full. 

Apollo Beach Visitor Information Center. 

The Apollo Beach Visitor Center and pavilion 

would continue to serve as the primary hub for 

visitor activities. 

The public pontoon boat tours, which 

originate at the visitor center and showcase 

Mosquito Lagoon, the Eldora State House, and 

Turtle Mound, would be expanded to include 

other areas, including Seminole Rest. The 

feasibility of providing a water-based 

commercial shuttle service using navigable 

channels to access other features would be 

explored. 

Turtle Mound. Current provisions for mound 

protection, maintenance of the self-guided 

interpretive boardwalk trail, waysides, and 

parallel parking configuration for 11 cars along 

the beach access road would continue. 

Interpretive and environmental education 

opportunities at Turtle Mound would be 

expanded, and a pavilion providing shade/rain 

protection for environmental education 

activities would be constructed. Parking space 

for larger vehicles, such as school buses, would 

be provided. 

North District Maintenance Area. Most 

maintenance functions would be relocated 

from Apollo Beach and consolidated in a 

centralized maintenance facility at Bill’s Hill 

area or the Stuckey property. The existing 

buildings at the North District Maintenance 

Area would be used for satellite maintenance 

activities. 

Beach Operations Area. The garages would 

continue to provide storage space for lifeguard 

operations, interpretation and resource 

management, law enforcement, and 

maintenance. The fire cache would remain. 

Beach access for all terrain vehicles (ATVs) to 

respond to beach emergencies as well as 

support the turtle management program would 

continue over the existing administrative 

boardwalk dune crossover. 

Eldora Hammock Area 

Eldora Hammock Access. NPS staff would 

continue to maintain the existing access road 

and four parking areas (accommodating 53 

cars) that provide visitor access to the Eldora 

historic area, interpretive trails, canoe/kayak 

landing, and Mosquito Lagoon. The overhead 

powerlines would remain. 

Eldora Historic Area. The Eldora State House 

and dock would be preserved. Public access to 

the first floor would continue to be provided. 

Options for making the facility accessible to 

visitors with disabilities would be explored. 

Visitor understanding of this late 19th century 

Florida waterway community; the early 20th 

century Florida environmental movement; and 

the interconnectedness of the natural environment, hammock community, and lagoon 

setting with these cultural conditions would be 

expanded/improved. Interpretation of the 

Eldora historic area would continue by 

providing permanent exhibits and administrative office space in the Eldora State House. 

The area would be studied as a cultural 

landscape, and key elements of the cultural 

landscape, including the cisterns, would be 

preserved. 

Records relating to the Eldora historic area 

would be archived and catalogued in a 

repository in the state house. A historic 

museum would be established in the state 

house pursuant to completion of exhibit and 

historic furnishings plans. 

Interpretive/access trails throughout the 

cultural landscape would be incorporated and 

improved. Foot trails would be extended to 

connect the Eldora State House with other 

features of the Eldora Hammock area. The 

dock would be expanded for administrative 

use and as an interpretive boat tour stop. 

Sewer and water service would be extended to 

this area to provide potable water and replace 

existing septic fields. 
North

0

0

5 Miles

1 5 Kilometers

1

Alternative C

Canaveral National Seashore

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,244A • DSC • Mar 2010

To 

Daytona 

Beach

Shipyard

Island

Apollo Beach

Klondike Beach

Pardon 

Island

Cucumber

Island

Turtlepen

Point Playalinda Beach

Black Point

Wildlife Drive

(road closed to public)

Bio Lab Road

Mims

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park

Seminole 

Rest

Eldora State House

Castle Windy

Launch

Complex 39B

Launch

Complex 39A

John F Kennedy Space Center

(public access controlled)

Manatee 

Viewing Area

Old

Channel

INTRACOASTAL 

WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge

Visitor Information Center

Canaveral National

Seashore Visitor

Information

Center

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Schultz House

Old Haulover

Dummits 

Cove

NASA Boundary

Canaveral National Seashore 

Visitor Center / Headquarters

Slow speed restricted area

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

Gomez Grant Line

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors

have been enlarged in certain areas.

95

95

406

406

402

A1A

442

3

5A

44

1

1

ATLANTIC OCEAN

INDIAN RIVER

South Lake

Eddy 

Creek

Lifeguard

Support

MOSQUITO LAGOON

Kennedy Parkway

Stuckey Property

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Turtle 

Mound Apollo Beach

Castle

Windy

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Eldora

Eldora

Hammock

Orange Island 

Schultz 

House

Visitor 

information 

center

Mosquito

Lagoon

Dock

Dock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Eldora

State

House

Wilson’s

Corner

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

Self-guiding trail

Boat launch

Ranger station

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation

Backcountry

Sensitive Resource

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

NASA Security and

Safety Clearance zone

Slow speed restricted area

Seashore headquarters

Visitor Center

Alternative C 

89 

Eldora Hammock Interpretive Trail. The 

trail and its wayside exhibits would remain. 

Interpretive opportunities, such as guided 

interpretive tours, would be continued. 

Castle Windy Interpretive Trail. Current 

management trends, with provision for mound 

protection, use of beach parking lot 3 

(accommodating 25 cars) as trailhead parking, 

and maintenance of the existing self-guided 

interpretive hammock trail to the east shoreline of Mosquito Lagoon, would continue. 

Additionally, a small parking area on the west 

side of the beach access road would be 

constructed, and interpretation programs 

would be expanded. The trail would be 

extended to include areas along the lagoon

Marine Science Educational Station. The 

national seashore would continue to pursue 

supporting research operations at these 

facilities. 

Former Hebner Property. The garage would 

be removed and replaced with facilities for 

expanded research activities or dormitory 

facilities for interns. These facilities would be 

tied into existing research and educational 

operations of the university research site. 

Former Feller Property. The house and dock 

would be offered through the National Park 

Service or commercial services to provide 

water-based recreational opportunities. The 

trailer pad would remain. 

Former Schultz Property. The Schultz house 

would be preserved and would continue to be 

used for administrative purposes such as 

intermittent housing for new hires, 

researchers, and interns, or for staging special 

events. The garage would be removed because 

of its poor condition. If needed for storage or 

restrooms, it could be replaced with a 

compatible structure. 

Lands South of Eldora Hammock. The 

southern portion of the Eldora Hammock 

(Schultz House to Gomez Grant line) would be 

protected and preserved. Limited access to the 

area via designated foot trails would be allowed 

to connect to sites of interpretive interest in the 

joint management area. NPS staff would 

coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to conduct limited tours in the area. The site of 

the French shipwreck survivors’ camp would 

be protected and preserved. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon 

(Gomez Grant line to NPS north boundary) 

Boat Access Areas. The boat launch facilities, 

parking for 22 boat trailers, and restroom 

facilities, would be continued. Public access to 

the launch ramp would remain available 24 

hours/day. 

The paved boat access ramp and kayak 

launching area across from Apollo Beach 

parking area 5, as well as the parking area, 

would remain. The parking area would be 

paved and minimally increased in capacity. 

The canoe and kayak landing area accessing 

Mosquito Lagoon from the Eldora Hammock 

area would remain. 

Lagoon Waters. Diverse, low impact, waterbased recreational opportunities would be 

provided in lagoon waters while maintaining 

the quality of resource conditions. 

NPS staff would continue to enhance its 

resource stewardship partnership with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Aeronautic and Space Administration for 

Mosquito Lagoon, as well as increase its 

monitoring efforts to better assess changes or 

trends in resource conditions related to the 

effects of public use and commercial guiding 

and/or fishing activities in the lagoon. Public 

and commercial activities would continue to be 

permitted unless documented trends in 

resource conditions require adjusted limits on 

take or levels of use. 

To provide for wildlife viewing and shoreline 

protection, a slow-speed area would be 

established for boats between the Eldora State 

House, parking lot 7, and the first island to the 

west. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90 

Lagoon Islands. The National Park Service 

would continue to provide for diverse, lowimpact recreational opportunities on lagoon 

islands while maintaining the quality of 

resource conditions. Fourteen designated 

backcountry campsites with picnic tables and 

grills would continue to be maintained and 

made available for public use by permit only. 

Oak Hill Area 

Seminole Rest. Management of the area 

would continue to focus on protection and 

preservation of the archeological resources 

and the rehabilitated historic main house and 

caretaker’s house. A small Eastern National 

sales outlet would continue to operate. A 

visitor contact station has been established on 

the first floor of the main house to provide 

space for a visitor orientation film and exhibits 

pursuant to completion of a permanent exhibit 

plan. The upper floor of the Seminole Rest 

main house is used for NPS administrative 

purposes. The caretaker’s house serves as a 

maintenance field office. The maintenance 

shed would remain. 

The interpretive trail would remain. A marsh 

trail would be added to the site, and 

educational programs would be initiated. 

Sundries and services (camping permits, 

boating tours, etc.) would be provided. 

The concrete parking area that accommodates 

2 handicapped parking spaces, 11 regular and 6 

parallel vehicle pull-ins, 1 bus drop-off, and the 

satellite gravel overflow parking area 

accommodating 10 vehicles might be 

expanded. 

Stuckey Property. As legislatively mandated, 

the Stuckey property would be purchased on a 

willing seller basis. A centralized visitor 

center/administrative headquarters and 

maintenance facility would be constructed on 

this site. Visitors could obtain orientation and 

interpretive information on national seashore 

resources. This facility would support 

management and maintenance needs for the 

entire national seashore, and it would include 

equipment rental (canoes, kayaks, etc.) and 

sundries sales. The number and type of 

functions in this facility could increase and be 

phased in as visitation increases in future years. 

If funding is not available to purchase the 

Stuckey site, new facilities/buildings for the 

NPS visitor center and headquarters would be 

constructed in another previously disturbed 

location in the Bill’s Hill area as provided in the 

NASA/NPS agreement deeding Bill’s Hill to 

the National Park Service. 

Bill’s Hill Area. Enhanced recreational 

opportunities, such as hiking trails, camping, 

canoe/kayak launching, and equestrian use, 

would be provided in the area. Access and 

parking at designated trailheads would be 

provided for hiking and horseback riding. 

Expanded interpretive opportunities via 

marked trails and wayside exhibits would be 

developed. 

The area would be connected with the USFWS 

canoe/kayak trail along the west side of the 

Intracoastal Waterway, past the Gomez Grant 

line, and through the mangrove islands to 

parking lot 7 in the canoe/kayak launch area at 

Eldora Hammock. 

Cultural and natural resources monitoring 

efforts would be increased in response to 

increased visitor use, including horseback 

riding. Resource staff at the new visitor 

center/headquarters would provide a presence 

and management. 

An active restoration effort would be 

programmed to restore sites such as 

abandoned citrus groves to interpret the 

history of citrus horticulture in Florida. 

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area 

Access. Temporary closures of portions of the 

Joint Management Area to visitor use before 

scheduled NASA launches and landings may 

continue. 

Central/Southern Mosquito Lagoon. The 

National Park Service would continue to 
Alternative C 

91 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities (boating, fishing, and 

waterfowl hunting) for the lagoon area south 

of the Gomez Grant line. Existing designated 

pole/troll areas would be monitored by 

USFWS staff to assess their effectiveness in 

providing protection of sensitive seagrass bed 

habitat. Additional pole/troll areas may be 

designated by USFWS staff if resource 

conditions indicate a need for additional 

protective measures. The National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration would continue to enhance resource 

management and protection of lagoon 

resources. The National Park Service would 

support potential USFWS canoe trails at 

Beacon 42, Max Hoeck Creek, and Bull Camp. 

Boat Access Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue to provide public boat 

access to central Mosquito Lagoon via the two 

boat launching facilities along Kennedy 

Parkway (State Route 3) and a third along Bio 

Lab Road. A nonmotorized launch area for 

canoes is proposed along the south end of Bio 

Lab Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The existing management agreement with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for NPS 

maintenance of the Eddy Creek boat launch 

ramp and parking area would continue. 

Consideration would be given to a concession 

equipment (canoes, kayaks, etc.) rental at the 

boat ramp. 

As per the agreement with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, NPS staff would continue to 

provide on-site school group environmental 

education programs in the Eddy Creek area. 

The National Park Service would seek to 

expand these environmental education and 

public programs with the help of other 

partners. 

Lands North of Haulover Canal. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities for this area. Deer 

and feral hog hunting areas may be considered 

on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

lands north of Haulover Canal to control 

populations of these species. 

Manatee Viewing Area. The National Park 

Service would continue to support USFWS 

management direction and activities for this 

area and would coordinate with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to expand the site’s 

interpretive and educational programs. 

Scrub Ridge Interpretive Trail. The National 

Park Service would continue to support 

USFWS and NASA lead management direction 

and self-guided interpretive opportunities for 

this area. 

Sand Road/Trail. The National Park Service 

would continue to support USFWS lead 

management direction for this resource and 

assist that agency in preserving the trail and its 

associated World War II observation towers. 

Historic Properties. The National Park 

Service would continue to assist the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration with 

cultural resource management support for 

historic properties found throughout the Joint 

Management Area (such as Ross Hammock, 

“Confederate salt works,” Old Haulover Canal, 

Clifton Schoolhouse site, and Dummit Cove). 

The National Park Service would coordinate 

with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NASA 

Kennedy Space Center, and other partners to 

establish historic context for these sites and to 

provide educational programs (on-site, off-site, 

and/or virtual). 

Target Rock. The National Park Service 

would continue to assist the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service with cultural resource 

preservation. Limited access to the site could 

include interpretive tours. Related multimedia 

educational materials would be provided offsite. 

Bio Lab Road. USFWS staff would continue to 

maintain the gravel public access along Bio Lab 

Road for wildlife viewing, fishing, waterfowl 

hunting, and boat access to Mosquito Lagoon. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS Visitor Information Center. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remain 

the lead agency for visitor information in the 

South District. Visitor orientation to the 

features available at the national seashore and 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to be provided at the USFWS 

visitor information center, just west of the 

national seashore boundary. Limited national 

seashore orientation (e.g., brochures and 

maps) would continue to be available. 

NPS South District Maintenance Area. Most 

maintenance functions would be relocated 

from the Wilson’s Corner site and 

consolidated into a new facility in the Bill’s Hill 

area or on the Stuckey property, if acquired. 

Use of the Wilson’s Corner area would be 

returned to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Titusville Area 

National Seashore Headquarters. The 

National Park Service would discontinue 

leasing the privately owned structure in 

Titusville for use as the administrative 

headquarters. Administrative headquarters 

functions would be relocated into a new 

facility in the Bill’s Hill area or on the Stuckey 

property, if acquired. 
93 

ALTERNATIVE D 

OVERALL CONCEPT 

Under alternative D, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed to focus on 

enhancing the existing investment in lands, 

resources, and facilities. The national seashore 

would be managed to promote outdoor recreational and interpretive educational opportunities that are consistent with preservation of 

the natural and cultural resources. A limited 

level of facility development would improve 

efficiencies in NPS administration and operations and enhance visitor amenities. Coordination with land-managing partners would 

be increased to provide additional educational 

opportunities and programs for visitors and 

enhanced monitoring of the Mosquito Lagoon 

resources. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

National seashore visitors would have a 

relatively unstructured discovery-type 

experience highlighted by dispersed, lowdensity use levels. Expanded interpretive 

activities and programs and enhanced 

opportunities for some recreational activities, 

such as canoeing, kayaking, and hiking, would 

be provided throughout the national seashore. 

Visitor contact and orientation services would 

occur in both the North and South districts of 

the national seashore. A new and enlarged 

visitor information center with additional 

restrooms would be established at Apollo 

Beach to accommodate school and other large 

groups. The facility would enable visitors to 

interact with NPS staff and receive educational 

information through various media—such as 

films, interactive exhibits, displays, and 

educational merchandise. 

The visitor information center would provide 

shelter from the weather and access to waterbased recreational equipment rental. A small 

equipment rental operation for bikes, canoes,

and kayaks would encourage nonmotorized 

access to a variety of national seashore 

features. 

Visitor contact functions would be added 

within the ranger station at Playalinda Beach to 

provide information and perhaps include the 

sales of educational materials. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Natural resource management would emphasize protection, preservation, and rehabilitation of species and ecosystem features, inventory and monitoring of resources, and applied 

research efforts, as well as the preservation of 

the national seashore’s soundscape and water 

quality. Coordination with land-managing 

partners would be increased to provide a 

comprehensive approach to ecosystem and 

cultural resource management, as well as 

additional educational opportunities and 

programs for visitors. 

Restoration of disturbed areas to reflect 

natural conditions would be a main focus of 

resource management efforts. Shallow water 

areas in the national seashore might be limited 

to nonmotorized travel to protect fragile 

seagrass areas and oyster beds. 

Beaches. Beaches would remain relatively 

pristine and undeveloped, with emphasis on 

preserving a healthy dune system, using 

boardwalks for public access across the dunes, 

and restoring impacted areas. 

Agreements and partnership with educational 

institutions could be developed for research 

and inventory and monitoring of national 

seashore resources. 

Cultural Resources. Cultural resource 

management would continue to emphasize 

protection, preservation, rehabilitation, 

appropriate adaptive use, and interpretation of 

more than 180 archeological sites and historic 

structures, such as the Eldora State House, 

Schultz House, and main house and caretaker’s 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

house at Seminole Rest—within the context of 

the national seashore’s natural terrestrial and 

cultural landscapes and scenic views. 

Fisheries. Under this alternative, the National 

Park Service would develop a separate fishery 

management plan. The plan would include a 

public involvement and environmental 

compliance process, and would be developed 

in partnership with the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and other federal and 

state agencies. In the interim, the National Park 

Service would develop a memorandum of 

understanding with Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission that outlines the 

commitment of both agencies to collaborate in 

the management of fisheries within the 

national seashore and become cooperating 

agencies in the development of the fishery 

management plan. 

Once the fishery management plan is 

developed and completed, it will address 

fishing activities within the national seashore in 

order to better protect park resources 

including valuable fisheries resources and to 

determine sustainable harvest levels found 

within boundaries of the national seashore. 

Impacts of vessel operations on fisheries 

resources will also be addressed. The National 

Park Service would use the best available 

science in order to make informed decisions in 

the fishery management plan. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service will coordinate with 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission pursuant to the memorandum of 

understanding (discussed in the “Interagency 

Agreements” section of chapter 1 and 

elsewhere throughout the document) prior to 

developing and implementing management 

actions that modify current management of 

fishing activities or fishing vessel operations. 

Management actions include but are not 

limited to new or modified use of management 

strategies that limit the use of internal 

combustion motors (e.g., pole and troll areas), 

or limit vessel speed (e.g., idle/slow speed 

zones), permitting requirements for fishing 

activities, access limitations, or area closures. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, 

the National Park Service would continue to 

adopt the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission’s fishing regulations 

and actively monitor and patrol fishing 

activities in Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state 

regulations are met. 

Please refer to the introduction of the 

alternatives section of this chapter for 

information regarding the NPS approach to 

address commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 

NATIONAL SEASHORE 

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

A limited level of facility development would 

be provided to safely accommodate visitor 

access and services while protecting fragile 

resources. Facilities currently unused or used 

by other organizations and entities would be 

used by the national seashore wherever 

possible. A limited number of new water and 

sewer connections would be installed. Some 

new trails would extend into areas that have 

potential for expanding visitor understanding 

of national seashore resources with minimal 

impact. 

Future arrangements to house NPS 

administrative functions might be provided 

outside Titusville if the arrangement provided 

a more operationally efficient and economical 

location. For cost efficiency, Playalinda Beach 

maintenance functions would be combined 

with the USFWS maintenance area. 

AREA-SPECIFIC 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Playalinda Beach Area 

Playalinda Beach. Current management 

trends, such as maintaining relatively pristine 

beach conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting special status species, and providing 

for safe recreational opportunities, would 

continue. Preservation of the primary dune 

system and restriction of visitor access only to 
Alternative D 

95 

designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

The high-maintenance chemical toilet facilities 

would be replaced with a more efficient and 

sustainable system. 

Playalinda Beach Access. The access road, 13 

beach parking areas that accommodate 1,032 

cars and 18 RVs, and access to the beach via 

boardwalk dune crossovers would remain. 

Temporary closures of the Playalinda Beach 

area to visitor use before scheduled NASA 

launches and landings may continue. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the entrance station and fee booth. 

Administrative Complex. The complex, 

including ranger station, curatorial storage 

facility, and garage, would continue to serve 

their current functions, although a small visitor 

contact station would be accommodated in the 

ranger station. 

Lifeguard Operations Area. The existing 

lifeguard operations functions would be 

relocated to an area near Eddy Creek in the 

interpretive storage building. Existing 

structures would be removed or used for 

storage. The administrative boardwalk dune 

crossover would also be reconfigured in that 

area to accommodate ATV emergency access. 

Lands/Waters South of State Route 402. To 

comply with NASA security concerns, public 

access to this area would continue to be 

restricted. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

existing NASA tracking facilities. 

Klondike Beach Area 

Current management trends that emphasize 

preserving pristine beach conditions and protecting special status species would continue. 

Public access to Klondike Beach would 

continue to be by permit only and limited to 25 

persons per day on the south end of the beach 

and 25 persons per day on the north end of the 

beach. Limits on and registration of visitor use 

are intended to provide opportunities for 

solitude, maintain pristine beach conditions, 

protect special status species, and ensure 

public safety. NPS staff would maintain an 

active resource monitoring and dune 

restoration program to repair areas of the dune 

system that may become denuded by unlawful 

visitor-created (social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Area 

Apollo Beach. Current management trends, 

such as maintaining relatively pristine beach 

conditions, preserving the dune system, 

protecting special status species, and providing 

for safe recreational opportunities would 

continue. Preservation of the primary dune 

system and restriction of visitor access only to 

designated dune crossover trails would 

continue. NPS staff would maintain an active 

resource monitoring and dune restoration 

program to repair areas of the dune system that 

have been denuded by unlawful visitor-created 

(social) trails. 

Apollo Beach Access. The access road, five 

beach parking areas accommodating a total of 

194 cars, and exterior shower facility at beach 

parking area 1 would remain. Provision for 

convenient visitor access to beach areas via 

designated dune crossovers would continue. 

Temporary closures of beach parking area 5 

and half of 4 may continue before scheduled 

NASA launches. 

When parking areas reach capacity, temporary 

restrictions on additional vehicular access into 

the Apollo Beach Area would continue to be 

managed at the entrance station. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96 

An unpaved parking area for horse trailers and 

a primitive trail connection to the administrative boardwalk would be provided. Seasonal 

horseback riding along the shoreline areas 

between beach parking areas 1 and 2 would 

continue to be allowed. 

The high-maintenance chemical toilet facilities 

at all beach access parking areas would be 

replaced with a more efficient and sustainable 

system. Limited water and sewer connections 

might be extended to some locations (beach 

parking areas 1 and 2). 

An exterior shower would be added at beach 

parking area 2. The overhead power and 

telephone lines would remain in place. 

Entrance Station. Visitor contact by NPS 

personnel would continue to be provided at 

the entrance station and fee booth. 

Apollo Beach Visitor Information Center. 

The Apollo Beach Visitor Center and pavilion 

would continue to serve as the primary hub for 

visitor activities. The current level of school 

programs hosted at the visitor information 

center pavilion and Turtle Mound, and the 

public pontoon boat tours, which originate at 

the visitor center and showcase Mosquito 

Lagoon, the Eldora State House, and Turtle 

Mound, would remain. 

Turtle Mound. Current provisions for mound 

protection, maintenance of the self-guided 

interpretive boardwalk trail, waysides, and 

parallel parking configuration for 11 cars along 

the beach access road would continue. 

North District Maintenance Area. North 

District maintenance operations would 

continue to be based from the existing site 

opposite the visitor information center. The

maintenance complex would be reconfigured 

or redesigned to improve efficiency and 

eliminate internal circulation problems, 

provide adequate turnaround, and separate 

visitor traffic from maintenance traffic. The 

facilities would be screened from the view of 

visitors. 

Beach Operations Area. The garages would 

continue to provide storage space for lifeguard 

operations, interpretation and resource 

management, law enforcement, and 

maintenance. The fire cache would remain. 

Beach access for all terrain vehicles to respond 

to beach emergencies as well as support the 

turtle management program would continue 

over the existing administrative boardwalk 

dune crossover. 

Eldora Hammock Area 

Eldora Hammock Access. NPS staff would 

continue to maintain the existing access road 

and four parking areas (accommodating 53 

cars) that provide visitor access to the Eldora 

historic area, interpretive trails, and Mosquito 

Lagoon. The overhead power and telephone 

lines would remain. 

Eldora Historic Area. The Eldora State House 

and dock would be preserved. Public access to 

the first floor would continue to be provided. 

Options for making the facility accessible to 

visitors with disabilities would be explored. 

Visitor understanding of this late 19th century 

Florida waterway community; the early 20th 

century Florida environmental movement; and 

the interconnectedness of the natural 

environment, hammock community, and 

lagoon setting would be expanded/ improved. 

Interpretation of the Eldora historic area 

would continue by providing permanent 

exhibits and administrative office space in the 

Eldora State House. The area would be studied 

as a cultural landscape, and key elements of the 

cultural landscape, including the cisterns, 

would be protected and preserved. 

Records relating to the Eldora historic area 

would be archived and catalogued in a 

repository in the state house. A historic 

museum would be established in the state 

house pursuant to completion of exhibit and 

historic furnishings plans. 
North

0

0

5 Miles

1 5 Kilometers

1

NOTE: To show visually, the size of zone colors

have been enlarged in certain areas.

Alternative D

Canaveral National Seashore

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

639 • 100,245A • DSC • Mar 2010

95

95

406

406

402

A1A

442

3

5A

44

1

1

MOSQUITO LAGOON

Haulover

Canal

ATLANTIC OCEAN

INDIAN RIVER

South Lake

Eddy Creek

Lifeguard

Support

To 

Daytona 

Beach

Klondike Beach

Pardon 

Island

Cucumber

Island

Turtlepen

Point Playalinda Beach

Apollo 

 

Beach

Kennedy Parkway

Black Point

Wildlife Drive

(road closed to public)

Bio Lab Road

Scrub

Ridge

Trail

Mims

Turtle Mound

Eldora Hammock

BILL’S

HILL

Riverbreeze 

Park

Seminole 

Rest

Castle Windy

Launch

Complex 39B

Launch

Complex 39A

John F Kennedy

Space Center (public access controlled)

Manatee 

Viewing Area

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY 

Merritt Island

National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitor 

Information Center

Canaveral National Seashore 

Visitor Information Center

Dummits

Cove

Eldora State House

Schultz House

Stuckey Property

TITUSVILLE

OAK

HILL

BETHUNE

BEACH

EDGEWATER

NEW

SMYRNA

BEACH

Gomez Grant Line 

SEASHORE BOUNDARY

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Visitor 

information 

center

Turtle 

Mound

Apollo Beach

Mosquito

Lagoon

Castle

 Windy

Dock

Eldora

LEGEND

PARK ROAD

PARKING AREAS

WALKING TRIALS

Dock

Eldora

Hammock

Beach Operations Area

(Russell and David properties)

Slow speed restricted area

Slow speed

restricted area

Feller

House

Schultz 

House Eldora

State

House Shipyard

Island

Orange Island

Old

Channel NASA Boundary

Hebner Property

and Marine Science

Education Lab

Self-guiding trail

Boat launch

Ranger station

Trail

Unpaved road

Zones

Environmental/Historical Education

Recreation

Backcountry

Sensitive Resource

Visitor Orientation/NPS

Administration

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area

National Seashore Boundary

Visitor contact station

Intracoastal Waterway

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Pole/Troll 

Nonmotor or pole/troll area

NASA Security and

Safety Clearance zone

Slow speed restricted area

Alternative D 

99 

Sewer and water service might be extended to 

this area to provide potable water and replace 

the existing septic field. 

Eldora Hammock Interpretive Trail. The 

trail and its wayside exhibits would remain. 

Interpretive opportunities, such as guided 

interpretive tours, would be continued

Castle Windy Interpretive Trail. Current 

management trends, with provision for mound 

protection, use of beach parking lot 3 

(accommodating 25 cars) as trailhead parking, 

and maintenance of the self-guided interpretive hammock trail to the east shoreline of 

Mosquito Lagoon, would continue. 

Marine Science Educational Station. The 

national seashore would continue to pursue 

supporting research operations at these 

facilities. 

Former Hebner Property. The garage would 

continue to provide for resource management 

storage. Additional trailer pads would be 

constructed to provide for administrative 

functions, such as office and housing space. 

Utility lines would be extended. 

Former Feller Property. The use agreement 

and partnerships would be phased out and the 

house would be used for NPS resource 

management, biological-technical, and intern 

research functions. The trailer pad would 

remain. 

Former Schultz Property. The Schultz house 

would be preserved and continue to be used 

for administrative purposes such as 

intermittent housing for new hires, 

researchers, and interns, or for staging special 

events. The garage would be removed because 

of its poor condition. If needed for storage or 

restrooms, it could be replaced with a 

compatible structure. 

Lands South of Eldora Hammock. The 

southern portion of the Eldora Hammock 

(Schultz House to Gomez Grant line) would be 

protected and preserved. The area would 

continue to be undeveloped and inaccessible 

by foot and would remain closed to visitors 

except for shoreline areas accessed by boat and 

the Castle Windy Interpretive Trail. The site of 

the French shipwreck survivors’ camp would 

be protected and preserved. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon 

(Gomez Grant line to NPS north boundary) 

Boat Access Areas. The boat launch area 

across from Apollo Beach parking area 1 would 

continue to be maintained; however, 24-hour 

public access would be phased out over time to 

provide for controlled access at night and to 

enhance security. Use of the boat ramp area 

would be included in the national seashore 

entrance fee. The entrance area (gate/fee 

booth) would be relocated north to the 

national seashore boundary to control public 

access to the launch area. 

The paved boat access ramp and kayak 

launching area across from beach parking area 

5, as well as the undelineated gravel parking 

area, would remain. 

The canoe and kayak landing area accessing 

Mosquito Lagoon from the Eldora Hammock 

area would continue to be maintained. 

Lagoon Waters. Diverse, low-impact, waterbased recreational opportunities would 

continue to be provided in lagoon waters while 

maintaining the quality of resource conditions. 

NPS staff would continue to enhance its 

resource stewardship partnership with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration for 

Mosquito Lagoon, as well as increase its 

monitoring efforts to better assess changes or 

trends in resource conditions related to the 

effects of public use and commercial guiding 

and/or fishing activities in the lagoon. Public 

activities would continue to be permitted 

unless documented trends in resource 

conditions require changes to visitor use 

management. 

Complementing recent USFWS efforts for 

providing proactive resource protection 

measures for areas containing oyster beds, fish 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

100 

spawning, and seagrass beds in the Shipyard 

Island area, the National Park Service would 

establish a nonmotorized or pole/troll area to 

protect resources in the Shipyard Island area of 

the lagoon. The general location of this pole/ 

troll area is shown on the alternative map, but 

it may be adjusted as needed to protect 

resources while providing appropriate boating 

access. Other such areas might also be 

established if monitoring indicates that 

resources are being impacted by overuse. 

In order to formally designate the pole/troll 

area, the National Park Service would pursue 

rulemaking in the Federal Register to establish a 

special regulation for this area. This would 

include substantial input from agencies and the 

public on the location, size, and boundaries of 

this area. It is anticipated that this input would 

be solicited as part of the preparation of the 

fishery management plan. Also to better inform 

this process, the National Park Service would 

consider a pilot test of the pole/troll area and 

solicit public and agency feedback during the 

pilot test period. 

To provide for wildlife viewing and shoreline 

protection, a slow-speed area would be 

established for boats between the Eldora State 

House, parking lot 7, and the first island to the 

west. 

There would be increased opportunities for 

canoeing and kayaking activities within the 

lagoon. 

Lagoon Islands. The National Park Service 

would continue to provide for diverse, lowimpact, recreational opportunities on lagoon 

islands while maintaining the quality of 

resource conditions. Fourteen designated 

backcountry campsites with picnic tables and 

grills would continue to be maintained and 

made available for public use by permit only. 

Oak Hill Area 

Seminole Rest. Management of the area 

would continue to focus on protection and 

preservation of the archeological resources 

and the rehabilitated historic main house and 

caretaker’s house. A small Eastern National 

sales outlet would continue to operate. A 

visitor contact station has been established on 

the first floor of the main house to provide 

space for a visitor orientation film and exhibits 

pursuant to completion of an exhibit plan. The 

upper floor of the Seminole Rest main house is 

used for NPS administrative purposes. The 

caretaker’s house serves as a maintenance field 

office. The maintenance shed would remain. 

The interpretive trail would remain. 

Interpretive opportunities at the site would be 

expanded. A self-guided interpretive trail 

would be developed through an adjacent 

marsh area, and educational programs would 

be initiated. 

The concrete parking area accommodating 2 

handicapped parking spaces, 11 regular, and 6 

parallel vehicle pull-ins, 1 bus drop-off, and the 

satellite gravel overflow parking area for 10 

vehicles would remain. 

Stuckey Property. As legislatively mandated, 

the Stuckey property would be purchased on a 

willing seller basis. Once acquired, a trailhead 

and parking area would be constructed. 

Bill’s Hill Area. Opportunities for dispersed 

recreation (including canoe/kayak, hiking, and 

horseback riding trails) would be enhanced; 

interpretation would be enhanced through 

marked trails and wayside exhibits. A canoe/ 

kayak landing and water trail connection 

would be established with the proposed 

USFWS canoe/kayak trail along the west side 

of the Intracoastal Waterway south of the 

Gomez Grant line. Additional routes through 

the mangrove islands would connect to the 

existing canoe/kayak launch area at parking 

area 7 in the Eldora Hammock area. Access 

and parking for designated trailheads would be 

provided. 

Cultural and natural resources monitoring 

efforts would be increased to provide limited 

access for visitor backcountry experience. An 

archeological survey would be implemented to 

document sites. Resource monitoring would be 

provided by staff at nearby Seminole Rest. 
Alternative D 

101 

An active restoration effort would be 

programmed to restore sites such as 

abandoned citrus groves to interpret the 

history of citrus horticulture in Florida. 

USFWS/NPS Joint Management Area 

Access. Temporary closures of portions of the 

Joint Management Area to visitor use before 

scheduled NASA launches and landings may 

continue. 

Central/Southern Mosquito Lagoon. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities (boating, fishing, and 

waterfowl hunting) for the lagoon area south 

of the Gomez Grant line. Existing designated 

pole/troll areas would be monitored by 

USFWS staff to assess their effectiveness in 

providing protection of sensitive seagrass bed 

habitat. Additional pole/troll areas may be 

designated by USFWS staff if resource 

conditions indicate a need for additional 

protective measures. The National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration would continue to enhance resource 

management and protection of lagoon 

resources. The National Park Service would 

support potential USFWS canoe trails at 

Beacon 42, Max Hoeck Creek, and Bull Camp. 

Boat Access Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would continue to provide public boat 

access to central Mosquito Lagoon via two 

boat launching facilities along Kennedy 

Parkway (State Route 3) and a third along Bio 

Lab Road. A nonmotorized launch area for 

canoes is proposed along the south end of Bio 

Lab Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

At the Eddy Creek boat launch area, at the 

south end of the lagoon, the management 

agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for NPS maintenance of the public boat 

launch ramp and parking area would continue. 

As per the agreement with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, NPS staff would continue to 

provide on-site school group environmental 

education programs in the Eddy Creek area. 

The National Park Service would seek to 

expand these environmental education and 

public programs with the help of other 

partners. 

Lands North of Haulover Canal. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

support USFWS lead management direction 

and recreational activities for this area Deer 

and feral hog hunting areas may be considered 

on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

lands north of Haulover Canal to control 

populations of these species. 

Manatee Viewing Area. The National Park 

Service would continue to support USFWS 

lead management direction and self-guided 

interpretive opportunities for this area. The 

National Park Service would assist USFWS 

efforts to expand the site’s interpretive and 

educational programs. 

Scrub Ridge Interpretive Trail. The National 

Park Service would continue to support 

USFWS and NASA lead management direction 

and self-guided interpretive opportunities for 

this area. 

Sand Road/Trail. The National Park Service 

would continue to support USFWS lead 

management direction for this resource and 

assist that agency in preserving the trail and its 

associated World War II observation towers. 

Historic Properties. The National Park 

Service would continue to assist the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration with 

cultural resource management support for 

historic properties found throughout the Joint 

Management Area (such as Target Rock, Ross 

Hammock, “Confederate salt works,” Old 

Haulover Canal, Clifton Schoolhouse site, and 

Dummit Cove). The National Park Service 

would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, NASA Kennedy Space Center, 

and other partners to establish historic context 

for these sites and to provide educational 

programs (on-site, off-site, or virtual). 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

102 

Bio Lab Road. USFWS staff would continue to 

maintain public access along Bio Lab Road for 

wildlife viewing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, 

and boat access to Mosquito Lagoon. 

NASA Tracking Facilities. Public access 

would continue to be restricted in and around 

NASA tracking facilities. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS Visitor Information Center. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remain 

the lead agency for visitor information in the 

South District. Visitor orientation to the 

features available at the national seashore and 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to be provided at the USFWS 

visitor information center, just west of the 

national seashore boundary. Limited national 

seashore orientation (e.g., brochures and 

maps) would remain. 

NPS South District Maintenance Area. To 

improve operational efficiency, the NPS South 

District maintenance operations at Wilson’s 

Corner would be relocated and consolidated 

into a new multiagency facility in USFWS 

maintenance area adjacent to their visitor 

center. 

Titusville Area 

NPS Headquarters. When the lease 

arrangement for the national seashore 

headquarters in Titusville expires, future lease 

negotiations or in-house development might 

occur in another area (including Volusia 

County) if the arrangement provided a more 

operationally efficient and economical 

location.
103 

COST ESTIMATES 

To make wise planning and management 

decisions for the national seashore, NPS 

decision makers and the public must consider 

an overall picture of the advantages, disadvantages, and general costs of the no-action and 

action alternatives. By including the no-action 

alternative, a comparison can be made between 

the action alternatives and the current national 

seashore management practice. 

It is important that the cost estimates contain 

the same elements and that they be developed 

with the same general assumptions so that 

there can be consistency and comparability 

among alternatives. In table 4, the costs are 

presented as applied to the types and general 

intensities of development; they are presented 

by alternative and in a comparative format. 

(Definitions of terms in the table are explained 

in the text in this section.) The following 

caveats apply. 

 The costs are presented as estimates and 

allow for flexibility in application of 

components. 

 These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

 The costs presented have been developed 

using industry standards to the extent 

available. 

 Actual costs would be determined at a later 

date, considering the design of facilities, 

identification of detailed resource 

protection needs, and changing visitor 

expectations. 

 The approval of a general management 

plan does not guarantee that funding and 

staffing needed to implement the plan 

would be forthcoming. Funding for capital 

construction improvements is not 

currently shown in NPS construction 

programs. It is not likely that all capital 

improvements would be totally 

implemented during the life of the plan. 

Larger capital improvements may be 

phased over several years. Actions directed 

by general management plans or in 

subsequent implementation plans are 

accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional 

data or regulatory compliance, and 

competing national park system priorities 

could prevent immediate implementation 

of many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 

 Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be years in the 

future. 

The estimates provided in table 4 include 

annual operating costs, staffing levels, one-time 

facility costs, and one-time nonfacility. A 

definition of each of these types of costs 

follows: 

 Annual Operating Costs are the total costs 

per year for maintenance and operations 

associated with each alternative, including 

utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, 

leasing and other materials. Cost and 

staffing estimates assume that the 

alternative is fully implemented as 

described. 

 Staffing is the total number of person-years 

of staff required to maintain the assets of 

the park at an acceptable level, provide 

visitor services, protect resources, and 

generally support the park’s operations. 

The full-time equivalency (FTE) number 

indicates NPS-funded staff, not volunteer 

positions or positions funded by partners. 

Full-time equivalency salaries and benefits 

are included in the annual operating costs. 

 One-time Facility Costs include those for 

the design, construction, rehabilitation, or 

adaptive reuse of visitor centers, roads, 

parking areas, administrative facilities, 

comfort stations, educational facilities, fire 

stations, maintenance facilities, museum 

collection facilities, and other visitor 

facilities. 

 One-time Nonfacility Costs include actions 

for the preservation of cultural or natural 

resources not related to facilities, the 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

104 

development of visitor use or management 

tools, and other park management 

activities that would require substantial 

funding above annual operating costs. 

Staffing and annual operating cost estimates 

for the action alternatives are calculated by 

taking the staffing and annual operating costs 

under the no-action alternative and adding 

additional staffing and annual operating costs 

associated with their implementation. 

There are no “other costs” associated with 

implementation of the alternatives. Other costs 

are for projects that are wholly or partially 

funded from other sources. 

TABLE 4: COST COMPARISONS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE (IN 2010 DOLLARS)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B

(NPS PREFERRED) ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D 

Annual Operating Costs $3.2 million $3.9 million $4.2 million $4.1 million 

Staffing (FTEs) 53 63.5 68.5 65.5 

Additional Interpretive 

Rangers 0 5 6.5 5 

Additional Law 

Enforcement Rangers 0 2 2 2 

Additional Resource 

Management Staff 0 1 2 1 

Additional Maintenance 

Staff 0 2.5 4 4 

Additional Administrative 

Staff 0 0 1 .5 

Total One-time Facility Costs $10.1 million $19.3 million $35.8 million $17.5 million 

Attend to Deferred 

Maintenance Backlog $9.5 million $9.5 million $9.5 million $9.5 million 

Rehab Existing 

Infrastructure $0 $0.1 million $0.3 million $0.1 million 

Enhance Visitor 

Understanding of and 

Orientation to Seashore 

Resources 

$0.1 $0.5 million $5.8 million $0.9 million 

Improve Visitor Access to 

Seashore Resources $0 $5.3 million $5.9 million $1.6 million 

Extend or Provide New 

Utility Service for 

Enhanced Visitor Services 

$0.5 million $0.5 million $5.8 million $2.1 million 

Complete Miscellaneous 

Site Work to Enhance 

Visitor Experience 

$0 $1.5 million $0 $0 
Cost Estimates 

105 

TABLE 4: COST COMPARISONS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE (IN 2010 DOLLARS)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE B

(NPS PREFERRED) ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D 

Expand Existing and/or 

Construct Contemporary 

Structures to Enhance 

Operational Efficiency 

$0 $1.9 million $8.5 million $3.3 million 

Total One-time Nonfacility 

Costs $0 $2.1 million $2.1 million $2.1 million 

Restore Areas to Natural 

Conditions $0 $0.1 million $0.1 million $0.1 million 

Conduct other resource 

management initiatives 

(plans, studies, and 

assessments) 

$0 $2.0 million $2.0 million $2.0 million 

NOTE: All costs have been rounded to the nearest $100,000. Cost and staffing estimates assume that the alternative is fully 

implemented as described in the narrative. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

The NPS staffing level under the no-action 

alternative would continue to be 53 FTEs. This 

includes the 2 employees in the superintendent’s office, 3 in administration, 19 in 

maintenance, 13 in interpretation/visitor use, 4 

in resource management, and 12 in law 

enforcement. Volunteers and partners would 

continue to be key contributors to NPS 

operations of the national seashore. 

One-time facility costs under the no-action 

alternative consists primarily of deferred 

maintenance projects on roads, parking areas, 

trails/boardwalks, maintained landscapes, 

buildings, utilities, marina/waterfront systems, 

and swim beaches. These projects total $9.5 

million. The other one-time facility cost 

include new utility services at Oat Hill ($0.5 

million). 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 

NPS staffing level to implement alternative B 

would be the equivalent of 63.5 full-time staff 

members—10.5 additional FTEs compared to 

the no-action alternative. This increase in 

staffing is primarily needed to expand visitor 

services and resource protection efforts. It 

includes five additional interpretive rangers, 

two additional law enforcement rangers, one 

additional resource management staff, and two 

and a half additional maintenance staff. 

Justification for these staffing increases 

follows: 

5.0 FTE – Division of Interpretation and 

Education 

The addition of five interpretive rangers would 

allow the park to meet its optimal level of 

services over the next 15–20 years by 

enhancing interpretive and educational 

programs at Seminole Rest, Eldora State 

House, Playalinda, and Apollo districts. The 

additional staffing would allow us to improve 

the 50,000 annual interpretive contacts made 

by a staff of three permanent employees and to 

more effectively interact with an annual 

visitation of over 1 million visitors. Contacts 

include boat and canoe programs, turtle watch 

programs, environmental education programs, 

public programs, outreach, and media 

contacts. 

2.0 FTE – Division of Visitor and Resource 

Protection 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

106 

A key component of the preferred alternative is 

the implementation of an additional pole/ troll 

area in the northern portion of the lagoon. 

Sufficient law enforcement is necessary to 

regulate boating activities in this area. The 

additional two law enforcement rangers would 

better position the seashore to be able to 

provide sufficient levels of visitor and resource 

protection. 

1.0 FTE – Division of Resource Management 

The current staffing level for this division is 

two permanent FTEs. The seashore’s 

complexity includes a coastal barrier island 

system, a dune vegetation system, Mosquito 

Lagoon, historic landscapes, and over 180 

archeological sites. The park is comprised of 

approximately 57,000 acres distributed among 

three districts, including 24 miles of pristine 

coast—the longest stretch of undeveloped 

coastline in the eastern United States. The 

addition of one employee to the resource 

management division would allow the seashore 

to focus on preserving and rehabilitating 

species and ecosystem features and to provide 

enhanced monitoring of Mosquito Lagoon—

key aspects of the preferred alternative. 

2.5 FTE – Division of Facilities Management 

The additional staffing would be needed to 

maintain current levels of facilities, grounds, 

roads, trails, boardwalks, boat access areas, 

restrooms, and parking lots. The seashore 

includes 13 parking areas in the Playalinda 

District that accommodate 1,032 cars and 18 

recreational vehicles, and 5 parking areas in the 

Apollo District that accommodate 194 cars. 

Although the preferred alternative does not 

propose additional facilities, maintenance 

needs would be increased due to the 

enhancement of programs and the emphasis 

on preserving and enhancing the natural and 

historic features of the seashore. 

One-time facility costs of alternative B total 

$20.8 million. These costs include the same 

deferred maintenance projects listed under the 

no-action alternative ($9.5 million). Other onetime facility costs total $9.8 million, and 

include establishing bike paths along seashore 

roads; improving access and parking at 

designated trailheads; burying all overhead 

powerlines; and installing more sustainable 

restrooms at the Apollo Beach and Playalinda 

Beach access areas. 

One-time nonfacility costs are needed to 

conduct resource management initiatives, such 

as restoring dune areas impacted from social 

trailing, conducting habitat assessments and 

cultural resource inventories, and completing 

implementation-level plans, such as fisheries 

management and commercial services plans 

($2.1 million). 

ALTERNATIVE C 

The NPS staffing level to implement alternative 

C would be the equivalent of 68.5 full-time 

staff members—15.5 additional FTEs 

compared to the no-action alternative. This 

increase in staffing is primarily needed to 

expand visitor services and resource 

protection efforts. It includes six and a half 

additional interpretive rangers, two additional 

law enforcement rangers, two additional 

resource management staff, four additional 

maintenance staff, and one additional 

administrative staff. 

One-time facility costs of alternative C total 

$35.8 million. These costs include the same 

deferred maintenance projects listed under the 

no-action alternative ($9.5 million). Other onetime facility costs total $26.3 million, and 

include constructing a new visitor center/ 

headquarters facility in the Bill’s Hill area; 

establishing bike paths along seashore roads; 

improving access and parking at designated 

trailheads; extending utility services at Apollo 

Beach, Bill’s Hill, and Seminole Rest ; installing 

more sustainable restrooms at Playalinda 

Beach access area; and centralizing seashore 

maintenance facilities. 

One-time nonfacility costs are needed to 

conduct resource management initiatives, such 

as restoring dune areas impacted from social 

trailing, conducting habitat assessments and 

cultural resource inventories, and completing 

implementation-level planning, such as fishery 
Cost Estimates

management and commercial services plans 

($2.1 million).

ALTERNATIVE D 

The NPS staffing level to implement alternative 

D would be the equivalent of 65.5 full-time 

staff members—12.5 additional FTEs 

compared to the no-action alternative. This 

increase in staffing is primarily needed to 

expand visitor services and resource 

protection efforts. It includes five additional 

interpretive rangers, two additional law 

enforcement rangers, one additional resource 

management staff, four additional maintenance 

staff, and one additional part-time 

administrative staff.

One-time facility costs of alternative D total 

$17.5 million. These costs include the same 

deferred maintenance projects listed under the 

no-action alternative ($9.5 million). Other onetime facility costs total $8 million, and include 

new access and parking areas at designated 

trailheads; extending utility services at Apollo 

Beach; installing more sustainable restrooms at 

Playalinda Beach access area; and 

reconfiguring maintenance functions.

One-time nonfacility costs are needed to 

conduct resource management initiatives, such 

as restoring dune areas impacted from social 

trailing, conducting habitat assessments and 

cultural resource inventories, and completing 

implementation-level planning, such as fishery 

management and commercial services plans 

($2.1 million).

CLIMATE CHANGE

Canaveral National Seashore exists entirely 

within the Atlantic coastal plain of the state of 

Florida. The visitor center complex, the 

maintenance facilities, parking lots, and most 

other infrastructure and resources are all 

vulnerable to future sea level rise and storm 

surges. The action alternatives propose a range 

of facility expansions and/or adaptations to 

address a variety of visitor and resource issues. 

The National Park Service will evaluate 

proposed facility investments prior to project 

approvals using the best scientific information 

available and the climate change strategies 

described above to ensure the long-term 

sustainability of these investments. Due to the 

National Seashore’s location and potential 

vulnerabilities, it is feasible that the National 

Park Service may conclude that such financial 

investments for facilities would be unwise and 

that other options would be considered or 

potentially the project would not be pursued 

or implemented. 

LAND ACQUISITION

This plan does not propose acquisition of any 

lands outside the already authorized boundary. 

The only property in the authorized boundary 

that is not currently in fee ownership is the 

Stuckey property south of Oak Hill. The 

National Park Service would continue to work 

toward the acquisition of this property through

donation or purchase from a willing seller only. 

In either case, merely adding this property to 

the national seashore does not immediately 

make funds available for site maintenance, 

restoration, construction, or operation. Costs 

to acquire the Stuckey property are not 

included as part of this plan.

107
108 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

In the legislation that created the National Park 

Service, Congress charged the agency with 

managing lands under its stewardship “in such 

manner and by such means as would leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations” (National Park Service Organic 

Act). As a result, the National Park Service 

routinely considers and implements mitigative 

measures whenever activities that could 

adversely affect the resources or systems are 

anticipated. Mitigation means to take action to 

avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects of 

environmental damage. 

A common set of mitigative measures would be 

applied to the action alternatives in this 

General Management Plan. The National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts whenever practicable. 

New facilities would be sited to minimize 

impacts on resources, including avoiding 

wetlands and sensitive areas and placing new 

facilities as close to existing disturbances as 

feasible. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Geology and Soils 

Measures to control impacts on soils and 

geologic resources would include incorporating structures such as sand ladders, boardwalks, and sidewalks to reduce impacts on the 

substrate; erosion and sediment controls such 

as silt fences and hay bales; and stormwater 

management practices such as infiltration and 

detention basins. Steep slopes and inundated 

areas would be avoided. Activities with the 

potential to disturb natural resources would be 

monitored for use-related impacts. 

Construction permits would be obtained and 

complied with to minimize potential for 

adverse effects. If construction projects would 

disturb more than 1 acre combined, a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharge from Large Construction Activities 

would be required. The state of Florida 

requires an environmental resource permit 

before any construction project is initiated that 

would affect wetlands, alter surface water 

flows, or contribute to water pollution. 

Stormwater discharges must meet state water 

quality standards, as outlined in Florida 

Administrative Code 62-302. 

Site-specific soil surveys would be conducted 

to determine if any engineering limitations are 

present. This information would be incorporated into design and construction of 

facilities. 

Disturbed areas would be revegetated with 

native plants in a timely period, and disturbed 

areas would be monitored for invasive species. 

Floodplains 

Surveys for floodplains would be carried out 

prior to facility development, and the information would be used to avoid or minimize 

any impacts on floodplains. To prevent water 

pollution during construction, erosion control 

measures and stormwater management techniques would be used to minimize discharge to 

floodplains. The use of heavy equipment 

adjacent to and in waterways would be 

minimized. If parking areas are paved, an 

oil/water separator system would be installed. 

New facilities and construction would be sited 

outside floodplains to the extent practicable, 

or if that is not possible, to otherwise comply 

with Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management.” 

The preparation of a “Floodplain Statement of 

Findings” would be required for any action 

that would result in adverse impacts on 

floodplains, in compliance with NPS Director’s 

Order 77-2: Floodplain Management.
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

109 

Wetlands 

Wetlands potentially affected by new facilities 

would be delineated by qualified NPS staff or 

certified wetland specialists and clearly marked 

before construction work. Wetlands would be 

avoided or impacts would be minimized to the 

degree practicable. Facilities would be sited to 

avoid wetlands, or if that is not practicable, to 

otherwise comply with Executive Order 11900, 

“Protection of Wetlands” and regulations of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). Permits would 

need to be acquired under section 404 of the 

act before conducting any activities that could 

cause adverse impacts on wetland habitats, 

such as the discharge of dredge and fill 

material. Mitigation would likely be required 

to compensate for unavoidable impacts. 

The preparation of a “Wetland Statement of 

Findings” would be required for any action 

that would result in adverse impacts on 

wetlands, in compliance with the NPS “no net 

loss of wetlands” goal and other stipulations of 

Director’s Order 77-1. 

Boardwalks would be constructed in certain 

areas to avoid direct impacts on wetlands. If 

the parking areas are paved, pollutants in 

runoff would be mitigated by the use of best 

management practices for treatment of 

stormwater in paved areas. 

Water Resources 

Impacts on water resources would be mitigated 

during and after construction activities. These 

would include incorporating structures to limit 

impacts and nonstructural (procedural) 

techniques. Construction activities would 

include standard soil erosion, spill prevention, 

and stormwater runoff prevention methods. 

Specific measures may include oil/water 

separators, silt fencing, boardwalks, and sand 

ladders, to avoid erosion and runoff into 

flowing water environments or during storms. 

Activities with the potential to disturb natural 

water resources would be monitored for userelated impacts. 

Structural mitigation measures could include 

soil erosion control devices, use of permeable 

surfaces, and vegetated or natural filters to trap 

or filter stormwater runoff. Construction 

activities in or near waterways would be 

minimized to the extent practicable. 

In some areas, reducing permissible speed 

limits for motorized watercraft may alleviate 

sediment resuspension (turbidity), water 

pollution, shoreline erosion, and disturbance 

of aquatic life. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Surveys for sensitive wildlife and vegetation 

species would be carried out before 

construction activities to allow for facility 

design that would avoid sensitive plant species 

and sensitive habitat. Construction activities 

would be timed to result in the least impact on 

wildlife species, especially during nesting 

periods. 

Soundscapes 

Under all four alternatives, standard noise 

abatement measures would be implemented, as 

appropriate, during national seashore 

operations and construction activities. Examples include scheduling activities so that 

impacts are minimized, use of the best available 

noise control techniques, use of hydraulically 

or electrically powered tools, and situating 

noise-producing machinery as far as possible 

from sensitive uses or resources. 

Efforts would be made to separate public and 

administrative/maintenance traffic, which 

could reduce adverse impacts from vehicle 

noise in certain areas. Construction activities 

would be scheduled for hours that would 

minimize the impact on the natural soundscape. The idling of motors during construction would be minimized. Facilities would be 

located and designed to minimize 

objectionable noise. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

110 

Air Quality 

Measures to control dust and erosion during 

construction would be implemented and could 

include the following: water or otherwise 

stabilize soils, minimize vegetation clearing, 

revegetate with native species, cover haul 

trucks, and employ speed limits on unpaved 

roads. 

NPS vehicle emissions would be minimized by 

using the best available technology whenever 

possible. 

Night Sky 

Outdoor lighting for new or rehabilitated 

facilities would be the minimum amount 

required to provide for personal safety. Lights 

would be shielded and/or directed downward 

to minimize impact on the night sky and 

disorientation of sea turtles. Lights would also 

not allow short wavelength light (i.e., white) to 

be visible from the marine turtle nesting beach 

for the protection of sea turtles, while still 

meeting human safety needs. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Surveys would be conducted, as appropriate, 

for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern before ground-disturbing 

activities are undertaken. The information 

would be used to mitigate for or avoid impacts 

on listed species. 

Conservation measures would be implemented 

in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and would be required if 

 activities expected to have impacts on 

listed species or their designated critical 

habitat beyond those addressed in this 

document were initiated 

 additional species occurrences were 

identified within the national seashore 

Should any of the above events occur, renewed 

discussion and consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service would focus on 

development of specific conservation measures 

to reduce potential impacts on these species 

and/or designated critical habitat. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 requires that all federal land managers 

develop plans for surveying lands under their 

control to determine the nature and extent of 

archeological resources on those lands. 

Funding for a comprehensive survey has been 

requested, and site-specific surveys continue to 

be conducted in the interim. The following 

procedures would be taken to ensure that 

archeological resources are not lost or 

damaged due to NPS activities: 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any construction. 

Known archeological resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible. If 

archeological resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the national register could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer and, if 

necessary, associated American Indian tribes. 

If during construction previously undiscovered 

archeological resources were uncovered, all 

work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery 

would be halted until the resources could be 

identified and documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy could be developed in 

consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and, if necessary, 

associated American Indian tribes. 

Archeological sites would continue to be 

managed to preserve their documented values 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties and Archeological 

Documentation. 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

111 

Human Remains 

In the event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony were discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) and other 

applicable laws would be followed. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Ethnographic resources are defined by the 

National Park Service as any “site, structure, 

object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally 

associated with it” (Director’s Order 28: 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline, 181). 

Canaveral National Seashore staff would 

consult with associated American Indian tribes 

to develop and accomplish programs in a way 

that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other 

cultural values of the American Indian tribes 

who have ancestral ties to national seashore 

lands. NPS staff would maintain governmentto-government relations with associated tribes 

to ensure a collaborative working relationship, 

and would consult regularly with them before 

taking actions that would affect natural and 

cultural resources that are of interest and 

concern to them. Access to, and ceremonial 

use of, American Indian sacred sites by 

American Indian religious practitioners would 

be accommodated in a manner that is 

consistent with national seashore purposes and 

applicable law, regulations, and policy. 

Historic Structures 

Historic structures and landscapes have been 

identified and evaluated in the 2008 historic 

resource study. However, not all have been 

fully documented or nominated to the national 

register. Until that action has occurred, 

however, all properties listed on or appearing 

to meet national register criteria, including 

those identified in the 2008 historic resource 

study, would be treated as though they are 

listed. No action affecting any of these 

resources may proceed without appropriate 

consultation with the state historic preservation officer and documentation of the action 

under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as 

promulgated under the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s “Regulations for the 

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” 

(36 CFR 800). 

Cultural Landscapes 

A cultural landscape is defined as “a reflection 

of human adaptation and use of natural 

resources and is often expressed in the way 

land is organized and divided, patterns of 

settlement, land use, systems of circulation, 

and the types of structures that are built. The 

character of a cultural landscape is defined 

both by physical materials, such as roads, 

buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use 

reflecting cultural values and traditions 

(Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline). 

Four cultural landscapes have been identified 

in the national seashore: Eldora Historic 

District, Haulover Canal, Indian River Citrus 

Landscape, and Seminole Rest. Cultural 

landscapes would continue to be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria to 

determine eligibility for listing in the national 

register. Listed, as well as determined eligible, 

cultural landscapes would be managed to 

preserve their natural resource values and 

culturally significant character defining 

patterns and features in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Climate change has very high potential to 

adversely affect the future conditions of 

coastal resources such as at Canaveral 

National Seashore. As global and regional 

climates continue to change, a management 

approach that enhances the protection and 

resilience of climate-sensitive resources is 

becoming increasingly important. The 

following outlines such a strategy that adapts 

to our growing understanding of climate 

change influences and the effectiveness of 

management to contend with them.

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field and new information is continually 

being collected and released, yet the full 

extent of climate change impacts on resource 

conditions is unknown. As such, park 

managers and policy makers have not 

determined the most effective response 

mechanisms for minimizing impacts and 

adapting to change. Because of this, the 

following management strategies do not 

provide definitive solutions or directions; 

rather they provide science-based and 

scholarship-based management principles to 

consider when implementing the broader 

management direction of the National 

Seashore. 

The NPS Climate Change Response Program 

aims to prepare the agency and the national 

park system units for the anticipated 

management needs that result from climate 

change. To help parks cope with the

uncertainty of future climate conditions, this 

Climate Change Response Program serves to 

help park managers determine the extent to 

which they can and should act to protect 

current park resources while allowing park 

ecosystems to adapt to new conditions. 

Efforts of the NPS Climate Change Response 

Program focus on the following strategies:

SCIENCE 

• Conduct scientific research and 

vulnerability assessments necessary to 

support NPS adaptation, mitigation, and 

communication efforts. 

• Collaborate with scientific agencies and 

institutions to meet the specific needs of 

management when confronting the 

challenges of climate change. 

• Learn from and apply the best available 

climate change science.

MITIGATION 

• Reduce the carbon footprint of the 

National Park Service.

• Promote energy efficient practices such 

as alternative transportation.

• Enhance carbon sequestration as one of 

many ecosystem services.

• Integrate mitigation into all business 

practices, planning, and NPS culture. 

ADAPTATION

• Develop the adaptive capacity for 

managing natural and cultural resources 

and infrastructure under a changing 

climate.

• Inventory resources at risk and conduct 

vulnerability assessments.

• Prioritize and implement actions, and 

monitor the results.

• Explore scenarios, associated risks, and 

possible management options.

• Integrate climate change impacts into 

facilities management.

COMMUNICATION 

• Provide effective communication about 

climate change and impacts to the public.

112
Strategies to Address Climate Change Common to All Alternatives

• Train park staff and managers in the 

science of climate change and decisionmaking tools for coping with change.

• Lead by example.

With the guidance of the above strategies, 

Canaveral National Seashore will use the 

following management approach to address 

climate change throughout implementation 

of this general management plan. Many of 

these specific management strategies are 

adopted from the publication, “Some 

guidelines for helping natural resources adapt 

to climate change” (IHDP 2008). Further 

elaboration and adaptation of these strategies 

are anticipated as implementation of the 

general management plan proceeds.

• Identify key natural and cultural 

resources and processes that are at risk 

from climate change. Establish baseline 

conditions for these resources, identify 

their thresholds, and monitor for change. 

Increase reliance on adaptive 

management to minimize risks.

• Restore key ecosystem features and 

processes and protect cultural resources 

to increase their resilience to climate 

change. 

• Use best management practices to reduce 

human-caused stresses (e.g., park 

infrastructure and visitor-related 

disturbances) that hinder the ability of 

species or ecosystems to withstand 

climatic events.

• Form partnerships with other resource 

management entities to maintain regional 

habitat connectivity and refugia that 

allow species dependent on National 

Seashore resources to better adapt to 

changing conditions.

• Reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with National 

Seashore operations and visitor use such 

as alternative transportation options (e.g., 

shuttles and low-emission vehicles for the 

park’s fleet) and biofuels and other 

renewable energy sources for visitor 

center and administrative buildings.

• Use the fragile environments of 

Canaveral National Seashore as an 

opportunity to educate visitors about the 

effects of climate change on the resources 

they are enjoying. Inspire visitors to take 

action through leadership and education.

• Manage National Seashore facilities and 

infrastructure (structures, trails, roads, 

docks, drainage systems, etc.) in a way 

that prepares for and adapts to the effects 

of climate change. 

Finally, Canaveral National Seashore exists 

entirely within the Atlantic coastal plain of 

the state of Florida. The visitor center 

complex, the maintenance facilities, parking 

lots, and most other infrastructure and 

resources are all vulnerable to future sea level 

rise and storm surges. The action alternatives 

propose a range of facility expansions and/or 

adaptations to address a variety of visitor and 

resource issues. The National Park Service 

will evaluate proposed facility investments 

prior to project approvals using the best 

scientific information available and the

climate change strategies described above to 

ensure the long-term sustainability of these 

investments. Due to the National Seashore’s 

location and potential vulnerabilities, it is 

feasible that the National Park Service may 

conclude that such financial investments for 

facilities would be unwise and that other 

options would be considered or potentially 

the project would not be pursued or 

implemented.

113
114 

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The National Park Service is required to 

identify the environmentally preferable 

alternative in its environmental impact analysis 

documents for public review and comment. 

The National Park Service, in accordance with 

the Department of the Interior policies 

contained in the Department Manual (516 DM 

4.10) and the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s Forty Questions, defines the 

environmentally preferable alternative (or 

alternatives) as the alternative that best 

promotes the national environmental policy 

expressed in the National Environmental 

Policy Act (section 101(b)). Section 101 states 

that “it is the continuing responsibility of the 

federal government to 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations; 

2. ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and variety of individual 

choice; 

5. achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that would permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources” (NPS DO-12 Handbook, 

section 2.7D). 

The alternatives do not differ much with 

respect to criteria 1 and 6; therefore the 

evaluation focuses on criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

represents “business as usual” and was 

included to provide a baseline against which to 

compare the effects of the other (action) 

alternatives. Alternative A partially meets 

criterion 2; the current imbalance between 

visitor amenities and facilities is not fully 

addressed. Alternative A partially realizes 

criterion 3 because it does not comprehensively address challenges in the areas of 

resource protection and visitor use that face 

the national seashore now and in the future. 

Alternative A also does not fully realize 

criterion 4 because it does not provide 

improved protections for and visitor access to 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Alternative A only partially realizes criterion 5 

because it does not address changes in 

visitation patterns at the national seashore. 

Alternative B, the NPS preferred alternative, 

fully realizes criterion 2 by enhancing facilities 

and protecting resources in a safe and 

aesthetically pleasing manner, such as the 

enhancement proposed for the Apollo Beach 

entrance station. Alternative B fully realizes 

criterion 3 by providing the highest degree of 

protection for natural resources and reducing 

human intrusion into the environment. 

Alternative B fully meets criterion 4 by 

enhancing preservation of cultural and historic 

resources and improving related natural 

heritage resources, such as restoration of 

several historic features. Alternative B fully 

realizes criterion 5 because it emphasizes 

improvements in facilities that would enhance 

visitor experiences in a variety of settings. 

Alternative C realizes criteria 2 and 3 to a lesser 

degree than alternative B because of a greater 

emphasis on visitor services and less emphasis 

on environmental protection. Alternative C 

only partially meets criterion 4 because the 

focus of this alternative is to provide more 

visitor opportunities and access to resources. 
The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

115 

Alternative C fully realizes criterion 5 because 

of the emphasis on a wide range of visitor 

experiences and educational opportunities that 

would accommodate changing visitor use 

patterns. This includes new visitor amenities at 

Apollo Beach and Turtle Mound (including 

commercial services and increasing parking 

capacity in several areas). 

Alternative D fully realizes criterion 2 by 

providing continued safe and pleasing 

surroundings. Alternative D only partially 

realizes criterion 3 by emphasizing restoration 

while still allowing for visitor use in many 

areas. Alternative D partially realizes criterion 

4 with some emphasis on resource protection 

and enhancement of existing facilities. 

Alternative D realizes criterion 5 by greatly 

enhancing visitor education and substantially 

improving visitor contact areas and 

interpretation opportunities. However, it does 

not provide the widest range of recreational 

opportunities as in alternative C. 

After considering the environmental 

consequences of the four management 

alternatives, including consequences to the 

human environment, the National Park Service 

has concluded that alternative B, the NPS 

preferred alternative, is also the environmentally preferable alternative. This alternative 

best realizes the full range of national 

environmental policy goals as stated in section 

101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
116 

KEY IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO FOLLOW THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

A number of more topic-specific investigations, studies, and planning efforts are needed 

to more fully define the details of how best to 

achieve and maintain the desired future 

conditions of the resource and visitor 

experience defined under the approved 

general management plan. The list includes but 

is not limited to the following: 

 Resource Stewardship Strategy 

This document would identify national 

seashore resources, establish desired 

resource conditions, and provide guidance 

on how best to prioritize and sequence 

management actions to meet desired 

conditions. 

 Fishery Management Plan 

The National Park Service would develop a 

plan in coordination with other federal and 

state agencies for management of the 

fisheries in the lagoon and offshore waters 

of the national seashore in relation to the 

USFWS plans and other federal and state 

policies. The plan would include a public 

involvement and environmental 

compliance process to determine 

sustainable harvest levels for shellfish, red 

drum, spotted sea trout, and other game 

fish. The National Park Service would 

utilize the best available science in order to 

make informed decisions in the fishery 

management plan. 

 Scrub-Jay Habitat Assessment 

(Bill’s Hill Area) 

This plan may be completed as a part of the 

Resource Stewardship Strategy. It would 

look at the quality of the environment 

within the Bill’s Hill area as a means to 

encourage scrub habitat for the threatened 

Florida scrub-jay. 

 Archeological Survey (national 

seashore-wide) 

NPS policy and section 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, require complete archeological 

survey of all National Park Service Areas. 

Canaveral National Seashore has not yet 

had such an evaluation. Lack of such a 

survey inhibits development, hampers 

management decisions, and may result in 

the loss or damage of significant 

archeological resources. 

 Cultural Landscape Inventory (Eldora 

Hammock Area and Seminole Rest) 

A cultural landscape inventory would 

identify significant resources that should 

be protected as a part of the cultural 

significance of these important sites. The 

inventory would lead to a decision 

regarding the eligibility of these landscapes 

for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

 Visitor Use Management Plan 

This plan would identify the types and 

levels of visitor and other public use that 

can be accommodated while sustaining the 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences that complement the purpose 

of the national seashore. 

 Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

This plan addresses both interpretation 

and visitor information. It addresses the 

entire spectrum of services and duties 

performed by interpretive rangers. It 

identifies what is important to tell visitors 

and provides guidance for disseminating 

that information. 

 Commercial Services Plan (recreational 

equipment rental and transportation 

shuttle) 

A commercial services plan would provide 

guidance to the national seashore for 

provision of services most appropriately 

undertaken by the private sector. 

 Soundscape Management Plan 

A soundscape management plan provides 

guidance for restoration of natural sound 

conditions that have become degraded 

over time. 
Key Implementation Plans to Follow This General Management Plan 

117 

 National Seashore Administrative 

History 

This document is a comprehensive history 

of park management. 

 Historic Structure Reports 

Historic Structure Reports for Eldora State 

House and the Schultz-Leeper House 

should be completed to determine 

treatment and use of these resources. 

 Cultural Landscape Reports 

Cultural Landscape Reports should be 

completed for Seminole Rest, Eldora State 

House, Haulover Canal, and Indian River 

Citrus Landscape to determine treatment 

and use of these resources. 
118 

ALTERNATIVES OR ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 

No fully developed alternatives or actions 

were considered and dismissed. The 

alternatives proposed in this plan include the 

range of actions and alternatives proposed by 

the public and staff during scoping and in 

later phases of the planning process. 
119

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

CONCEPT

Concept There would be no change in the 

current management direction for the foreseeable future. The National Park Service would continue to manage Canaveral National Seashore under the overall operational direction provided in its enabling legislation and interagency/ cooperative agreements with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The latter agreement defines the general boundaries of jointly managed areas in and around Mosquito Lagoon and delineates responsibilities of the two agencies for cooperative administration and management of the area. 

Canaveral National Seashore would be managed to preserve and enhance the natural and historic landscape features associated with the national seashore’s eastern 

Florida coastal barrier island system. Emphasis would be placed on retaining the national seashore’s relatively undeveloped character and providing uncrowded experiences by dispersing visitors through a shuttle service or canoe, kayak, hiking and walking trails, and bicycle trails. 

Canaveral National Seashore would be managed as a place where visitors would explore and experience a wide range of opportunities that would be designed to provide an in-depth understanding of the natural and cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. When visitors enter the national seashore, they would be presented with choices for alternative modes of access to landand water-based natural and cultural features, appropriate recreational opportunities, and educational pursuits. 

Canavebe manthe exifacilitiewould outdooopportwith pseashoresourcdeveloefficienoperatamenitmanagcreased cationafor visiof Mos

PLAYALINDA BEACH AREA

Playalinda Beach 

Restrooms would be maintained. No new facilities would be developed. 

Restrooms would be replaced; new bicycle trail would be developed along roadway. 

Restrooms would be replaced; new bicycle trail would be developed along roadway. 

Restroo

Entrance Station Entrance station would be maintained. Administrative Complex 

The ranger station would be maintained. 

Visitor contact station would be accommodated in the ranger station.

No change. Visitor 

accom

Lifeguard Operations Area 

The current level of lifeguard operations would continue. 

The desirability of moving lifeguard operations to Eddy Creek would be evaluated. Structures might be removed or repurposed, and the administrative boardwalk dune crossover would be reconfigured. 

Lifeguard operations would be moved closer to beach; existing structures would be repurposed. 

Lifeguamoved would and thover boreconf
120

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Lands/Waters S. of S.R. 402 This area would continue to be managed for its natural resources. Public access would continue to be restricted in accordancNASA Tracking Facilities 

Public access would continue to be restricted in and around NASA tracking facilities. 

KLONDIKE BEACH

Managed for protection of endangered species and preservation of pristine beach conditions. Public acce

APOLLO BEACH

Apollo Beach Access 

Managed for beach/dune preservation and visitor use. Chemical toilets remain. Access to beach restricted when parking lots are full. Use of unpaved parking for horse trailer parking continues 

Bicycle trails and new bus access might be developed, toilets would be replaced, and powerlines would be placed underground. 

Some parking would be redesigned, horse use would be accommodated, a bike path would be developed, showers would be installed, toilets would be replaced, and water and sewer lines would be connected. 

Horse toilets conneca showparking 

Entrance Station The current entrance station would 

remain. 

Station and gate would be relocated towards northern boundary. 

Station area would be redesigned. The cu

remain

Visitor Information Center 

The new visitor center, pavilion, and ranger station at Apollo Beach would continue to serve as the hub of visitor activities and programs for the North District. 

The visitor center, pavilion, and ranger station at Apollo Beach would continue to serve as the hub of visitor activities and programs for the North District. 

The visitor center, pavilion, and ranger station at Apollo Beach would continue to serve as the hub of visitor activities and programs for the North District. The feasibility of commercial shuttle service would be explored. 

The visranger continuvisitor North 

Turtle Mound The mound would continue to be 

preserved. Trail, waysides, and parking would remain. 

The mound would continue to be preserved. Trail, waysides, and parking would remain. 

A shade/rain pavilion would be constructed and parking area would be enlarged. 

The mopreservparking 
121

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

North District Maintenance Area 

Facility would remain unchanged in its current location. 

Facility would be reconfigured/ redesigned and screened from view. 

Maintenance function would be moved to centralized facility at Stuckey property or Bill’s Hill area and existing buildings would be repurposed. 

Facility redesig

Beach Operations Area Administrative dune crossover boardwalk would remain for beach emergencies. 

ELDORA HAMMOCK AREA

Eldora Hammock 

Access and parking would be maintained. Power and telephone lines would continue overhead. 

Powerlines would be placed underground. 

Access and parking would be maintained. Power and telephone lines would continue overhead. 

Access maintalines w

Eldora Historic Area 

The State House and dock would be preserved. Access to the first floor of the state house would continue. Exhibits and staff office space would be retained at the Eldora State House. 

Exhibits and staff office space would be retained at the Eldora State House, visitor understanding would be expanded, and landscape would be restored. 

Exhibits and staff office space would be retained at the Eldora State House, visitor understanding would be expanded, and landscape would be restored. A museum would be established in the state house. There would be new trails and a new dock. Septic fields would be replaced with new connection to sewer and water. 

Exhibitbe retaHouse, be expwould would house. replacesewer 

Eldora Hammock Interpretive Trail 

The trail and waysides would be maintained. The level of interpretive opportunities would be uncha

Castle Windy Interpretive Trail 

Mound protection and maintenance of current parking and trails would continue. 

The mound would continue to be protected, and the trail would be extended. 

Trail would be extended, new parking area would be added, and interpretive programs would be expanded. 

Mound of currcontinu

Marine Science Educational Station 

The national seashore would continue to pursue supporting research operations at these facilities.

The national seashore would continue to pursue supporting research operations at these facilities.

The national seashore would continue to pursue supporting research operations at these facilities.

The nacontinuresearc
122

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Former Hebner Property 

The garage would continue to be used for park operations. Existing utilities would remain. 

The garage would continue to be used for park operations. Existing utilities would remain. 

Garage would be replaced with a research/dormitory facility. 

Additioadded utility l

Former Feller Property 

The house and dock would continue as a research station. Agreements and partnerships for resource inventory and monitoring would continue. The trailer pad would remain. 

Property would be offered for research, inventorying, and monitoring activities. 

Property would be offered for possible commercial services. 

Properresourc

Former Schultz Property Use of house would continue for administrative purposes. Garage would be removed and replaced if Lands South of Eldora Hammock 

Managed for resource protection and closed to visitors except along Castle Windy Interpretive Trail and the shoreline accessed by boat. 

Managed for resource protection and closed to visitors except along Castle Windy Interpretive Trail and the shoreline accessed by boat. 

Managed for resource protection. Limited access via foot trails would be allowed. 

Managand cloCastle the sho

NORTHERN MOSQUITO LAGOON

Boat Access Areas 

24-hour access for boat launch. Facilities maintained. 

Entrance area would be relocated, and 24-hour access would be phased out. 

Parking would be paved and slightly increased. 24-hour access for boat launch. 

Entranand 24out.
123

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Lagoon Waters Enhanced resource management. 

Continued low-impact water-based recreational opportunities. 

Nonmotorized or pole/troll area would be developed; slow-speed area would be developed between Eldora State House, parking lot 7, and the first island to the west. The National Park Service would develop a separate fishery management plan to address recreational fishing in the lagoon and offshore waters in order to better protect park resources including valuable fisheries resources and to determine sustainable harvest levels found within boundaries of the national seashore. 

Slow-speed area would be developed between Eldora State House, parking lot 7, and the first island to the west.The National Park Service would develop a separate fishery management plan to address recreational fishing in the lagoon and offshore waters in order to better protect park resources including valuable fisheries resources and to determine sustainable harvest levels found within boundaries of the national seashore. 

Nonmowould protectalso be State Hfirst islbe moand kaThe Nadevelomanagrecreatoffshoprotect valuabdetermfound nation

Lagoon Islands Diverse, low-impact backcountry opportunities. Campsites and picnic tables/grills made available by per

OAK HILL AREA

Seminole Rest Management of the area would 

continue to focus on archaeological resources and operations. 

Interpretive and educational programs would be expanded. Cultural landscape would be studied and key features rehabilitated. 

A marsh trail would be developed. A mars

Interprexpandtrail woeducatinitiate

Stuckey / Bill’s Hill 

National Park Service would continue to pursue acquisition of the Stuckey property on a willing seller basis. 

National Park Service would continue to pursue acquisition of the Stuckey property on a willing seller basis. A future determination as to its appropriateness as a future park headquarters use would be made sometime following acquisition. At 

National Park Service would continue to pursue acquisition of the Stuckey property on a willing seller basis. If acquired, a new full-service visitor center/ administrative facility and maintenance facility would be constructed. New trails, waysides, 

Nationto pursproperacquireand walanding develo
124

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Bill’s Hill, parking, trails, waysides, canoe/kayak landing, and water trails would be developed. Landscape restoration program would be developed. 

campsites, horse trails, and parking and site access would also be developed. Interpretive opportunities would be expanded. A connection to USFWS canoe/kayak trail would be developed and some of the natural landscape would be restored. 

and a ccanoe/

JOINT MANAGEMENT AREA

Access Temporary closures before scheduled launches/landings would continue. Central and Southern Lagoon 

Managed for resource protection. Pole/troll areas designated by USFWS. 

Boat Access Areas 

A new canoe launch would be developed on Bio Lab Road. 

A new canoe launch would be developed on Bio Lab Road. 

Possibly allow equipment rental concession. Expand environmental education and public programs with partner help. 

Expand public 

Lands North of Haulover Canal National Park Service would support USFWS management direction and recreation activities. Manatee Viewing Area 

National Park Service would support USFWS management and self-guided interpretive opportunities. 

National Park Service would support USFWS management and self-guided interpretive opportunities. 

Expand interpretation. Expand

Sand Road Trail NPS would support USFWS management and provide assistance in preservation of the trail and its associated WWIHistoric Properties 

National Park Service would continue to support USFWS and NASA to preserve and interpret historic properties throughout the Joint Management Area. 

National Park Service would continue to support USFWS and NASA to preserve and interpret historic properties throughout the Joint Management Area. 

Coordinate with partners to establish historic context for these sites and to provide educational programs. 

Coordihistoric provide 

Target Rock Preserve Target Rock site. Preserve Target Rock site. Develop tours to Target Rock. PreservBio Lab Road USFWS would continue to maintain Bio Lab Road. 
125

TABLE 5. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

NASA Tracking Facilities 

Public Access would continue to be restricted in and around the NASA tracking facilities. 

MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Visitor Information Center 

Limited National Seashore orientation would be available. 

NPS would work with the USFWS to explore whether combined administrative headquarters functions in the South District would be the best strategy for administration of the national seashore. Otherwise, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remain the lead agency for visitor information in the South District. 

Limited National Seashore orientation would be available. 

Limited orienta

South District Maintenance Area 

NPS would continue to use Wilson’s Corner for South District maintenance facilities. Water would continue to be brought in. 

NPS would continue to use Wilson’s Corner for South District maintenance facilities. Water would continue to be brought in. 

Maintenance functions would be relocated to new facility in Bill’s Hill; area would be returned to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

MainterelocatUSFWS to the 

TITUSVILLE NPS HEADQUARTERS

NPS Headquarters 

The headquarters would continue to be in Titusville. 

The headquarters would continue to be in Titusville. 

NPS administrative headquarters would be moved from Titusville to Bill’s Hill area. 

New faseashoadmini

STAFFING AND COSTS

Staffing 53 full-time-equivalent employees 63.5 full-time-equivalent employees 68.5 full-time-equivalent employees 65.5 fuOne-time capital Costs $10.1 million $19.4 million $35.8 million Annual Operating Costs $3.2 million $3.9 million $4.2 million 
126

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Impacts on Natural Resources

Geologic Resources and Soils 

Under the no-action alternative, no changes to current conditions would occur within the national seashore. Conditions for geologic resources and soils would remain as described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. Maintenance activities on roads and parking areas would continue to result in long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on soils associated with any necessary removal of vegetation or disturbance of soils, which could result in potential erosion and transport of suspended sediments during storms. Long-term beneficial impacts would be expected to continue from restricted public access to Turtle Mound and the lands south of the Eldora Hammock area. 

Activities associated with implementing alternative B would result in short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on geologic resources and soils, primarily due to construction efforts that would increase impervious surfaces and result in erosion and sedimentation. In addition, long-term beneficial impacts would be anticipated because vegetation cover would be increased at certain locations. 

Activities associated with implementing alternative C would result in short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on geologic resources and soils primarily from construction efforts that would increase impervious surfaces, resulting in erosion and sedimentation. Long-term beneficial impacts would be anticipated because vegetation cover would be increased at certain locations. 

Activitimplemresult iminor, resourcconstruincreaspotentsedimeterm banticipwould locatioincreas

Floodplains Long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on floodplains would be expected to continue from alternative A because of the presence of impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings, parking areas, and roads) within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. Impacts from the existing conditions at the national seashore would continue to be negligible. 

Small improvements, such as trailheads and parking areas, would create additional short- and longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on floodplains. 

The greatest potential short- and long-term adverse impacts on floodplains would be from the construction of the visitor center/ administrative headquarters and maintenance facilities at the Stuckey property (if acquired) or Bill’s Hill. Additional short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts would also be expected from construction of parking areas, trails, and smaller structures. 

Short- moderfloodpresult opotentadversconstruHill are
127

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Wetlands Long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts would continue from the implementation of alternative A because of continued maintenance activities and impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings, parking areas, roads) in areas near wetlands. Long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on wetlands would continue, particularly in the Bill’s 

Hill area, because of continued uncontrolled visitor access, exotic vegetation, and dumping (due to lack of management presence). 

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would be expected from implementing alternative B. Smaller improvements, such as trailheads, a bike path, and parking areas, would create additional short- and longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts, depending on whether these improvements are placed within wetlands. Long-term negligible adverse impacts would continue because of existing impervious surfaces in areas near wetlands. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on wetlands would be expected from increased security, controlled access, and the establishment of a slow-speed area for boats and a pole/troll or nonmotorized area in Mosquito Lagoon. 

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would be expected from implementing alternative C. The greatest potential short- and longterm adverse impacts would be from the construction of the visitor center/administrative headquarters and maintenance facilities at the Stuckey property (if acquired) or Bill’s Hill area. Additional short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts would also be expected from construction of parking areas, trails, and smaller structures. Negligible adverse impacts would also continue because of existing impervious surfaces within or adjacent to wetland areas. 

Short- minor, would alternashort- impactconstruHill areImprovareas, particuintroduof new permaarea. Nwould imperv
128

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Water Resources Under the no-action alternative, no 

changes to current conditions on water resources would occur in Canaveral National Seashore. Water resources would remain as described in “Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” Maintenance activities on roads and parking areas would continue to result in long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on water resources from erosion and sedimentation (i.e., soil transport to water sources and possible fuel leaks) associated with maintenance activities. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on lagoon water quality could also continue from oil or other fluids from improperly maintained watercraft being introduced into lagoon waters. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts associated with increased turbidity could occur as a result of the operation of watercraft in shallow waters. Long-term, beneficial impacts would be expected to continue from restricted public access to Turtle Mound and the lands south of the Eldora Hammock area. 

Implementation of alternative B could result in short- and longterm, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on water resources. Beneficial impacts would also be realized through revegetation and by the restoration of property to its natural condition. 

Implementation of alternative C could result in short-term, negligible to moderate, adverse, and long-term, minor, adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts would also be realized by the restoration of property to its natural condition and through revegetation efforts. 

Implemcould rnegligilong-teadverswould restoraconditefforts

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Alternative A would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and short- and long-term, negligible to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Alternative B would have short- and long-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and short- and long-term beneficial impacts. 

The actions proposed in alternative C would have short- and long-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

Alternaand lomodershort- moder
129

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Soundscapes and Noise 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape from recreational activities, increasing visitation, and maintenance activities (such as paving and grading) would be expected to continue under alternative A. 

Implementation of alternative B could have short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts, and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the soundscape would also be expected from establishing a slow-speed area for boats in Northern Mosquito Lagoon. 

Implementation of alternative C could result in short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

Implemcould rmoderlong-teon the minor, expecthour pcontroestabliboats iLagoon

Air Quality Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on the air quality from recreational activities, increasing visitation, and maintenance activities would be expected to continue under alternative A. 

Implementation of alternative B could result in an increase in shortand long-term adverse impacts on air quality, due to construction activities, vehicle emissions, and emissions related to recreational activities. Some localized beneficial impacts are also expected because of the availability of alternative transportation, such as shuttle buses and bicycles. 

Implementation of alternative C would result in short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on air quality. Some localized beneficial impacts are also expected because of the availability of alternative transportation, such as shuttle buses and bicycles. 

Implemwould term, mthe air seasho

Impacts on Cultural Resources

Impacts on Archeological Resources 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on archeological resources under alternative A. 

Long-term, minor, and adverse, and long term, negligible to minor, and beneficial impacts on archeological resources. The impacts of alternative B would be no adverse effect for section 106.

Same as alternative B. Same a

Impacts on Historic Structures 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on historic structures under alternative A. 

Impacts on historic structures under alternative B would be beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and long term. The impacts of alternative B would be no adverse effect for section 106.

Same as alternative B. Same a
130

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Impacts on Cultural Landscapes 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and long term. The impacts of alternative B would be no adverse effect for section 106.

Same as alternative B. Same a

Impacts on Ethnographic Resources 

Long-term, beneficial, negligible to minor impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources. Impacts of alternative B would be no adverse effect for section 106.

Beneficial, negligible to minor, and long-term impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Same a

Impacts on Visitor Experience

Visitors are satisfied overall with most current opportunities in the national seashore. Maintaining the current level of access and range of visitor opportunities would have no effect on the existing visitor experience. For visitors who would prefer additional improvements in recreation-oriented facilities and boundary markers, or greater access to the Apollo Beach area, continuing the current range of visitor opportunities would result in a long-term, minor adverse impact. Projected increases in visitor use levels would result in a long-term, minor, adverse effect on visitor experience resulting from inconvenience and crowding. 

The impacts of alternative B would be long term and moderately beneficial for visitors looking for additional recreational opportunities in Canaveral National Seashore. However, there would be some long-term, minor, adverse impacts related to crowding and noise as a result of increased visitation. Depending on future adaptive management direction, additional short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts could be expected. 

The impacts of alternative C would be long term, major, and beneficial for visitors looking for additional recreational opportunities in Canaveral National Seashore. However, there would be some long-term, minor, adverse impacts related to crowding and noise as a result of increased visitation. Depending on future adaptive management direction, additional short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts could be expected. 

Same a

Impacts on National Seashore Operations

Alternative A would likely continue to have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on national seashore operations. There would continue to be a long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact 

Under alternative B impacts on national seashore operations would be long term, moderate, and both adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from an increasing management and 

Under alternative C impacts on national seashore operations would be long term, moderate, and both adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from an increasing management and 

Under nationbe lonadversimpactincreas
131

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

on operations resulting from increased demands on national seashore resources and the need for NPS managers to focus on local and regional issues. The contribution of alternative A to these cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

operational responsibilities and increases in capital and operating costs. Beneficial impacts would result from operational efficiencies and resulting enhanced visitor services and programs. An increase of staff would ensure smooth and effective programs and services for visitors, which would be beneficial. Cumulative impacts on national seashore operations under alternative B would be long term, minor and adverse. Alternative B’s contribution to these cumulative effects would be a noticeable beneficial offset.

operational responsibilities and increases in capital and operating costs. Beneficial impacts would result from operational efficiencies and resulting enhanced visitor services and programs. An increase of staff would ensure smooth and effective programs and services for visitors, which would be beneficial. Cumulative impacts on national seashore operations under alternative C would be long term, minor and adverse. Alternative C’s contribution to these cumulative effects would be a noticeable beneficial offset. 

operatincreascosts. result fand reserviceof stafeffectivvisitorsCumulseashoalternaminor contribeffects benefic
132

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics

Over time, expenditures by visitors traveling to the national seashore would continue to have beneficial effects on the local and regional economies. These impacts would be short and long term for most visitor-related businesses and their employees. The annual NPS operational expenditures would have a long-term and negligible to minor beneficial impact on the regional economy. The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and other new work proposed under this alternative would provide one-time, shortterm, minor, beneficial impacts on the regional economy. The impacts of other actions, together with the impacts of alternative A, would result in short- and long-term minor beneficial cumulative effects. The contribution of this alternative to these cumulative impacts would be very small.

Expenditures by visitors traveling to the national seashore would continue to have minor beneficial effects on the local and regional economy. These impacts would be long term on a local and regional basis for most visitor-related businesses and their employees. The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and additional new miscellaneous work proposed under this alternative would provide onetime, short-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the regional economy. The national seashore’s annual expenditures and employee expenditures in the local and twocounty regional economy would provide long-term, minor, beneficial impacts. The impacts of NASA-related construction activity, together with the impacts of actions proposed in alternative B, would result in shortterm, moderate, beneficial cumulative effects,—mostly for the construction industry. Changes in the NASA workforce would have unknown long-term impacts on regional socioeconomics. The contribution of alternative B to these cumulative impacts would be beneficial but very small. 

Same as alternative B. Same a

Note: There would be no impairment of resources under any alternative.
Chapter 

The Affected Environment

3

135 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing environment of Canaveral National Seashore. The 

focus is on those elements that would be 

affected by the actions proposed in the 

alternatives should they be implemented. 

These topics were selected on the basis of 

federal law, regulations, executive orders, NPS 

expertise, and concerns expressed by other 

agencies or members of the public during 

project scoping. 

The first section in this chapter discusses 

impact topics that are analyzed in detail in this 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. The issues discussed in 

chapter 1 were one of the factors considered in 

identifying the impact topics. The next section 

discusses impact topics considered but 

dismissed from further analysis and explains 

the rationale for these decisions. Although 

these resources or topics are important, the 

alternatives in this plan either do not have an 

effect on these resources or the alternatives 

would have only positive impacts on them, 

and/or any adverse impacts would be 

negligible to minor. 

TABLE 7: TOPICS ANALYZED AND DISMISSED

Impact Topics Analyzed in Detail Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed

Natural Resources Natural Resources

 Geologic Resources and Soils 

 Floodplains 

 Wetlands 

 Water Resources 

 Vegetation 

 Wildlife 

 Fishes and Essential Fish Habitat 

 Special Status Species (Federal and State)

 Soundscape and Noise

 Air Quality

 Natural or Depletable Resource Conservation 

Potential 

 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Potential 

 Prime or Unique Farmlands 

 Ecologically Critical Areas, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, other Unique Natural Areas 

 Carbon Footprint 

 Night Sky 

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources

 Archeological Resources 

 Prehistoric/Historic Structures and Buildings 

 Cultural Landscapes 

 Ethnographic Resources 

 Museum Collections 

 Traditional Cultural Properties 

 Indian Trust Resources

Visitor Experience 

National Seashore Operations 

Regional Socioeconomics 

Other Impact Topics Other Impact Topics 

 Environmental Justice

 Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment
136 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACT 

TOPICS CONSIDERED IN THIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

Canaveral National Seashore is along the 

Atlantic coast of Florida, approximately 38 

miles northeast of Orlando, stretching from 

the city of New Smyrna Beach in the north to 

the town of Merritt Island in the south. The 

Cape Canaveral NASA shuttle landing facility 

and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

in the south abut the national seashore. 

Canaveral National Seashore was created by 

an act of Congress on January 3, 1975, to 

“preserve and protect the outstanding 

natural, scenic, scientific, ecologic, and 

historic values of certain lands, 

shorelines, and waters of the state of 

Florida and to provide for public 

outdoor recreation use and enjoyment 

of the same . . . .” 

The national seashore contains 58,000 acres 

of barrier island, open lagoon, coastal hammock, pine flatwoods, and offshore waters 

along the east-central coast of Florida. Water 

comprises over two-thirds of the national 

seashore’s 58,000 acres. The eastern 

boundary of the national seashore extends 

0.5 mile into the Atlantic Ocean. One of the 

most dominant features is the barrier island, a 

fragile ecosystem that separates Mosquito 

Lagoon from the Atlantic Ocean (NPS 

2009b). The national seashore is an excellent 

example of a relatively stable barrier beach 

backed by a productive lagoon system. The 

national seashore’s 24 miles of undeveloped 

beach is the longest stretch of undeveloped 

beach on the east coast of Florida. Mosquito 

Lagoon, which composes more than twothirds of the national seashore, is designated 

an Outstanding Florida Water and is a part of 

the 155-mile-long Indian River Lagoon, an 

Estuary of National Significance. The Indian 

River Lagoon is considered the most diverse 

and productive estuary in North America. 

The natural resources of Canaveral National 

Seashore include a diversity of wildlife and 

vegetation communities within the land/ 

lagoon/sea interface of east-central Florida. 

In contrast with other barrier islands, 

Canaveral National Seashore has a single 

dune ridge, averaging 12-feet high, which is 

quite stable due to a dense growth of saw 

palmetto and several other species of hardy 

shrubs and grasses. Mosquito Lagoon, 

protected by the national seashore’s barrier 

island, is the northernmost part of the Indian 

River Lagoon system, which contains the 

most diverse collection of aquatic species 

along the length of the eastern seaboard. 

This chapter describes the existing environment of Canaveral National Seashore. The 

focus is on elements (e.g., water resources, 

vegetation, wildlife) that would be affected by 

the actions proposed in the alternatives 

should they be implemented. These topics 

were selected on the basis of federal law, 

regulations, executive orders, NPS expertise, 

and concerns expressed by other agencies or 

members of the public during project 

scoping. 

This chapter discusses impact topics that are 

analyzed in detail in chapter 4 of this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. The last section of this chapter (3) 

discusses impact topics that are not analyzed 

in detail and explains the rationale for these 

decisions. 

Geologic Resources and Soils 

NPS Management Policies 2006 define how to 

manage national seashore resources. The 

National Park Service would protect geologic 

features from the unacceptable impacts of 

human activity while allowing natural 

processes to continue. At Canaveral National 

Seashore, these features include soils, sand 

dunes, and paleontological resources such as 

fossilized plants or animals or their traces. In 

addition, the National Park Service would 
Natural Resources 

137 

actively seek to understand and preserve the 

soil resources of parks and to prevent, to the 

extent possible, the unnatural erosion, 

physical removal, or contamination of the soil 

or its contamination of other resources. 

Much of Canaveral National Seashore is 

composed of a barrier island ecosystem. The 

geologic structure of the national seashore is 

a product of Florida’s complex geologic 

history. As sea levels rose and fell in response 

to the advance and retreat of the North 

American glaciers, the exposed portion of the 

Florida peninsula increased or diminished, 

resulting in a series of former shorelines. 

These historic shorelines are represented by 

the alternating ridge (former dune lines) and 

swale topography observable in the southern 

area of the national seashore. At the point of 

maximum glaciation (16,000 years before 

present), sea level was about 100 meters 

below the present level. With the retreat of 

the last glaciers and corresponding sea level 

rise about 7,000 years ago, Canaveral 

National Seashore’s barrier island and 

Mosquito Lagoon were formed. 

The national seashore’s narrow barrier 

island, which is 24-miles long, separates the 

Atlantic Ocean from Mosquito Lagoon. The 

east (ocean) side of the island is a sandy 

beach. The beach is backed by a single dune 

ridge, averaging 12 feet in height above mean 

sea level. The back (west) side of this dune 

slopes toward Mosquito Lagoon and is 

anchored by dense vegetation. The barrier 

island protects the geological and biological 

systems to the west by reducing the impacts 

of storm surge. Barrier islands are dynamic 

systems that change in response to storms 

and tides that shift the sediment supply from 

or to the islands. Generally, sediments are 

deposited on the beach during the calm 

summer months, and during the tumultuous 

winter months beach sand is carried offshore. 

Sand also migrates southward along the 

coast, although some areas with northward 

movement do occur in the national seashore. 

Currently, the islands are slowly migrating 

towards the mainland. 

Erosion and shoreline retreat are critical 

issues at the national seashore. As such, 

Canaveral National Seashore is being 

examined under the National Assessment of 

Coastal Change Hazards project conducted 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2008). 

This project is an ongoing, multiyear undertaking to identify and quantify the vulnerability of U.S. shorelines to coastal changes 

such as the effects of severe storms, sea level 

rise, and shoreline erosion and retreat. 

Climate change may impact geological 

resources and soils in the national seashore as 

a result of increased storm intensity and 

duration. These predicted changes are 

expected to result in shoreline erosion, 

flooding, sea level rise, and inundation 

(Loehman and Anderson 2009). Vulnerability 

of the Canaveral area to sea level rise is rated 

moderate to high, based on the U.S. 

Geological Survey Coastal Vulnerability 

Index (USGS 1999). 

As a result of its geologic history, most soils 

found in the national seashore are unconsolidated marine-deposited sediments from 

the Holocene epoch (the past 12,000 years). 

The dominant soil material is almost pure 

quartz sand, the grains of which are highly 

resistant to weathering. Sandy loams, clays, 

and organic soils of the tidal marshes are the 

other soil types found in the national seashore (USGS 2004). Sediments in the mainland of the national seashore are undifferentiated siliciclastics and organics that exceed 

20 feet in thickness and form beach ridges 

and sand dunes. 

Numerous soil associations have been 

mapped at the national seashore, primarily 

consisting of sands or a mixture of clays and 

sands (including the Canaveral Sand, Palm 

Beach Sand, and the Astutula Sand). Sands 

compose approximately 35% of the soils 

mapped at the national seashore (NRCS 

2008). 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

138 

Floodplains 

Floodplains are areas of low-level ground 

present along rivers, stream channels, or 

coastal waters. The living and nonliving parts 

of natural floodplains interact with each 

other to create dynamic systems in which 

each component helps to maintain the 

characteristics of the environment that 

supports it. Floodplain ecosystem functions 

include natural moderation of floods, flood 

water storage and conveyance, groundwater 

recharge, nutrient cycling, water quality 

maintenance, and in support of a diversity of 

plants and animals. Floodplains provide a 

broad area to spread out and temporarily 

store floodwaters. This reduces flood peaks 

and velocities and the potential for erosion. 

Canaveral National Seashore is classified by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

as within the 100-year floodplain. (The 100-

year floodplain is the area that has a 1% 

chance of inundation by a flood in a given 

year.) 

Climate change is expected to increase the 

extent and frequency of coastal flooding 

(Loehman and Anderson 2009). These floods 

may alter the natural floodplain distribution 

in the national seashore, leading to changes in 

vegetation, wildlife habitat, and sand regimes 

on the islands and on the mainland. 

Floodplains are subject to periodic or infrequent inundation due to heavy rains or from 

hurricanes. Risk of flooding typically hinges 

on local topography, the frequency of 

precipitation, and the size of the watershed 

above the floodplain. NPS policy provides for 

recognition of and management for the 

preservation of floodplain values, minimization of hazardous conditions associated with 

flooding, and compliance with Executive 

Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and 

other executive orders and federal laws 

related to managing activities in flood-prone 

areas and coastal zones. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands have been defined by agencies 

responsible for their management. In this 

document, the term “wetland” is defined 

using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

conventions. The Corps of Engineers has 

jurisdiction to protect wetlands as a subset of 

“the waters of the United States” under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act using the 

following definition: 

. . . areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or ground water at 

a frequency and duration sufficient to 

support . . . a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3[b]). . . 

include(s) swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas. 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands,” requires federal agencies to 

minimize or avoid, where possible, adversely 

impacting wetlands. NPS Director’s Order 

77-1: Wetland Protection (NPS 2002) also 

directs the National Park Service to avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on wetlands from 

new development or facilities, or to 

compensate for unavoidable impacts via 

restoration of degraded wetlands. Wetlands 

(marshes) are described in the “Vegetation” 

section of this chapter. 

Canaveral National Seashore has two types of 

wetlands—salt marshes and mangrove 

swamps. Wetlands of the Mosquito Lagoon 

basin cover about 42% of the terrestrial area 

of the national seashore (Kroening 2008). 

The national seashore is a transition zone 

where the marshes and mangrove swamps 

overlap. The transition zone lies between 

Sebastian Inlet (near the Indian River/ 

Brevard County line) and extends north to 

New Smyrna Beach. 

The salt marshes are both low- and high-tide 

marshes and support numerous ecological 

communities, as discussed later under 

“Vegetation.” The mangrove swamps are 

supported by less-saline water than the salt 

marshes. Red mangroves occur naturally and 
Natural Resources 

139 

have been planted to reduce shoreline 

erosion along Mosquito Lagoon. Mangroves 

are protected by Florida law, and mangrove 

communities cannot be altered. 

Mangroves are especially threatened by the 

sea level rise and storm surges that are 

expected because of climate change. Declines 

in coastal water quality, habitat quality, and 

biodiversity are the most likely effects of 

these changes. Salt marshes may have better 

resilience to sea level rise, especially if new 

sedimentation rates are roughly equal to the 

rate of sea level rise. However, localized 

impacts on salt marshes could occur, 

depending on the rate and type of changes. 

Water Resources 

Water resources of Canaveral National 

Seashore include the Atlantic waters along its 

eastern shore out to 0.5 mile offshore, the 

surface waters in the national seashore’s 

jurisdiction, and the subsurface aquifers. 

Most of the area composing Canaveral 

National Seashore is covered or underlain by 

such bodies of water. The national seashore 

does not use subsurface aquifers as a source 

for drinking water, irrigation, or other beneficial uses. Therefore, subsurface water 

resources would not be discussed in this 

document. Though the national seashore 

boundary extends out to 0.5 mile offshore, 

the bottomlands of the ocean remain the 

jurisdiction of the state, while the waters are 

in the jurisdiction of the National Park 

Service. 

Surface waters are abundant and comprise 

some two-thirds of the total national 

seashore. Besides the nearshore waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean, surface waters include 

Mosquito Lagoon, numerous sloughs and 

marshes, and brackish water impoundments. 

The 2001 “Water Resources Management 

Plan” contains detailed information regarding national seashore water resources. A 

hydrologic model is being developed for 

Mosquito Lagoon, which is scheduled for 

completion in 2011. This model is based on 

surface/groundwater flow and water quality. 

It would allow managers to track and quantify pollutants and to provide information on 

the effect of septic tanks on nutrient and 

bacterial sources in Mosquito Lagoon. 

The climate of the national seashore is 

classified as humid subtropical, and the 

national seashore receives 48–56 inches of 

rainfall per year (Kroening 2008). 

Mosquito Lagoon has an average depth of 

only 4 feet and is connected to the Atlantic 

Ocean by the Ponce de Leon Inlet in the 

north. Mosquito Lagoon is connected to the 

Indian River Lagoon by the Haulover Canal, 

which was constructed in 1887 to improve 

navigation through the Indian River Lagoon 

system. Freshwater recharge of the lagoon 

occurs from surface water runoff and 

groundwater inflow. 

Surface water resources generally consist of 

wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface 

water is important for its contributions to the 

economic, ecological, recreational, and 

human health of a community or locale. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.) declares a 

national policy to preserve, protect, develop, 

and, where possible, restore or enhance the 

resources of the nation’s coastal zones. To 

achieve federal consistency with CZMA 

requirements, federal activities that have 

reasonably foreseeable effects on any land, 

water, or natural resources of the coastal 

zone must be consistent to the maximum 

extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies of a state’s federally approved coastal 

zone management program. The Florida 

Coastal Management Program, which is 

administered through the Florida State 

Clearinghouse and overseen by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), is a federally approved program that 

ensures the compatible use of Florida’s 

coastal resources (FDEP 2008d). 

In addition to CZMA requirements, the 

Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act 

was enacted to protect, preserve, and manage 

Florida’s valuable sandy beaches and 

adjacent and coastal system. This act 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

140 

provides three interrelated programs administered by the Department of Environmental 

Protection that work in concert to accomplish the task—the Coastal Construction 

Control Line Program, the Beach Erosion 

Control Program, and the Coastal 

Construction Program (FDEP 2008e). Data 

for these programs are collected by surveying 

the shoreline, modeling, and determining 

rates and locations of erosion. 

Canaveral National Seashore is within the 

watershed area administered by the St. Johns 

River Water Management District 

(SJRWMD). A “Surface Water Improvement 

and Management Plan” (Steward 2003) has 

been developed for Indian River Lagoon by 

this management district and other 

cooperating agencies. Under the SWIM plan, 

NPS staff are working closely with district 

staff to monitor seagrass in Mosquito 

Lagoon, collect weather data, and restore 

impounded areas to functioning wetlands. In 

2001 the Canaveral National Seashore 

developed its own “Water Resources Management Plan” (NPS 2001c). A watershed 

assessment of the national seashore was 

initiated by the Florida Institute of Technology in October 2008 and is scheduled for 

completion in spring 2010. This project 

would provide NPS managers with an 

integrated, overall evaluation of current 

water resource conditions, identify anthropogenic and natural threats or stressors, and 

provide recommendations for actions or 

further studies to protect water-related 

resources. 

The Atlantic Ocean. The eastern boundary 

of Canaveral National Seashore extends 

approximately 0.5 mile from the outer beach 

of the barrier island into the Atlantic Ocean. 

The clear, blue-green waters of the Atlantic 

Ocean are a primary focus for visitors. The 

water temperature varies seasonally between 

60 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) and 83oF, 

permitting year-round, water-oriented 

recreational activities (NPS 1982). 

Mosquito Lagoon. Mosquito Lagoon, the 

northernmost body of water in the Indian 

River Lagoon system, composes about twothirds of the area within the boundaries of 

Canaveral National Seashore. Due in part to 

its location in the transition zone between 

tropical and temperate climates, Mosquito 

Lagoon is one of the most species-rich and 

diverse estuaries in North America. Species 

composition varies greatly on a seasonal 

basis, with tropical and subtropical species 

dominating the waters during the summer 

months, and temperate species dominating 

during winter months (NPS 2001c). With an 

average depth of about 4 feet, the lagoon is 

dominated by shallow flats that support 

dense submerged aquatic vegetation, 

primarily seagrasses. 

The Mosquito Lagoon watershed is entirely 

within Volusia and Brevard counties and 

consists of at least two, and possibly five, subbasins. The largest is the Mosquito Lagoon 

sub-basin (38,183 acres). It includes the 

lagoon itself and the area draining to it by 

overland flow, subsurface flow, and drainage 

ditches. The smaller basin is a well-defined 

area called the Florida Shores sub-basin 

(3,386 acres), in the city of Edgewater. A large 

human-made canal drains water from the city 

of Oak Hill, and could cause concern because 

it empties untreated water into two 

impoundments, which spill over into 

Mosquito Lagoon (NPS 2001c). 

Mosquito Lagoon proper is a marine barrier 

island estuary, with its open water portion 

extending from just north of Cape Canaveral 

to Oak Hill. Ponce de Leon Inlet is at the 

northern end of the lagoon and allows some 

input of saline water from the ocean. At the 

southern end, Mosquito Lagoon has been 

linked to the Indian River by the Haulover 

Canal since the first canal was built in 1854, 

but little exchange of water occurs here 

(Belanger et al. 1997). North of Oak Hill, the 

lagoon is dominated by low hammocks and 

salt marsh islands, forming a very different 

habitat than the open water areas of the 

southern part of the lagoon. The national 

seashore extends approximately 8.25 miles 

(13.3 kilometers) north from the point where 

the open water in Mosquito Lagoon ends. 
Natural Resources 

141 

Tides along the east coast of central Florida 

are classified as semi-diurnal (occurring twice 

daily). While numerous inlets to Mosquito 

Lagoon have formed and filled in the past, 

the only present-day connection between the 

lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean is the Ponce 

de Leon Inlet near the northern end of the 

national seashore boundaries. The spring tide 

range at this inlet is about 2.7 feet (NOAA 

1993). 

Because of the narrow width and shallow 

depth of Mosquito Lagoon, ocean water 

passing through the Ponce de Leon Inlet does 

not travel far into the lagoon, resulting in 

daily tide fluctuations of only 6 to 8 inches. 

This makes the lagoon subject to very poor 

circulation and flushing with ocean waters 

and particularly sensitive to sudden influxes 

of pollutants or other materials from 

increasing urbanization, industrialization, 

and agricultural activity in the Mosquito 

Lagoon drainage basin. This basin covers 

42,000 acres of land and includes all or part of 

the cities of New Smyrna Beach, Oak Hill, 

Edgewater, and the unincorporated 

community of Bethune Beach (NPS 2001c; 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1994a, 

1994b). 

The rise and fall of the ocean tide is the 

predominant driving force of water and 

pollutants flushing into and out of Mosquito 

Lagoon. Marked differences exist between 

offshore and estuary tidal ranges, with 

offshore tidal ranges averaging about 4 feet. 

Moving into the estuary, the tidal range 

diminishes. At Edgewater, approximately 9 

miles south of Ponce de Leon Inlet, the range 

is 2.1 feet. At the south Volusia County line, 

13 miles farther south, the range drops to 0.5 

feet (NPS 2001c). 

The ecological diversity and importance of 

Mosquito Lagoon has been recognized at 

both the federal and state levels. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency designated 

Mosquito Lagoon, along with the rest of the 

Indian River Lagoon system, as an Estuary of 

National Significance in 1990. Mosquito 

Lagoon and the upper Indian River proper 

are designated by the state of Florida as 

Outstanding Florida Waters. 

Most of Mosquito Lagoon is considered 

pristine habitat, except for occasional 

turbidity (cloudiness) resulting from storms 

and wind-suspended bottom sediments. High 

turbidity or lack of water clarity limits light 

and has a negative impact on seagrass because 

it restricts photosynthesis (which is essential 

for healthy seagrass). 

Mosquito Lagoon’s shallow depth makes it 

susceptible to turbidity, more so than other 

Indian River Lagoon system segments. 

Turbidity results from a combination of 

suspended organic solids (living and detrital, 

algal and nonalgal) and suspended inorganic 

(mineral) solids in the water, especially those 

that are easily resuspended by wind and 

storms. Mosquito Lagoon’s 10-year average 

turbidity (greater than 6 nephelometric 

turbidity units) is higher than most other 

areas in the Indian River Lagoon system. 

Clarity is greatest in the winter and early 

spring and decreases significantly in the 

summer and fall (NPS 2001c). Clarity also 

decreases with increased distance from 

Ponce de Leon Inlet (Sigua et al. 1999). Since 

1995, total suspended solids levels have 

generally increased, along with turbidity. In 

1999 the average total suspended solids levels 

in Mosquito Lagoon increased to more than 

50 milligrams per liter, (mg/L), about three 

times the pre–1996 levels (NPS 2001c). 

Increases in nutrient delivery (i.e., nitrogen 

and phosphorus) to an aquatic system can 

promote photosynthesis. However, excess 

nutrient delivery can cause ecological 

problems. Rapid algal growth can cause 

increases in turbidity, which can lead to the 

lethal shading of submerged aquatic 

vegetation. Additionally, if excess nutrient 

delivery occurs in short pulses, algal 

populations can rapidly exhaust nutrient 

concentrations and mature all at once. 

During this mass maturation, bacterial 

decomposers would use large amounts of 

dissolved oxygen, often making the aquatic 

system deficient in dissolved oxygen. Waters 

with low levels of dissolved oxygen exhibit 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

142 

poor species diversity because many species 

require high concentrations of dissolved 

oxygen. 

The average dissolved oxygen value over the 

monitoring period from 1988 to 1994 for 

Mosquito Lagoon was 6.47 mg/L (Sigua et al. 

2000). The state standard is 4.0 mg/L or 

greater in estuarine waters, so these values for 

national seashore waters are well within the 

acceptable range for most of the lagoon. A 

potential trouble spot is the northern district 

boat dock area, where dissolved oxygen 

values were highly variable (NPS 2001c). In 

this area, dissolved oxygen values ranged 

from a low of 0.04 mg/L to a high of 15.3 

mg/L (Hall et al. 2001). Ratings below the 

state standard were observed for extended 

periods during the spring and fall, suggesting 

high system respiration and oxygen demand 

(NPS 2001c). 

Total nitrogen concentrations have increased 

in Mosquito Lagoon waters during the past 

20 years, especially in the southern segment. 

From 1999 through 2001, mean annual total 

nitrogen concentrations in certain segments 

of Mosquito Lagoon exceeded the 

provisional Indian River Lagoon system 

threshold of 1.1 mg/L. However, these levels 

have not promoted phytoplankton 

(chlorophyll a) blooms. 

Chlorophyll a concentrations have remained 

relatively low and stable during the past 10 

years, with mean annual concentrations of 

approximately 5 to 6 micrograms per liter 

(μg/L). Chlorophyll a levels might have 

remained low despite elevations in total 

nitrogen because there were no corresponding increased phosphorus inputs to the 

system. Total phosphorus input is a product 

of surface runoff, wind resuspension, and 

increased wastewater volumes. Low phosphorus levels are still generally the rule in 

Mosquito Lagoon, with an average value of 

0.1 mg/L throughout the system (Sigua et al. 

1999). Seasonally, total phosphorus concentrations are greater from April through 

December than from January through March; 

these seasonal variations may be attributable 

to runoff from the land surface or die-off of 

drift algae that contribute recycled nutrients 

to the water (USGS 2008). 

The pH (acidity) for 22 test sites in Mosquito 

Lagoon averaged 7.9 and ranged from 6.5 to 

8.5 (Sigua et al. 2000), within state standards. 

A slightly higher pH level appears to occur in 

wet summer months and be positively correlated with distance from the Ponce de Leon 

Inlet (Sigua et al. 2000). 

Overall, Mosquito Lagoon exhibits good 

water quality, which can be attributed to low 

urbanization and negligible amounts of 

agricultural discharges (Sigua et al. 1996, 

1999). Enrichment of nutrients is a special 

concern in the southern reaches of the 

lagoon where the residence time (the duration that the water molecules stay in one area) 

can be about two to three months, whereas 

the northern section could have a residence 

time of less than one month. Evidence of 

water quality decline in the past five years is 

demonstrated by increases of total nitrogen, 

total suspended solids, and color. It is 

difficult to discern whether or not this is 

beginning to have an important impact on 

seagrass (NPS 2001c). It is assumed that the 

increased loadings are nearing the threshold 

of impact (SFWMD 2002). 

Impoundments. Impoundments were 

historically constructed as a nonchemical 

method of mosquito control. Impoundments 

inhibited mosquito reproduction by 

continuously flooding mosquito breeding 

areas, preventing mosquitoes from laying 

their eggs. Most impoundments along 

Mosquito Lagoon were constructed between 

1962 and 1970 (Rey and Kain 1993; NPS 

2001c). Although many of these impoundments have been reconnected to Mosquito 

Lagoon, there are still several that are slated 

for restoration. In addition, some of the 

remaining impoundments are being used as 

wildlife aquatic management areas, with 

seasonally controlled water levels. 

Because the southern portion of Mosquito 

Lagoon is minimally populated due to federal 

ownership, the northern third of the lagoon 

is bordered by the aforementioned cities on 
Natural Resources 

143 

the east and west shores, and trailer parks in 

the unincorporated areas of the western 

shore. Because of the proximity of these 

communities to the national seashore, the 

state specified in the deed transferring the 

lands to the National Park Service that the 

national seashore would cooperate with local 

mosquito-control districts. A cooperative 

agreement between the national seashore and 

the East Volusia Mosquito Control District 

allows the application of larvicides, when 

necessary, and maintenance of existing 

mosquito control ditches. The national 

seashore, in cooperation with East Volusia 

Mosquito Control District and the St. Johns 

River Water Management District, works to 

use nonchemical methods of mosquito 

control and to restore wetlands (NPS 2001c). 

In addition to expected increases in flooding, 

saltwater intrusion, and storm frequency and 

intensity, there may be effects on water 

resources due to climate change. Expected 

changes in air and water temperatures in 

Florida would likely alter the nutrient cycling 

in Mosquito Lagoon because temperature 

has a marked effect on the biogeochemical 

processes there. Additionally, shifts in water 

temperature may have dramatic impacts on 

the pH or acidity of seashore waters, which 

causes a cascade of effects in oxygen content, 

nutrient cycling, and associated vegetation 

and wildlife. Water temperature changes in 

estuaries and protected areas like Mosquito 

Lagoon are especially vulnerable to these 

types of changes (Loehman and Anderson 

2009). 

Vegetation 

Canaveral National Seashore’s latitude and 

coastal position provide for geographic 

convergence of temperate and subtropical 

vegetation. Canaveral is the northernmost 

area in the continental United States 

supporting plant communities composed 

largely of subtropical plant species. It also 

supports the southernmost populations of a 

number of plant species typical of northern, 

temperate climes. Two outstanding examples 

of this convergence are the (1) hammocks, 

which contain an overstory dominated by 

temperate species and an understory 

composed of subtropical plants, and (2) the 

shift in vegetation along the edge of the 

lagoon from salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina 

alterniflora), which dominates in estuarine 

areas in the northern part of the national 

seashore, to mangrove species that dominate 

lagoon-edge vegetation to the south end. 

Vegetation in the national seashore is at risk 

from various threats, including invasive 

nonnative plant species, degradation of 

wetlands by feral hogs (Sus scrofa), and the 

suppression of the natural fire regime. Feral 

hogs destroy vegetation and alter species 

diversity because of foraging and eating 

habits. Also, they cause widespread soil 

disturbance and may alter soil nutrient 

dynamics in the areas where they forage. 

Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) is 

the most abundant nonnative species and it 

invades coastal scrub and strand communities. Recent efforts by the National Park 

Service to eliminate these two noxious plants 

have been only partially successful. Brazilian 

pepper and Australian pine have spread to all 

disturbed areas of the national seashore, and 

control would largely depend on timely 

follow-up treatments. Recently, cogon grass 

(Imperata cylindrica), a nonnative species 

from Southeast Asia, has been observed at a 

few locations in the national seashore’s 

upland ecosystems. 

The area of central Florida where the 

national seashore lies is one of the most 

active lightning strike areas in the country. 

Lightning strikes from sudden thunderstorms 

ignite numerous fires every summer. Several 

plant communities, including the coastal 

strand and scrub, freshwater marshes, and 

the slash pine flatwood communities, require 

frequent fires to maintain their integrity. 

Under the past policy of fire suppression, 

there has been a transition to less natural 

plant communities. This has resulted in a loss 

of habitat for several rare and endangered 

species including the bald eagle and the 

Florida scrub-jay (NPS 2007). The fire 

management plan for Canaveral National 

Seashore proposes thinning and prescribed 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

144 

fire to return the national seashore to a more 

natural condition. 

The national seashore supports a diverse 

collection of natural communities as defined 

by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(FNAI) (Florida DNR 1990). A natural 

community is defined as a distinct and 

reoccurring assemblage of populations of 

plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms 

naturally associated with each other and their 

physical environment. The FNAI’s Guide to 

the Natural Communities of Florida (Florida 

DNR 1990) describes 81 natural communities 

that collectively make up the original, natural 

biological associations of Florida. The 

following descriptions of plant communities 

at Canaveral are based on the FNAI 

classification and supplemented with 

information from a floristic survey of the 

national seashore (Schmalzer and Foster 

2005). 

Climate change will likely impact the vegetation composition in the national seashore, 

especially in the mangrove and salt marsh 

areas, and in other areas where changes in sea 

level may alter the water table or soil 

characteristics. Air temperature in Florida 

will continue to increase, with average low 

temperatures in winter increasing by 1.7°C to 

5.6°C and average high temperatures 

increasing by 1.7°C to 3.9°C by 2100. These 

changes will likely alter species composition 

in the national seashore because species 

requiring cooler temperatures move northward. Components of the unique plant 

assemblage that represents the interface 

between the subtropical and temperate zone 

may shift northward. Plant-animal interactions such as pollination, seed dispersal, 

and insect control may be disrupted. Invasive 

species are also expected to expand their 

ranges due to altered precipitation and 

temperature regimes (Loehman and 

Anderson 2009). 

Beach Dune Plant Community. Working 

from the coast inward, the first plant 

community is the beach dune community. It 

is characterized as wave-deposited upper 

beach and wind-deposited foredune, with 

sparse to dense vegetation composed of 

pioneer species, especially sea oats (Uniola

paniculata). Other typical pioneer species 

include beach grass (Panicum amarum), 

railroad vine (Ipomea pes-caprae), and other 

herbs. Schmalzer and Foster (2005) reported 

the presence of these plant species at the 

national seashore — slender cordgrass 

(Spartina patens); small shrubs such as 

beachberry (Scaevola plumieri), beach elder 

(Iva imbricata), and Gulf croton (Croton 

punctatus); and herbs including dune 

sunflower (Helianthus debilis) and 

camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris). 

The beach dune community provides important foraging habitat for the threatened 

southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus 

polionotus niveiventris) and nesting habitat 

for numerous shorebirds and marine turtles, 

many of which are rare and protected. Beach 

dunes are very dynamic communities and 

mobile environments. The wind continually 

moves the sand inland from the beach until it 

is trapped by vegetation. Beach dunes are 

subject to drastic topographic changes during 

storms and hurricanes. Taking the brunt of a 

storm surge, the intact beach dune 

community of the national seashore’s barrier 

island is essential for protection of inland 

biological communities. 

In spite of their ability to withstand the harsh 

maritime environment, plants of the beach 

dune community are extremely vulnerable to 

human impacts. Footpaths or vehicle trails 

over the beach dunes can damage the vegetation, initiating erosion. If the erosion spreads, 

it can destabilize the dunes and impact 

adjacent plant communities. Destabilized 

dunes cannot block storm surge as 

effectively, allowing further impacts on 

inland communities. For these reasons, beach 

dune communities should be protected from 

physical impacts such as trampling. Activities 

such as coastal developments, which could 

alter the availability of sand through 

longshore movement for beach dune 

replenishment, should be carefully evaluated. 

Dune fencing is used in severely impacted 

areas to help stabilize the dunes. 
Natural Resources 

145 

The national seashore protects this sensitive 

habitat with boardwalks for public access to 

the beach. Public use of motorized vehicles is 

prohibited in this area to avoid impacts on 

dune stability. 

Coastal Strand Plant Community. 

Proceeding landward, the beach dune community is bordered by the coastal strand 

plant community that lies behind the dune. 

The coastal strand plant community is 

characterized as stabilized, wind-deposited 

coastal dunes vegetated with a dense thicket 

of salt-tolerant shrubs, especially saw 

palmetto (Serenoa repens). Sea grape 

(Coccoloba uvifera), myrsine (Myrsine 

guianensis), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), 

nakedwood (Myrsianthes fragrans), and 

tough buckthorn (Sideroxylon tenax) are also 

found in this plant community (Schmalzer 

and Foster 2005). Coastal strand and coastal 

scrub (described below) communities 

provide habitat for several rare plants, 

including coastal mock vervain (Glandularia

(Verbena) maritina), Florida shrub verbena 

(Lantana depressa var. floridana), erect 

pricklypear (Opuntia stricta), beachberry or 

inkberry (Scaevola plumieri), and Curtiss’ 

hoarypea (Tephrosia angustissima var. 

curtissii) (Schmalzer and Foster 2005). 

The coastal strand community provides 

important habitat for the beach mouse, 

gopher tortoise, diamondback rattlesnake, 

and other animals. Coastal strand also plays a 

critical role in stabilizing the dune and 

maintaining the functional integrity of the 

barrier island. Because this plant community 

is next to the coast and somewhat elevated, 

making it a prime location for resort or 

residential property development, it is 

probably the most rapidly disappearing plant 

community in Florida. 

The national seashore protects 24 miles of 

shoreline, the largest undisturbed stretch 

along the east coast of Florida. Public vehicle 

access to the coastal strand is prohibited, and 

boardwalks allow public access to the beach 

without impacting this critical habitat. 

Coastal strand communities in the national 

seashore are also at risk from the invasive 

Brazilian pepper. 

Coastal Scrub Plant Community. The 

coastal scrub plant community found in more 

interior and upland portions of the national 

seashore includes several smaller live oak 

species, known collectively as scrub live oaks. 

These scrub oaks reach heights of only 12 to 

15 feet if fire is suppressed for a number of 

years, and include myrtle (Quercus 

myrtifolia), Chapman’s (Q. chapmanii) and 

sand (Q. geminata) live oaks. Other shrubs 

include saw palmetto, wax myrtle, tough 

buckthorn, myrsine, and Florida privet 

(Forestiera segregata) (Schmalzer and Foster 

2005). Ground cover in this community is 

usually very sparse and dominated by ground 

lichens or, rarely, herbs. This type of ground 

cover makes the scrub plant community 

sensitive to off-road vehicle and foot traffic 

because the lichen crust, which stabilizes the 

underlying sand, is easily damaged and can 

take more than 50 years to recover. 

The coastal scrub habitat supports a number 

of rare and protected animal species, such as 

the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

corais couperi), gopher frog (Rana capito), 

and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). 

Acorns are a critical source of food for the 

scrub-jay, which buries them in bare patches 

of sand. This contributes to regeneration of 

the scrub oak community because not all 

acorns are retrieved. Infrequent fires are also 

important in maintaining this community 

type; without periodic fires, this community 

might undergo succession to xeric hammock. 

Also, the threatened species Curtiss’ 

hoarypea requires openings in the shrub 

canopy that are brought about by fire 

(Schmalzer and Foster 2005). The national 

seashore’s fire management plan proposes 

several thinning and prescribed burn projects 

for a large portion of the coastal strand and 

scrub communities (NPS 2007). Public 

vehicle access is restricted in this community. 

Slash Pine Flatwood Community. The 

overstory of the slash pine flatwood community, a variant of Florida Natural Areas 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

146 

Inventory’s mesic flatwood community type, 

is dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii), 

although live oak, saw palmetto, and 

fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) are the main 

understory species. Good examples of the 

pine flatwood community can be seen along 

the western side of State Route 3, just south 

of Oak Hill. A number of the pines in this area 

contain bald eagle nests, which are occupied 

year after year. As it is with many other plant 

species, the national seashore is at the range 

limit for slash pine, in this case, involving two 

subspecies. The northern subspecies (P. 

elliotti var. elliotti) reaches its southern limit in 

central Florida, and southern Florida or Dade 

County slash pine (P. elliotti var. densa) 

reaches its northern limit in the vicinity of the 

national seashore. 

The southern Florida variety has several 

adaptations to survive fire that are lacking in 

the other subspecies. The bark is thicker, and 

the tree has an extended “grass stage” during 

which seedlings look like a small clump of 

grass. During this stage, which can last up to 

seven years, the plant is relatively safe from 

low-intensity fires while it develops a large 

underground trunk and energy reservoir. 

Once fully established below ground, the 

seedling undergoes a rapid growth period, 

pushing the vulnerable top of the plant above 

the height of potential flames in a very short 

period of time. During this period, growth 

rates can exceed 2 feet per year. 

These combined characteristics demonstrate 

the historical importance of fire in the central 

and southern Florida ecosystems. Without 

relatively frequent fires, this community will 

transition into a hardwood-dominated forest. 

Prescribed fire could be instrumental in 

encouraging the regrowth of this community 

type, which could, in turn, reverse the decline 

in the number of nesting eagles in the 

national seashore and increase habitat for the 

eastern indigo snake (NPS 2007). The slash 

pine communities of the national seashore 

also are areas of concern in the fire 

management plan and are scheduled for 

several thinning and prescribed burn 

projects. 

Hammocks. Hardwood and palm hammocks, also known as palm/oak or mixed 

hammocks, are characterized in the national 

seashore by an overstory that is dominated by 

live oak (Quercus virginiana) or cabbage palm 

(Sabal palmetto). Laurel oak (Quercus 

laurifolia), elm (Ulmus aericana), and red 

mulberry (Morus rubra) also occur in the 

canopy. Other woody species, such as 

nakedwood (Myrcianthes fragrans), red bay 

(Persea borbonia), and hackberry (Celtis 

laevigata), are scattered throughout this 

community type. This community represents 

a transition zone where subtropical species 

and temperate species converge at their 

northern and southern boundaries. Temperate hardwoods (live oak and cabbage palm) 

dominate the canopy, while subtropical 

shrubs such as nakedwood, myrsine, 

lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), and wild coffee 

(Psychotria sulzneri) dominate the understory 

(Schmalzer and Foster 2005). The giant 

airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata var. 

densispica), spreading airplant (Tillandsia 

utriculata), and hand fern (Ophioglossum 

palmatum) are all epiphytes found in coastal 

or mesic hammocks. The hand fern occurs 

only on the cabbage palm, while giant and 

spreading airplants occur on various trees in 

the coastal and mesic hammocks, including 

cabbage palms and live oaks. The hand fern is 

also near the northern limits of its range and 

could be damaged by hard freezes. 

Estuarine Communities. Along the banks of 

Mosquito Lagoon and its islands are two 

types of estuarine communities. Salt marsh 

border the lagoon in the northern part of the 

national seashore, and mangrove swamp 

borders the southern end. The transition 

between these two community types occurs 

in the area between Oak Hill and Sebastian 

Inlet, an area approximately 50 miles south of 

the national seashore. In the shallow waters 

of Mosquito Lagoon are oyster reefs and 

seagrass beds, and mud flats are found along 

the fringes of the salt marshes, 

impoundments, and mangrove swamps. 

Salt marsh, an estuarine community typical of 

temperate climates, can be divided into low 

marsh and high marsh. Low marsh is between 
Natural Resources 

147 

mean high tide and low tides and is often 

dominated by dense stands of smooth 

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). Low marsh 

acts as a border between the water and high 

marsh. High marsh is flooded periodically by 

windblown tides, spring high tides, or 

seasonal rises in sea level. High marsh plants 

include cordgrass (Spartina patens), glasswort 

(Salicornia spp.), saltwort (Batis maritima), 

saltgrass (Disticilus spicata), and black 

needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). With one of 

the highest rates of primary productivity of 

any plant community in the world, tidal 

marshes are an important source of nutrients 

and habitat for many animals and play a vital 

role in fisheries production. The federally 

threatened Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia 

clarkii taeniata) lives on the high marsh 

islands in the northern end of Mosquito 

Lagoon. 

The dominant plants of the more tropical 

mangrove swamps are white (Lagunicularia 

racemosa), black (Avicennia germinans), and 

red (Rhizophora mangle) mangroves; and 

buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta). These four 

species occasionally occur in areas defined by 

varying water levels. White mangrove and 

buttonwood occupy the highest water level 

areas, black mangrove the intermediate water 

level areas, and red mangrove typically occurs 

in the lowest water level areas. Mangrove 

swamp communities provide valuable habitat 

for a wide variety of animal life including fish, 

birds, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and 

mammals. Many of these species are listed as 

endangered, threatened, or species of special 

concern. As such, mangroves are protected 

by Florida law. Mangrove communities 

cannot be altered without proper permits. 

Red mangroves are being planted in the 

national seashore to reduce erosion along 

portions of the shoreline of Mosquito 

Lagoon. 

Extensive seagrass beds are found in 

Mosquito Lagoon and are a key indicator to 

the overall health of the lagoon. Three 

seagrasses are common, including shoal grass 

(Halodule wrightii), widgeon grass (Ruppia 

martima), and manatee grass (Syringodium 

filiforme) (Schmalzer and Foster 2005). These 

highly productive beds provide food and 

shelter to a host of animals including 

macroinvertebrates, manatees, sea turtles, 

and many fish species, including the highly 

sought red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and 

rare common snook (Centropomus 

undecimalis). The seagrass beds in the 

national seashore are highly vulnerable to 

human activity, including oil spills from the 

Intercoastal Waterway, increased turbidity, 

and large algal blooms (Florida DNR 1990). 

Freshwater Marsh. Finally, there is a limited 

amount of freshwater marsh in upland areas 

in the southwestern corner of the national 

seashore. These communities occur in 

interdunal grassy swales between scrub and 

slash pine flatwoods areas of former dune 

ridges. Plant species include marsh pink 

(Sebatia sellaris); cordgrass (Spartina bakeri); 

and other species of grasses, sedges, and 

rushes. Prolonged absence of fire has allowed 

some of these marshes to be invaded by 

swamp willow (Salix caroliniana) and red 

maple (Acer rubrum). Alterations in the 

hydrology allow hardwood species to invade 

these wetlands areas. The freshwater marshes 

provide important habitat for many 

amphibians, including several species of frogs 

and sirens. 

Invasive Plant Species. Invasive plant 

species have the potential to disrupt native 

plant communities in the national seashore. 

Because invasive species degrade, change, or 

displace native habitats and compete with 

native species, they pose a serious threat to 

the national seashore’s plant resources. For 

example, if a proposed activity leads to 

habitat alteration, habitat loss, or habitat 

degradation of sensitive species, an opportunity is created for more tolerant, competitive invasive species to colonize the 

disturbed area, thus reducing habitat and 

food availability for the native species. 

Brazilian pepper is the most abundant 

nonnative species that invade coastal scrub 

and strand communities. The state lists the 

Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) 

as a noxious weed (NPS 2009d). This shrub 

or small tree can quickly colonize disturbed 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

148 

areas by suppressing and replacing native 

vegetation. Control of this species would 

depend upon timely follow-up treatments 

(NPS 2009d). The fast-growing Australian 

pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) was introduced 

into Florida in the late 1800s and had become 

an important invasive throughout the state. 

Casuarina spp. is now essentially controlled 

by uprooting seedlings, and larger trees are 

killed by cutting, girdling, and treatment with 

herbicides (Harris 2009). Cogon grass 

(Imperata cylindrical) was intentionally 

introduced in the United States in the early 

20th century from Southeast Asia. Now 

classified at the state and federal levels, this 

noxious weed forms dense stands that crowd 

out native species and is considered one of 

the “Top 10 Worst Weeds in the World” 

(FDACS 2009). An invasive throughout the 

state, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) 

invades wetland habitats and forms thickets, 

reduces biodiversity, and crowds out native 

vegetation, thus reducing suitable habitat for 

wildlife (NPS 2009d). Other invasive plant 

species of concern include rosary pea (Abrus 

precatorius), air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), 

and old-world climbing fern (Lygodium 

microphyllum). 

Wildlife 

Canaveral National Seashore provides habitat 

to a wide variety of wildlife species because of 

its location. Coastal position, combined with 

the nexus between tropical, subtropical, and 

temperate vegetation, makes the national 

seashore an important habitat for resident 

and migrating species. Many of these species 

are special-status species, listed by the federal 

government or the state as threatened, 

endangered, or species of special concern. 

The extensive list of such species is addressed 

under the “Special Status Species” section 

later in this section. Therefore, this wildlife 

discussion provides a brief overview of other 

wildlife in the national seashore. 

Climate change is expected to have profound 

effects on wildlife because their biological 

cycles are so closely tied to temperature and 

their habitat. Birds, mammals, amphibians, 

and marine species are most likely to be 

affected in the national seashore. Bird 

migration patterns are already changing, with 

birds wintering in the southeast U.S. arriving 

on average 13 days earlier. Earlier breeding 

and egg laying dates and range expansion are 

already being seen in a variety of bird species. 

Because Canaveral National Seashore is 

home to both migratory and resident bird 

species, these effects are likely to be seen. 

Fish and other marine species are especially 

sensitive to changes in water temperature and 

chemistry. Disruptions in the life cycles of 

these species, especially breeding and egglaying, are occurring. Disease outbreaks in 

ocean species, due in part to range expansion 

of marine parasites, are also occurring and 

are expected to increase as water temperatures rise. Other documented impacts on 

predator-prey relationships and wildlife 

habitat in marine and terrestrial environments are already occurring, such as changes 

in the male/female ratio of sea turtles and 

amphibians. Sensitive species such as the 

manatee, which already has a reduced habitat 

range, are especially vulnerable to the impacts 

of climate change (Loehman and Anderson 

2009). 

Birds. Canaveral National Seashore provides 

seasonal or year-round habitat for 310 

species of birds, including many threatened 

or endangered bird species (discussed under 

“Special Status Species” section), ducks, 

shorebirds, wading birds, and songbirds. 

Many of these species breed elsewhere 

during the summer, but find important 

winter habitat in the national seashore. 

Migrating and wintering shorebirds forage on 

mudflats in impoundments and along the 

edges of Mosquito Lagoon. Herons, egrets, 

ibises, and other wading birds of all shapes 

and sizes are abundant in the national 

seashore. Currently, Canaveral National 

Seashore participates in various monitoring 

programs, such as the Florida Shorebird 

Alliance, to help inventory, monitor, and 

protect bird species and habitat. 

Although the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus tundrius) does not breed in 

Florida, the Canaveral area is an important 
Natural Resources 

149 

migration and wintering ground. Wintering 

falcons require areas that have a plentiful 

supply of prey birds for food and perches to 

roost on. The national seashore’s coastal area 

provides optimum habitat in areas where the 

mangroves have been thinned out by 

recurrent freezes and dead shrubs and trunks 

remain standing by marshes and tidal flats 

(i.e., on the eastern side of Mosquito 

Lagoon). Once in their wintering grounds, 

peregrine falcons are relatively sedentary and 

remain within a few square miles all winter. 

Mammals. In addition to the manatee and 

northern right whale, both of which are 

federally listed, the national seashore is home 

to at least 23 other mammal species. Roundtailed muskrats (Neofiber alleniand) and an 

isolated population of eastern woodrats 

(Neotoma floridana smalli) have only recently 

been discovered at the national seashore. 

One of the most common mid-sized 

mammals in the national seashore is the 

raccoon (Procyon lotor). Raccoons present 

management challenges because they prey on 

sea turtle and bird nests. Larger mammals 

that live in the national seashore include 

bottlenose dolphins, bobcats, and deer. As 

part of the NPS inventory and monitoring 

program, small mammal surveys were 

conducted in the national seashore during 

2003 and 2004. These surveys documented 

the spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) and six 

species of rodents, including the threatened 

southeast beach mouse, in the national 

seashore. A limited amount of pitfall trapping 

towards the end of the study resulted in one 

additional species, the southern short-tailed 

shrew (Blarina carolinensis). 

Reptiles. Fifty reptilian species are 

documented for the national seashore. 

Gopher tortoises are keystone species for the 

national seashore. A keystone species is 

defined as one whose impacts on its 

community or ecosystem are large and 

greater than would be expected from its 

relative abundance or total biomass 

(University of Washington 1996). These 

tortoises occupy a variety of upland habitats. 

Each tortoise digs numerous burrows in its 

home range (males generally average 17 

burrows, while females average 9). These 

burrows provide important shelter for many 

other species, some of which are federally 

protected (e.g., Eastern indigo snake). 

Because of this species’ important role in the 

ecosystem and current threats to its longterm survival—such as ongoing loss of habitat 

and upper respiratory disease—it might 

warrant increased protection. 

Other reptile species at Canaveral National 

Seashore include four species of poisonous 

snakes: cottonmouth (Agkistrodon 

piscivorus), diamondback rattlesnake 

(Crotalus adamanteus), pygmy rattlesnake 

(Sistrurus miliarius), and coral snake 

(Micrurus fulvius). The five most commonly 

observed snakes in the national seashore are 

not poisonous: ribbon snake (Thamnopis 

sauritus), banded water snake (Nerodia 

fasciata), garter snake (Thamnopis sirtalis), 

corn snake (Elaphe guttata), and black racer 

(Coluber constrictor). All, including the 

venomous species, are important components of a healthy ecosystem, playing 

important roles in controlling populations of 

rodents and other potential pest species. 

Fishery Management. Recreational and 

commercial fishing, which include oyster 

reefs, crabs, and fishes (described below) 

occur within the national seashore. 

Commercial fishing refers to fishing that 

involves the sale of the harvest. Commercial 

guided fishing does not involve the sale of the 

harvest. Commercial guided fishing is defined 

as “fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger 

for hire who is engaged in recreational 

fishing.” These definitions can be found in 

46 USC 2101. The National Park Service 

monitors both commercial and guided 

fishing, crabbing, clamming, and oystering 

with a permit system. 

The national seashore is not currently 

managing species in the Atlantic Ocean, but 

works with the state and other federal 

agencies to monitor fishery health. In the 

Joint Management Area, where the USFWS 

has primary jurisdiction over natural 

resources and the NPS has primary 

jurisdiction over cultural resources, the Fish 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

150 

and Wildlife Service has decided to phase out 

commercial fishing by 2018. The National 

Park Service would develop a separate fishery 

management plan to address recreational 

fishing in the waters it manages within 

Canaveral National Seashore. 

Oyster Reefs. Oyster reefs occur in intertidal 

and subtidal zones on the northern side of 

Mosquito Lagoon and are dominated by the 

American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). 

Other sessile (attached) and benthic (bottom) 

invertebrates live in the oyster reef 

community including the burrowing sponge 

(Cliona spp.), anemones, mussels, clams, 

shrimp, juvenile fishes, and blue crabs. 

Mature oysters thrive at salinities from 10 to 

30 parts per thousand (ppt), and can tolerate 

a wider range of salinities (2–40 ppt) for short 

periods of time (Gunter and Gunter 1955). 

Because oysters are filter feeders, they are 

also highly susceptible to pollution (Florida 

DNR 1990). 

A comparison of aerial imagery approximately once each decade between 1943 and 

2009 indicates a 9% loss in the number of 

reefs (576 to 515) within the national 

seashore and an alarming 40% reduction in 

acreage (59 acres reduced to 36 acres) during 

that time (Walters et al. 2012). 

The impacts of substantial commercial harvesting of clams and oysters, and the health of 

the oyster reefs in the northern part of the 

lagoon are another major concern for the 

lagoon plants and animals. Commercial shell 

fishing and crabbing is permitted in the 

national seashore, and there are times when 

there are more than 100 active permits (Stiner 

2004). Harvesters can only use hand rakes. 

The reefs in the northern end are starting to 

die at the outer edges (as opposed to the 

typical progression where the reef dies in the 

middle while the edges thrive). Dr. Ray 

Grizzle of University of New Hampshire and 

Dr. Linda Walters at the University of Central 

Florida researched the reef decline and found 

strong correlation between boating channels 

and dead reef formation (Grizzle et al. 2002; 

Wall et al. 2005). 

Other researchers are looking at oyster 

diseases that might be contributing to the reef 

impacts (Walters et al. 2007). Low levels of 

the disease Dermo and no MSX were found 

during three years of sampling (Walters et al. 

2007). There is also substantial evidence 

indicating that barnacles are outcompeting 

young oysters for suitable attachment 

(fouling) sites (Boudreau et al. 2009). Suitable 

attachment sites are probably on the decline 

because most people remove shells from the 

lagoon instead of throwing them back into 

the lagoon to provide attachment sites (an 

action referred to as “seeding”). Aggressive 

competition from barnacles, combined with 

reduced attachment habitat, is thought to 

contribute to the reduction in oyster/reef 

health. Dr. Ray Grizzle has digitized maps of 

many of the reefs, identifying 64 dead and 

110 live oyster reef segments within 

Mosquito Lagoon. 

The recent introduction of several aquatic 

nonnative species, such as the charru 

mussel(Mytella charruana), green mussel 

(Perna viridis), and pink acorn barnacle 

(Megabalanus coccopoma), may also pose a 

threat to the oysters through competition for 

space and food (Boudreau and Walters 2006). 

Research is currently underway to examine 

the effects of all three species on the 

settlement and short-term growth of oyster 

spat (Walters, unpublished data). 

Fishes. The Indian River Lagoon system, 

including Mosquito Lagoon, has one of the 

highest fish species diversities of any 

estuarine system in the United States (Swain 

et al. 1995). More than 400 species have been 

reported from the Indian River and adjacent 

waters. The high diversity of the region has 

been attributed to the overlap of tropical and 

temperate fauna, coupled with moderate 

environmental variation and diversity of 

habitats (Gilmore 1995). Fish assemblages 

associated with habitats such as seagrass 

meadows, spoil islands, and level sand 

bottom are dynamic and tend to reflect 

species-specific environmental preferences, 

movements, and recruitment patterns 

(Mulligan and Snelson 1983; Brown-Peterson 
Natural Resources 

151 

and Eames 1990; Tremain and Adams 1995; 

Kupchus and Tremain 2001). 

The diversity and abundance of fish in the 

lagoon has led to the development of 

recreational and commercial fisheries that 

represent considerable economic value to the 

entire region. The Mosquito Lagoon fishery 

is nationally recognized, and a portion of the 

Banana River, just south of the national 

seashore, has been designated as a no-take 

reserve (no recreational or commercial 

fishing is allowed). Concern over maintaining 

the reserve and enhancing fisheries in 

surrounding waters has led to scientific and 

management studies in recent years (Johnson 

et al. 1999; Stevens and Sulak 2001; Tremain 

et al. 2004). Many factors interact to 

determine the distribution of fish species in 

the lagoon. Johnson et al. (1999) found that 

protection from fishing was the major factor 

contributing to differences in abundance 

between fished and nonfished areas. Tremain 

et al. (2004) concluded physical factors such 

as salinity, distance to the nearest inlet, and 

temperature have the greatest influence over 

species distribution across the lagoon as a 

whole, while responses to biological factors 

such as seagrass coverage, depth, and 

seasonality determine species distribution on 

a smaller scale. 

Fish families present in Mosquito Lagoon 

important to fisheries include clupeidae 

(herring), elopidae (tarpon), centropomidae 

(snook), pomatomidae (bluefish), carangidae 

(jack), lutjanidae (snapper), sparidae (porgiy), 

sciaenidae (drum), ephippidae (spadefish), 

cichlidae (cichlid), scombridae (mackerel), 

mugilidae (mullet), and paralichthyidae (sand 

flounder). Members of these families are 

dependent on the aquatic habitats in 

Mosquito Lagoon to complete their life 

cycles. Several of the species and life stages 

present in the lagoon fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and its 

provision for essential fish habitat, which is 

defined in the following sidebar. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 USC 1801–1882) 

established and mandated that fishery 

management plans be developed to responsibly 

manage exploited fish and invertebrate species in 

federal waters of the United States. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for 

designating and conserving essential fish habitat 

for species managed under fishery management 

plans. This is intended to minimize, to the extent 

practicable, any adverse effects on habitat caused 

by fishing or nonfishing activities, and to identify 

other actions to encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of such habitat. 

Essential fish habitat is defined as “those waters 

and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (16 

USC 1801[10]). Waters include “aquatic areas 

and their associated physical, chemical, and 

biological properties that are used by fish, and 

may include aquatic areas historically used by fish 

where appropriate.” Substrate includes 

“sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying 

the waters, and associated biological 

communities.” Necessary is defined as “the 

habitat required to support a sustainable fishery 

and the managed species' contribution to a 

healthy ecosystem.” “Fish” includes “finfish, 

mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of 

marine animal and plant life other than marine 

mammals and birds,” whereas “spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” cover 

the complete life cycle of those species of 

interest. 

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC) is the council responsible for managing 

fisheries and habitat in the waters of the national 

seashore area. This council has produced several 

fishery management plans for single and mixed 

groups of species. These plans, including those 

for shrimp, red drum, snapper-grouper, and 

coastal migratory pelagics (seagoing species), 

were amended in a single document (SAFMC 

1998) to address essential fish habitat within the 

southern Atlantic region. In addition to the 

fishery management plans prepared by this 

council, highly migratory species (tuna, billfish, 

sharks, and swordfish) are managed by the 

Highly Migratory Species Management Unit, 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries. NMFS staff 

prepared a fishery management plan for highly 

migratory species, which includes descriptions of 

essential fish habitat for sharks, swordfish, and 

tuna (NMFS 1999). 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

152 

Within the essential fish habitat designated for 

various species, areas termed habitat areas of 

particular concern (HAPCs) are also identified. 

These areas either play important roles in the life 

history (e.g., spawning areas) of federally 

managed fish species or are especially vulnerable 

to degradation from fishing or other human 

activities. 

The fish listed below occur in national 

seashore waters and are managed by the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service: 

 penaeid shrimp 

 red drum 

 coastal pelagic fish 

 coastal sharks 

 reef fish 

Penaeid Shrimp (Penaeus spp.) are managed 

by the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council and occur in nearshore waters 

managed by the national seashore are brown 

shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (P. 

duorarum), and white shrimp (P. setiferus). 

Other members of this management unit, 

including rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris), 

seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), and 

royal red shrimp (Pleoticus robustus), are 

found in deeper waters beyond the national 

seashore’s jurisdictional area. 

Essential fish habitat for penaeid shrimp 

encompasses habitats used during their life 

history (SAFMC 1998). This life history has 

two basic phases, the adult and juvenile 

benthic phase and the planktonic larval and 

post-larval phase. Benthic adults aggregate to 

spawn in shelf waters over coarse calcareous 

sediments. Eggs attached to the female’s 

abdomen hatch into planktonic larvae. These 

larvae and subsequent post-larval stages feed 

on zooplankton in the water and make their 

way into inshore waters. For the inshore 

phase of the life history, post-larval stages 

settle to the bottom and resume a benthic 

existence in estuaries, which provide rich 

food sources as well as shelter from 

predation. Young penaeid shrimp prefer 

shallow water habitats with nearby sources of 

organic detritus such as emergent wetlands 

and the edges of mangrove areas. Emergent 

wetlands or mangrove are found in Mosquito 

Lagoon. Young shrimp live in the Indian 

River Lagoon from April to June. 

Essential fish habitat for red drum includes 

tidal freshwater, estuarine-emergent 

vegetated wetlands (flooded salt marshes, 

brackish marsh, tidal creeks), mangrove 

shorelines, seagrasses, oyster reefs and shell 

banks, unconsolidated bottom (soft 

sediments), ocean high-salinity surf zones, 

and artificial reefs (SAFMC 1998). All phases 

of the life history of red drum can occur in 

Mosquito Lagoon. Benthic adults and 

juveniles (Stevens and Sulak 2001) and 

planktonic larvae (Johnson and Funicelli 

1991) have been collected in the area. 

Juveniles are most abundant in the Indian 

River Lagoon from April to June. The nearshore waters of the national seashore would 

be essential fish habitat for adults. 

Habitat areas of particular concern for red 

drum are coastal inlets, all state-designated 

nursery habitats of particular importance to 

red drum, documented sites of spawning 

aggregations, and habitats for submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAFMC 1998). In 

Mosquito Lagoon, spawning areas have been 

documented by Grant Gilmore (Gilmore 

et al. 2000) and others (Johnson and Funicelli 

1991). Tagging studies conducted in the area 

have documented that red drum will migrate 

to ocean inlets—Sebastian to the south and 

Ponce De Leon to the north, presumably to 

spawn (Stevens and Sulak 2001; Tremain 

et al. 2004). 

The major coastal pelagic fish in inshore and 

coastal waters around the national seashore 

are ladyfish, anchovies, herrings, mackerels, 

jacks, mullets, bluefish, and cobia. Coastal 

pelagic species migrate over shelf waters of 

the region throughout the year. Some species 

form large schools (e.g., Spanish mackerel), 

while others travel singly or in smaller groups 

(e.g., cobia). Some coastal pelagic species are 

found along sandy beaches and barrier 

islands of east-central Florida (Gilmore et al. 
Natural Resources 

153 

1981, Peters and Nelson 1987). Commonly 

occurring species in the national seashore 

include anchovies (Anchoa spp.), menhaden 

(Brevoortia spp.), scaled sardine (Harengula 

jaguana), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), 

hardhead catfish (Arius felis), and Florida 

pompano (Trachinotus carolinus). Larger 

predatory species (particularly bluefish, blue 

runner, jack crevalle, sharks, and Spanish 

mackerel) could be attracted to large 

concentrations of anchovies, herring, and 

mullet, which aggregate in nearshore areas. 

The distribution of most species depends on 

water column structure, which varies 

spatially and seasonally. 

Coastal pelagic species managed by the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council are 

cobia (Rachycentron canadum), Spanish 

mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), king 

mackerel (S. cavalla), and little tunny 

(Euthynnus alleteratus) (SAFMC 1998). Of 

these, only the Spanish mackerel (adults and 

juveniles) regularly enter Mosquito Lagoon. 

Juvenile cobia can also live in the estuary 

from April to June (SAFMC 1998). Cobia, 

king mackerel, and little tunny live in 

nearshore waters. 

Essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic 

species includes sandy shoals of capes and 

offshore bars, high-profile rocky bottom, and 

barrier island oceanside waters, from the surf 

zone to the shelf break zone. This includes 

the water from the Gulf Stream shoreward 

and the drifting Sargassum (seaweed) mats 

seen there. Also included are all coastal inlets 

and all state-designated nursery habitats of 

particular importance to coastal migratory 

pelagics (SAFMC 1998). Juvenile Spanish 

mackerel and cobia live in the Indian River 

Lagoon from April to June, when average 

salinities are highest. 

There are no specific habitat areas of 

particular concern designated for coastal 

pelagic species in the jurisdiction of the 

national seashore; however, estuaries in 

general, where species-specific migratory 

pathways exist, are considered habitat areas 

of particular concern (SAFMC 1998). 

Coastal sharks are those species commonly 

occurring in inland and nearshore shelf 

waters. Several managed shark species, 

including the blacknose, spinner, bull, dusky, 

sandbar, tiger, sand tiger, bonnethead, and 

lemon, live in the national seashore. The 

young of several of these species use the 

Indian River Lagoon system, including 

Mosquito Lagoon, as nursery grounds 

(Snelson and Williams 1981;, Snelson et al. 

1984). Essential fish habitat identified by 

NMFS staff (1999) for coastal shark species is 

presented in table 8. No habitat areas of 

particular concern are designated for coastal 

sharks. 

The reef fish (snapper-grouper) management 

unit consists of 73 species. Although the 

fisheries and adult habitat of most of these 

species exist well offshore of the national 

seashore, the young stages of some reef fishes 

use the Indian River Lagoon as nursery 

habitat (e.g., Gilmore et al. 1981; SAFMC 

1998). The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (1998) identifies the 

following as essential fish habitat for early life 

stages of some reef fishes—attached 

macroalgae, seagrasses, salt marshes, tidal 

creeks, mangrove fringe, oyster reefs and 

shell banks, soft sediments, artificial reefs, 

coral reefs, and hard/live bottom. 

Gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) is the only 

reef fish that commonly inhabits Mosquito 

Lagoon (Johnson et al. 1999; Stevens and 

Sulak 2001). Gray snapper spawn offshore, 

releasing eggs and larvae into the water. 

Larvae are transported through inlets into 

estuarine areas where they settle to the bottom and occupy habitats such as seagrass 

meadows. As they grow, young gray snappers 

will move from seagrass areas to more 

structured areas including mangrove edges, 

hard bottom, and artificial structures (docks 

and seawalls). Other reef fishes, such as lane 

snapper (L. synagris), gag (Mycteroperca 

microlepis), and grunts (Haemulon spp., 

Orthopristis chrysoptera), have similar life 

cycles, and their early life stages could also 

occur in the inshore waters of the national 

seashore.
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

154 

TABLE 8. COASTAL SHARK SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE AREA

Species Early Juveniles / Neonate Late Juveniles / Subadults Adults 

Blacknose shark 

(Carcharhinus 

acronotus)

Shallow coastal waters less than 

82-feet deep from the 

Georgia/Florida border to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida 

Shallow coastal waters less than 

82-feet deep from the 

Georgia/Florida border to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida 

N/A 

Spinner shark 

(Carcharhinus 

brevipinna)

Shallow coastal waters less than 

82-feet deep from Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, to 

Florida 

Shallow coastal waters less than 

656-feet deep from the 

Georgia/Florida border south to 

Cape Canaveral, Florida (28.5oN) 

Shallow coastal waters 

less than 328-feet deep 

from the Georgia/Florida 

border south to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida 

(28.5oN) 

Bull shark 

(Carcharhinus 

leucas)

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from just north of 

Cape Canaveral at 29oN to just 

south of Cape Canaveral at 

28oN 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep N/A 

Dusky shark 

(Carcharhinus 

obscurus)

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep 

N/A 

Sandbar shark 

(Carcharhinus 

plumbeus)

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from Montauk, 

New York, to Cape Canaveral, 

Florida (27.5oN) 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from Montauk, 

New York, to Cape Canaveral, 

Florida (27.5oN) 

N/A 

Tiger shark 

(Gaelocerdo cuvier)

Shallow coastal waters to the 

656-foot depth line from Cape 

Canaveral, Florida, (27.5oN) to 

Montauk, New York 

N/A N/A 

Sand tiger shark 

(Carcharias taurus)

Shallow coastal waters less than 

82-feet from Barnegat Inlet, 

New Jersey, to Cape Canaveral, 

Florida (27.5oN) N/A 

Shallow coastal waters 

less than 82-feet from 

Barnegat Inlet, New 

Jersey, to Cape 

Canaveral, Florida 

(27.5oN) 

Bonnethead shark 

(Sphyrna tiburo)

N/A 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from Cape Fear, 

North Carolina, to West Palm 

Beach, Florida 

N/A 

Lemon shark 

(Negaprion 

brevirostris)

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from Bulls Bay, 

South Carolina, to West Palm 

Beach, Florida 

Shallow coastal waters, inlets, 

and estuaries in waters less than 

82-feet deep from Bulls Bay, 

South Carolina, to West Palm 

Beach, Florida 

N/A 

SOURCE: NMFS 1999 

Note: N/A = information is not available 

 
Natural Resources 

155 

For the reef and estuarine fish species in 

Canaveral National Seashore’s jurisdiction, 

habitat areas of particular concern include 

mangrove habitats, seagrass habitats, 

oyster/shell habitats, and offshore hard 

ground areas that are in the national 

seashore’s jurisdiction. All coastal inlets are 

also designated as habitat areas of particular 

concern for reef fishes, although none of 

these habitats are in the national seashore 

(SAFMC 1998). Currently, there appears to 

be a problem of propeller scarring and 

channeling through the seagrass beds under 

national seashore jurisdiction. This has led to 

consideration of “pole or troll motor only” 

zones in specific nearshore areas of the 

national seashore 

Invasive Animal Species 

Invasive animal species can disrupt native 

animal communities in the national seashore. 

Feral hogs invade from surrounding 

disturbed areas and cause substantial damage 

to freshwater and saltwater wetlands. Feral 

hogs also have a voracious appetite for 

snakes, and declines in snake populations 

(including those of the threatened Eastern 

indigo snake) have been observed within the 

national seashore (NPS 2009d). Feral hogs 

have also targeted sea turtle nests along other 

beaches close to Canaveral National 

Seashore, and one hog can destroy up to a 

dozen nests in a single night. Extensive 

trapping (up to 2,500 hogs in a recent year at 

the national seashore and Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge) does not appear to 

have reduced the feral hog population. 

Although feral hogs occupy primarily the 

mainland portions of the national seashore, 

some have moved onto the northern and 

southern ends of the barrier island. Should 

they continue to spread along the barrier 

island, they could have devastating impacts 

on sea turtle reproductive success (NPS 

2009d). 

Nonnative reptiles such as the brown anole 

(Anolis sagrei), Mediterranean gecko 

(Hemidactylus turcicus), and Indo-Pacific 

gecko have invaded the national seashore 

(NPS 2009d). Three other nonnatives, the 

tropical gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia), 

crested anole (Anolis cristatellus), and Cuban 

treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis), have 

been documented nearby and will probably 

move to the national seashore in the near 

future. These nonnative species are a management concern because they can negatively 

impact native species. For example, the 

brown anole displaces the native green anole 

(Anolis carolinensis) from its preferred habitat 

and also preys on its young. The other 

nonnative species that could impact the 

national seashore in the future are the cactus 

moth (Cactoblastis cactorum) and the 

Mexican bromeliad weevil (Metamasius 

callizona). Invasive aquatic species that are 

found in the national seashore include green 

mussel (Perna viridis), pink acorn barnacle 

(Megablanaus coccopoma), and charru mussel 

(Mytella charruana). The highly invasive 

ionfish (Pterois volitans) are not yet found in 

the national seashore, but have been found 

nearby and are likely to occur in the seashore 

during the life of this plan. Aquatic invasive 

species have similar impacts on the aquatic 

ecosystem as terrestrial invasive species may 

have; they compete with native species for 

resources, they displace native species from 

their habitat, and they cause changes to 

community composition and function. 

Special Status Species 

Species of special status are defined to be 

those plant and animal species that are listed 

by a state or federal agency with special 

protection or conservation designations. In 

addition, some species are listed by 

nongovernmental entities as species of 

special concern. These nongovernment-listed 

species do not have regulatory protection. 

Entities listing species that live in the national 

seashore are as follows: 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

156 

Listing designations include the following: 

 Endangered (E) – species considered rare 

enough that without special management 

efforts they may become extinct (federal 

and state designation) 

 Threatened (T) – species that without 

special management efforts are likely to 

become endangered in the near future 

(federal and state designation) 

 Species of Special Concern (SSC) – 

species that warrant special protection 

because of concerns that these species 

could become threatened or endangered 

(state designation) 

 Delisted, Monitored (DM) – these species 

are no longer federally listed, but are 

being monitored 

 Candidate (C) – these species are listed by 

the USFWS as candidates for federal 

status, and are treated as Threatened 

species per NPS policy 

 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) – 

birds, other than those federally listed as 

threatened or endangered, that are of the 

highest conservation concern to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Table 9 lists these species by scientific and 

common name, along with their specific 

designation and designating entity. 

TABLE 9. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AT CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE

Scientific Name Common Name 

Agency Status 

USFWS FWC 

Amphibians 

Rana capito Gopher frog N/A SSC 

Reptiles 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SATa

 SSC 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T T 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle E E 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E E 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake T T 

Eretmochelys imbricata Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle E E 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise N/A T 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle E E 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata Atlantic salt marsh snake T T 

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black pine snake C N/A 

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake N/A SSC 

Birds 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T T 

Caladris canutus rufa Red knot C N/A 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover T T 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover N/A SSC 
Natural Resources 

157 

TABLE 9. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AT CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE

Scientific Name Common Name 

Agency Status 

USFWS FWC 

Cistothorus platenis Sedge wren N/A SSC 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler E N/A 

Egretta caerula Little blue heron N/A SSC 

Egretta rufescens Reddish egret N/A SSC 

Egretta thula Snowy egret N/A SSC 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron N/A SSC 

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed kite BCC N/A 

Eudocimus albus White ibis N/A SSC 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon DM N/A 

Falco sparverius American kestrel N/A T 

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane N/A T 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle DM N/A 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher N/A SSC 

Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail N/A SSC 

Mycteria americana Wood stork E E 

Platalea ajaja Roseate spoonbill N/A SSC 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis N/A SSC 

Rynchops niger Black skimmer N/A SSC 

Sterna antillarum Least tern N/A T 

Sterna dougallii Roseate tern N/A T 

Mammals 

Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale E N/A 

Balaenoptera physalus Finback whale E N/A 

Eubalaena glacialis North American right whale E E 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern beach mouse T T 

Physeter catodon Sperm whale E N/A 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse N/A SSC 

Trichechus manatus latirostris West Indian manatee (Florida stock) E, CH E 

Plants 

Chamaesyce cumulicola Sand dune spurge N/A E 

Glandularia maritima Coastal vervain N/A SSC 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

158 

TABLE 9. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AT CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE

Scientific Name Common Name 

Agency Status 

USFWS FWC 

Harrisia fragrans Fragrant prickly-apple E E 

Lantana depressa var. floridana East coast lantana N/A E 

Lechea divaricata Pine pinweed N/A E 

Nemastylis floridana Celestial lily N/A E 

Ophioglossum palmatum (= 

Cheiroglossa palmata Hand fern N/A E 

Persea borbonia var. humilis Scrub bay N/A N/A 

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (= Eulophia 

ecristata) False coco N/A T 

Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii Narrow-leaved hoary pea; coastal hoary pea N/A E 

Tillandsia utriculata Giant wild pine; giant air plant N/A SSC 

Notes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of Special Concern; BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern; N/A = not 

applicable; DM = Delisted, Monitored; C= Candidate; CH =Critical Habitat. 

a Treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a species that is federally listed to help enforcement personnel who

may have difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. 

 

Reptiles 

American Alligator — Hunting of the 

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

for its hide continued until the late 1960s and 

effectively eliminated the animal from many 

parts of its historical range. It has been 

estimated that more than 10 million alligators 

were killed between 1870, when hunting 

began in earnest, and the late 1960s, when it 

was curtailed. Once hunting was curtailed, 

alligator populations showed themselves to 

be quite resilient, and population increases 

throughout the southern states have caused 

this species to be recategorized on the federal 

Endangered Species List in some locations, 

such as Florida, to “threatened due to 

similarity of appearance” to the American 

crocodile, which is still on the endangered 

list. This aids law enforcement officers who 

encounter live animals, parts, or products of 

either species so that federal protection can 

be enforced. In Canaveral National Seashore, 

alligator habitat is the fresh and brackish 

marshes along the Intracoastal Waterway and 

Mosquito Lagoon. 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle — The loggerhead 

sea turtle (Caretta caretta) was listed in 1978 

as a threatened species, and it is considered 

“vulnerable” by the International Union for 

the Conservation of Nature. Recent 

population studies have concluded that the 

number of females nesting in the southeastern United States continues to decline 

although increased nest totals from 2010–

2012 are encouraging. Extensive ground and 

aerial surveys conducted as recently as 1990 

put loggerhead nest estimates at 50,000 to 

70,000 per year in the southeastern United 

States. This number represents about 35% to 

40% of the world’s population of loggerhead 

turtles. In the United States, the loggerhead’s 

nesting areas are divided among four states: 
Natural Resources 

159 

 Florida (91.0%) 

 South Carolina (6.5%) 

 Georgia (1.5%) 

 North Carolina (1.0%) 

Florida beaches account for one-third of the 

world’s total population of loggerheads. 

Florida Nesting Beach Surveys showed a 50% 

decline in the number of loggerhead nests 

between 1998 and 2007 (Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Institute 2008). 

In the southeastern United States, adult 

females begin to nest as early as late April, 

and they continue into early September. 

Nesting activity is at its peak in June and July. 

Along the southeastern United States coast, 

average clutch size varies from 100 to 126 

eggs. Loggerheads nest at night. The average 

interval between nesting seasons is two to 

three years, but ranges from one to six years. 

Natural incubation periods average from 53 

to 55 days in Florida and 63 to 68 days in 

Georgia. 

Green Sea Turtle — Green sea turtles 

(Chelonia mydas), listed as federally 

endangered, range worldwide, and several 

subspecies have been named. Once 

widespread in Florida, nesting is confined 

today to the area between Cape Canaveral 

and Palm Beach County. Mosquito Lagoon 

regularly serves as a nursery for green turtles. 

In January 2010, for example, over one 

thousand juveniles were recovered during a 

severe cold-stun event. The only time males 

are not at sea is when they are first born. 

When it is time to mate, they migrate from 

several hundred to more than a thousand 

miles across the ocean to where they hatched. 

Female green turtles use the same beaches to 

nest as their mothers and grandmothers. 

These turtles nest every two to three years. 

The Florida nesting season runs from May 

into September. Although loggerhead nesting 

has declined in recent years, nesting activity 

has actually increased exponentially for the 

green sea turtle from 1989 to 2007 according 

to Florida Nesting Beach Surveys (Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Institute 2008). With few 

exceptions during this time period, the green 

sea turtle has exhibited a biennial pattern—

the number of nests increasing one year and 

decreasing the next. During 1999 and 2001, 

less than 100 nests a year were recorded. 

More than 1,000 nests were recorded in 2005 

and 2007, and 899 were recorded in 2008 

(Holdsworth et al. 2007). Over 1,300 green 

sea turtle nests were recorded by national 

seashore staff during both 2010 and 2011. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle— The federal 

government lists the leatherback sea turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered 

worldwide. Within the United States, the 

leatherback is known to nest in southeastern 

Florida, Culebra, Puerto Rico, and St. Croix. 

The leatherback is the largest living turtle and 

is so distinctive that it is placed in its own 

family, Dermochelyidae. The leatherback’s 

carapace is slightly flexible and has a rubbery 

texture. No sharp angle is formed between 

the carapace and the underbelly (plastron), so 

a leatherback is somewhat barrel-shaped. 

The largest leatherback on record was a male 

stranded on the west coast of Wales in 1988. 

He weighed 2,019 pounds (916 kilograms). 

In 1982 Dr. Peter Pritchard, leading turtle 

zoologist with the Chelonian Research 

Institute in Oviedo, Florida, estimated that 

115,000 adult female leatherbacks existed 

worldwide and that roughly half of them 

probably were nesting in western Mexico 

(Pritchard 1992). In recent years, however, 

the number of nesting leatherbacks has been 

in an alarming decline. As with the green sea 

turtle, nest counts have been encouraging in 

recent years. Nesting activity, although not 

high in Florida, increased exponentially 

between 1989 and 2007 according to Florida 

Nesting Beach Surveys (Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Institute 2008). The national 

seashore averaged 1.6 nests a year from 1985 

to 1998. Between 1999 and 2008 the average 

has been 9.8 nests per year, with park staff 

recording between 24 and 26 nests each year 

between 2009 and 2011. Leatherbacks prefer 

open access beaches, possibly to avoid 

damage to their soft plastron and flippers. 

Unfortunately, such open beaches are 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

160 

vulnerable to severe beach erosion that may 

result in egg mortality. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle — Mature Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) are 

restricted almost entirely to the Gulf of 

Mexico, but immature individuals are known 

along the entire Atlantic east coast from 

Padre Island National Seashore in Texas to 

Cape Lookout, North Carolina. The turtles 

are also occasionally found in European 

waters. Nesting is restricted almost entirely to 

specific beaches in Mexico, and the species is 

a rare visitor to waters managed by Canaveral 

National Seashore. Single nests were 

recorded at the national seashore in 2003, 

2006, and 2012, and two nests in 2008. The 

2006 nest was in the Brevard County portion 

of the national seashore, a first for Brevard 

County. This species is one of the most 

endangered species of sea turtles. 

Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle — The 

federally endangered Atlantic hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) is found worldwide 

in tropical waters and nests on scattered 

islands and shores throughout the Caribbean. 

This species nests infrequently on Florida 

beaches and would be considered a rare 

visitor to the waters managed by the national 

seashore. An individual nested at the national 

seashore in August 1982 and was tagged and 

photographed. 

Sea Turtle Monitoring — Beginning in 1984, 

the national seashore has maintained a sea 

turtle nesting monitoring program. Nest 

destruction, primarily by raccoons, is a 

serious threat, with rates exceeding 90% in 

the early 1980s. To combat this, in 1984, 

national seashore staff implemented a nest 

screening program to protect nests while 

allowing the raccoon to remain as an integral 

part of the seashore ecosystem. In 1993 and 

1994, the University of Georgia compared 

three methods of nest protection: screening, 

predator removal, and conditioned-tasteaversion. They found screening to be the 

most effective and compatible with NPS 

guidelines and objectives. 

The year 2008 was the 25th year for 

Canaveral National Seashore’s sea turtle nest 

protection program. Since 1995, NPS staff 

have managed to screen more than 90% of 

the several thousand nests deposited each 

year, reducing nest destruction to as low as 

5.0% in 2004. The goal is to achieve the 60% 

hatching rate targeted in the loggerhead and 

green sea turtle recovery plans (NMFS and 

USFWS 1991a) without removing predators 

from their important role in the barrier island 

ecosystem (Little and Stiner 2004). 

Table 10 summarizes the results of 25 years of 

this monitoring program. The single Kemp’s 

ridley nest in 2003 was examined with much 

excitement, because this was the first 

reported nesting for this species in the 

national seashore. The clutch size was 83 

eggs, and hatching success was 95%. 

Canaveral National Seashore had an unusual 

sea turtle nesting season in 2004. The nesting 

totals were the lowest since 1988. Four 

hurricanes impacted hatching success and 

washed away more than 1,000 nests. A total 

of 2,542 sea turtle nests were deposited at the 

national seashore in 2004 — 2,281 loggerhead, 255 green, and six leatherback (see 

table 10). Nest densities were 59.6 per 

kilometer for the loggerhead, 6.7 per kilometer for the green, and 0.16 per kilometer for 

the leatherback. More than 99% of the nests 

were screened to exclude predators. During 

the season, less than 1% of the nests were 

partially or totally destroyed before 

discovery, and 4.2% of the nests were 

destroyed after screening. The overall 

destruction rate for all nests was 5.0%. Every 

20th loggerhead, all green, and all leatherback 

nests were marked for examination. Hatching 

success rates of 71.9%, 30.4%, and 41.1% 

were recorded for the loggerhead, green, and 

leatherback sea turtles, respectively. The 

unusually low hatching rate for the green 

turtle was caused by inundation from high 

tides associated with the hurricanes. 

 
Natural Resources 

161 

TABLE 10. SEA TURTLE NEST TOTALS, 1984–2011, 

CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE

Year Loggerhead Green Leatherback Kemps Unknown Total 

2011 3,742 1,374 24 0 5,140 

2010 4,250 1,343 26 5,621 

2009 2,729 301 26 3,056 

2008 3,637 899 5 2 4,543 

2007 2,357 1,249 21 3,627 

2006 2,470 396 1 1 2,868 

2005 2,547 1,040 13 3,600 

2004 2,281 255 6 2,542 

2003 3,229 74 16 1 3,320 

2002 3,161 857 8 4,026 

2001 3,257 7 10 3,274 

2000 3,892 662 9 4,563 

1999 4,501 5 9 4,515 

1998 3,976 427 5 4,408 

1997 2,702 21 4 2,727 

1996 3,260 222 3 3,485 

1995 4,121 47 1 4,169 

1994 3,886 364 2 4,252 

1993 3,140 28 0 3,168 

1992 3,279 298 0 3,577 

1991 4,074 25 1 4,100 

1990 3,922 185 1 4,108 

1989 3,091 41 1 3,133 

1988 2,203 43 0 4 2,250 

1987 1,670 90 1 15 1,776 

1986 3,349 22 3 3,374 

1985 2,389 94 0 25 2,508 

1984 * 2,125 

Sources: Harrison et al. 2004, Holdsworth et al. 2007, NPS 2009d, and park staff 

Note: * = Individual breakdown not available 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

162 

In 2004 nesting patterns followed those of 

previous years with 63% of sea turtle nests 

deposited in the southern half of the beach. 

Nest destruction was again higher in the 

northern half of the beach at 9.1% compared 

to nest destruction of only 1.3% in the 

southern half, where most of the nests were.

Sea Turtle Relocation — Canaveral National 

Seashore was able to assist with an unprecedented rescue of sea turtle eggs due to hatch 

along the northeastern shore of the Gulf of 

Mexico during summer 2010. These 

hatchlings were relocated from the Gulf of 

Mexico coast in response to the Mississippi 

Canyon 252/Deepwater Horizon oil spill that 

began in April 2010. Biologists determined 

that any hatchlings venturing into the ocean 

near the spill were at high-risk for survival. 

Anumber of state and federal agencies 

collaborated to transport eggs nearing the 

end of their incubation period to Kennedy 

Space Center, just south of Canaveral 

National Seashore. The sea turtle eggs 

hatched under carefully monitored 

conditions and were released the same night 

as they hatched on nearby federally-owned 

beaches. Approximately 15,000 hatchlings 

from 274 nests were relocated, primarily to 

Canaveral National Seashore. The vast 

majority of the nests (265) were loggerhead 

eggs, plus five Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests 

and four green sea turtle nests. 

Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake — The federally 

threatened Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia 

clarkii taeniata) is a slender water snake with 

a pattern of stripes that is variously broken 

into blotches. In Florida, the Atlantic salt 

marsh snake is restricted to brackish waters 

and has historically been recorded in Volusia, 

Brevard, and Indian River counties. These 

snakes are the only North American snakes 

restricted to brackish water environments. In 

national seashore habitats, they occur in the 

salt marshes and are usually associated with 

fiddler crab burrows and glasswort. Use of 

altered sites by this species, as well as other 

amphibians and reptiles, should be 

considered in review and evaluation of 

management alternatives. 

Eastern Indigo Snake — The federally 

threatened eastern indigo snake 

(Drymarchon corais couperi) is a large, heavybodied serpent with smooth, shiny scales. It is 

restricted to the southeastern United States 

and occurs throughout Florida. Although the 

eastern indigo is often found in dry sandy 

areas such as Florida’s high pine 

communities, it actually prefers slightly 

moister habitats such as the pine flatwoods 

and tropical hammocks in the national 

seashore on both sides of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. Popular belief holds that the 

eastern indigo snake is dependent on gopher 

tortoise burrows for shelter. However, 

telemetry studies in the national seashore 

area have found it more frequently in 

mammal burrows and old stumps. 

Birds 

Florida Scrub-Jay — The federally 

threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma 

coerulescens) has extremely specific habitat 

requirements. It resides permanently in oak 

scrub areas dominated by scrub live oak 

(Quercus virginiana), myrtle oak (Q. 

myrtifolia), and Chapman oak (Q. 

chapmanii), along with palmettos, rosemary, 

and sand pine. The populations seen in the 

national seashore were once part of a large 

continuous population along Florida’s 

Atlantic coastline, but this population has 

been fragmented by the growth of coastal 

cities and coastal development. Researchers 

are greatly concerned about the future of the 

species due to loss of habitat. Canaveral and 

the adjacent Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge use prescribed fire to improve habitat 

for the scrub-jay. 

Piping Plover — The piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) is a small shorebird 

found on beaches, sandy areas, tidal flats, and 

mud flats. Beach and dune habitats in the 

national seashore could be occasional 

wintering areas for this species. Heavy and 

increased human development and use in this 

bird’s limited habitat area have had harmful 

effects on this species throughout North 

America, resulting in its federal status as a 

threatened species. 
Natural Resources 

163 

Wood Stork — Federally endangered wood 

storks (Mycteria americana) nest in Florida 

and southeastern Georgia, primarily in 

cypress or mangrove swamps. They are birds 

of brackish and freshwater wetlands, feeding 

in marshes, flooded pastures, and along 

drainage ditches. The wood stork is the only 

true stork (Ciconiidae) native to North 

America. Wood storks are seen throughout 

the national seashore and the Merritt Island 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Roseate Tern — The roseate tern (Sterna 

dougallii) is a slim, medium-sized tern with 

extremely buoyant flight. It nests on the 

ground on barren or sparsely vegetated 

coastline and feeds over the adjacent 

nearshore waters. Coastal development has 

robbed this species of many of its traditional 

nesting sites, and nesting success has been 

poor during recent years. This species is 

listed as threatened by the federal 

government because of habitat loss and 

disturbance, predation, and competition 

from expanding gull populations. 

Birds of Conservation Concern — The 1988 

amendment to the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act mandated the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to “identify species, 

subspecies, and populations of all migratory 

non-game birds that, without additional 

conservation actions, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973.” The goal of this effort is 

to identify the migratory and nonmigratory 

bird species (beyond those already 

designated as federally threatened or 

endangered) that represent the highest 

conservation priorities and to draw attention 

to those species. Forty-six bird species in the 

national seashore area are listed as species of 

special concern under this mandate. 

Once found almost everywhere throughout 

Florida, the bald eagle is now gone from 

much of its old range in the state’s interior 

and is much less common along the coastline. 

Nonetheless, bald eagles nest along Florida’s 

entire coastline, as well as near larger lakes 

and rivers. Twelve to 14 nesting pairs 

regularly occur at the national seashore and 

the adjacent Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. Formerly listed as threatened by the 

federal government, the species was delisted 

in Florida in 2007. It is still considered a 

“species of management concern” at the 

national seashore and the refuge, and 

population numbers and hatching success are 

monitored each year. Prescribed fire activities 

help to maintain suitable habitat. 

Mammals 

Southeastern Beach Mouse — The federally 

threatened southeastern beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) is the 

smallest of the white-footed mice in Florida. 

Because of coastal construction, its distribution is almost entirely limited to federal 

lands managed by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Park Service near Cape Canaveral. The small 

mammal inventory (Gaines 2003) is designed 

to assess habitat use by mammal species in 

the national seashore. Because of the habitat 

specificity and limited distribution of the 

southeastern beach mouse, the results of this 

inventory are important in assessing 

management plan alternatives. 

Table 11 presents the number of individuals 

of each small mammal species captured at the 

national seashore in a small mammal 

inventory conducted in 2003. 

Marine Mammals 

Bottlenose Dolphin — The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is the marine mammal most likely to be seen off Canaveral 

National Seashore. Resident groups of this 

species occur throughout Florida. The bottlenose dolphin is primarily a nearshore 

species, although an offshore form has been 

recognized by many experts (Leatherwood 

and Reeves 1982, 1983). In the Indian River 

Lagoon system, a resident population of 200 

to 800 individuals is believed to exist. Coastal 

and offshore individuals also occasionally use 

Mosquito Lagoon. Bottlenose dolphins are 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

164 

TABLE 11. NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS OF EACH SMALL MAMMAL SPECIES CAPTURED BY GAINES (2003) 

Species Common 

Name 

Barrier Island Sites Mainland 

Sites 

Eldora 

Beach 

Apollo 

Beach 

Klondike 

Beach 

Playalinda 

Beach 

Bills Hill Area 

Sites 1–3 

Oryzomys palustris Rice rat — 4 2 1 — 

Peromyscus 

gossypinus Cotton mouse 24 10 — 5 7 

Peromyscus 

polionotus 

niveiventris* 

Southeastern 

beach mouse — 2 13 — — 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse — 2 4 — — 

Rattus rattus** Black rat — — 1 6 — 

Sigmodon hispidus Cotton rat — 50 106 58 6 

Spilogale putorius Spotted skunk — 1 — — — 

SOURCE: Gaines 2003. 

Notes: * = Federally listed as threatened; ** = Nonnative species 

rarely seen in waters more than 650 feet (200 

meters) deep. They are generally found in 

local populations or groups that occupy 

relatively small ranges along a coastline. A 

population can move from one range to 

another, but these migrations are generally 

not more than 200 miles (370 kilometers). 

Bottlenose dolphin feed on a variety of fishes, 

mollusks, and arthropods. They are a flexible 

feeder, taking whatever prey species is 

available. Most mating and calving occurs 

from February to May, but there is another, 

shorter mating and calving period from 

September to November in tropical waters 

(Schmidly 1981). 

All marine mammals are afforded protection 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972. The coastal migratory stock of the 

bottlenose dolphin along the southeastern 

United States has been proposed for listing as 

threatened. 

Right Whale — The northern right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) is the rarest of the large 

baleen whales; adults can reach 55 feet long 

and weigh 70 tons. The northern right whale 

is a federally listed endangered species, and 

received international protection in 1949. 

However, the population of northern right 

whales has been slow to recover from 

whaling in previous centuries, and they are 

among the most endangered whale species. 

Cows with calves are occasionally seen in the 

winter off Canaveral National Seashore 

beaches. 

West Indian Manatee (Florida Stock) —

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission conducts annual interagency 

surveys, called manatee synoptic surveys, 

during the coldest weather of the year to 

obtain a general statewide estimate of 

manatees. The highest number statewide 

(5,076) was recorded in 2010, when most of 

Florida experienced record cold temperatures. Observers on Florida’s Gulf coast 

counted 2,296 manatees and those on the east 

coast counted 2,780. Of the 2,780 manatees 

seen on the east coast, 1,087 manatees were 

counted in Brevard County. The current 

synoptic survey method provides a minimum 

count of manatees, but it does not provide a 

population estimate. In addition, not all 

Florida waters are included in the current 

survey. Individuals or small groups may 

regularly be found in Mosquito Lagoon 

throughout the summer and fall. The 
Natural Resources 

165 

manatees are thought to use Mosquito 

Lagoon as a corridor to move between areas 

further south in the Indian River Lagoon 

system and the freshwater springs inland in 

central Florida up as far as Cumberland 

Island, Georgia. 

In Florida, watercraft deaths accounted for 

19% of all manatee deaths in 2011. On a 

regional scale, the percentage of watercraftrelated deaths varies and can be affected by 

unusual mortality events such as red tide or 

unusually cold weather. In Florida counties, 

Brevard County has the highest number of 

manatee deaths from all causes and the 

highest number of watercraft-related deaths. 

The average number of watercraft-related 

manatee deaths in Brevard and Volusia 

counties for the last five years (2007–2011) is 

9.4 and 6.2 manatees per year, respectively. 

Volusia County currently ranks fourth in the 

state for the number of manatee deaths from 

all causes, and fifth for watercraft-related 

manatee deaths (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2012). 

Marine mammal species reported from 

Florida waters and possibly occurring in the 

national seashore area are presented in 

table 12. 

Plants 

Fragrant Prickly Apple or Caribbean 

Applecactus — The Caribbean applecactus 

(Harrisia fragrans) is only found along the 

east-central coast of Florida growing in 

coastal hammocks and shell middens. It is a 

spiny cactus, columnar and angled in shape 

and erect or reclining in form. The species 

has showy nocturnal flowers and a largerounded red berry. It was recorded growing 

in midden material at Turtle Mound in the 

1970s, disappeared during several freezes in 

the late 1980s, and was rediscovered in 

similar habitat not far from its original 

location in 2006. It is likely present on some 

of the islands in the national seashore. This 

species is federally listed as endangered in 

some of the areas to the north of Canaveral 

National Seashore, though it is not a listed 

species in Brevard or Volusia

TABLE 12. MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY 

PASSING THROUGH WATERS OF CANAVERAL 

NATIONAL SEASHORE1

Common Name Scientific Name 

Baleen whales 

Minke whale Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni

Northern right whale Eubalaena glacialis 

Blue whale2 Balaenoptera musculus 

Finback whale2 Balaenoptera physalus 

Sei whale2 Balaenoptera borealis 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae

Toothed Whales and Dolphins 

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba 

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin Stenella atlenuata 

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris 

Clymene dolphin1 Stenella clymene 

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala 

macrorhynchus

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus

Sowerby’s beaked 

whale1 Mesoplodon bidens 

True’s beaked whale2 Mesoplodon mirus 

Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris

Gervais’ beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens

Killer whale2 Orcinus orca

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Cuvier’s beaked whale2 Ziphius cavirostris

Manatees 

West Indian manatee 

(Florida stock) 

Trichechus manatus 

latirostris 

1

See table 9 for the status of some of these species that have federal 

or state designations. 

2

The presence of these species is uncertain, but they are known to 

occur in the south Atlantic and could pass through the unit’s offshore 

waters. Reports indicate that 10 different species of whales and 

dolphins were stranded at the national seashore between 1977 and 

2008, including humpbacked whales in 1993 and 2003 and a rare 

Gervais’ beaked whale in 2007. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166 

counties. However, the National Park Service 

protects species of concern within its 

boundaries even if they are not officially 

federally listed for the counties in which the 

park is located. 

State of Florida Listed Animal Species. In 

addition to the federally listed species present 

in the national seashore, the state (Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) 

also lists 1 amphibian, 10 reptiles, 24 birds, 5 

mammals, and 9 plant species as either 

threatened, endangered, or species of special 

concern (see table 9). 

Gopher Frog — The gopher frog (Rana 

capito) is a species of special concern that is 

distinct from other Florida frogs in that it 

shares the burrows of the Florida gopher 

tortoise. These frogs live in sandhill communities of scrub oak and sand pine. In the 

national seashore, they have been found in a 

few freshwater swale areas. 

Gopher Tortoise — The gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus) is a large terrestrial 

turtle found in through much of the Atlantic 

and Gulf Coastal plain, from southern South 

Carolina through peninsular Florida to 

eastern Louisiana. In the national seashore, 

the gopher tortoise is seen in sandy ridge and 

sand dune areas where the water table rarely 

comes near the surface. Coastal dune habitats 

and well-managed (frequently burned) scrub 

flatwoods in the national seashore are prime 

areas for gopher tortoises. Impacts of fire 

suppression on this species should be 

considered in review and evaluation of 

management alternatives. 

Excavation of burrows is the main activity of 

a gopher tortoise. These burrows, which are 

dug using their hind legs, can be up to 10 feet 

(3 meters) deep and 39 feet (12 meters) long. 

They give the tortoises a place to sleep and 

hibernate where they are protected from 

snakes, carnivorous mammals, and harsh 

weather conditions. Gopher tortoises spend 

nights in the burrows and emerge daily in 

warm weather, usually in the morning before 

it becomes too hot to forage for food. They 

can be seen in every month of the year, but 

their peak activity generally occurs in May or 

June. 

Gopher tortoises lay their eggs from late April 

to July. These eggs are deposited, five or six at 

a time, in holes dug in the ground to protect 

them from the sun. Once in the nest cavity, 

the eggs incubate for approximately 100 days. 

Most eggs are laid well away from the 

mother’s burrow. The hatchlings, which are 

not cared for by either parent, make their 

own burrows once they have hatched. 

Gopher tortoises require 16 to 21 years to 

mature and can live 40 years or longer. 

The gopher tortoise is listed as a species of 

special concern because so much of its 

habitat has been destroyed by land clearing, 

development, and suppression of natural 

fires. In addition, over the past several 

decades, upper respiratory disease syndrome 

has infected the tortoise population in the 

national seashore area. The impact this 

disease will have is uncertain. 

Seigel (2004) reported results of an investigation to determine tortoise hatchling movements and survival patterns in the national 

seashore. The mean survivorship for radiotracked individuals was 134 days. After 30 

days from hatching, 44% of hatchlings were 

no longer alive. After the first month, 

mortality was more gradual. Survivorship was 

not significantly associated with carapace 

length or mass. Mammals (most likely 

raccoons and skunks), consumed 13 

hatchlings (65%), a snake consumed 1 

hatchling (5%), and the predators of 6 

hatchlings (30%) were not determined. 

These data reported by Seigel (2004) are 

similar to those of studies in northern Florida 

and southern Mississippi in that extremely 

high mortality of hatchling tortoises was 

recorded. Although the timing and sources of 

mortality differed among studies, the critical 

finding of all studies is that no monitored 

hatchlings survived more than about 18 

months. Given that these studies were done 

in different years, in different habitats, and 

had different groups of predators, the 
Natural Resources 

167 

uniformity of the results is striking (Seigel 

2004). 

Florida Pine Snake — The Florida pine 

snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) is a 

large, tan or rusty-colored snake with an 

indistinct pattern of large blotches on a 

lighter background. Within the national 

seashore, these snakes may be found in 

relatively open canopies and dry sandy areas 

where they burrow. They are found in sand 

pine scrub and scrubby flatwoods areas, 

often in the same habitats as pocket gophers 

and gopher tortoises. They are a state-listed 

species of special concern with habitat in the 

national seashore, though no records exist 

since 1977. 

Snowy Egret — Snowy egrets (Egretta thula) 

nest in the mangrove, willow, buttonwood, 

wax myrtle, and similar woody scrub habitats 

associated with the aquatic areas of the 

national seashore. The species is a species of 

special concern in Florida because it has 

declined in population since the 1930s. As 

with all wading birds, the number of nesting 

snowy egrets in Florida depends on the 

remaining acreage of productive wetlands. 

For declines in this and other wading bird 

species to be halted, critical wetlands 

ecosystems, which are important as nesting 

and feeding areas, must be preserved. 

Tricolored Heron — The tricolored heron 

(Egretta tricolor) is about 22 inches (56 

centimeters) in length and has a wingspan of 

about 3 feet (0.9 meters). It has blue feathers 

on most of its body, except for a white chest 

and belly and a rust-colored neck. Tricolored 

herons breed on the Gulf coast, and on the 

Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. They 

feed mostly on fish, but they also will eat 

amphibians, insects, and crustaceans. In the 

national seashore, they are seen in marshes, 

swamps, mud flats, and coastal ponds. 

Tricolored herons are listed as a state species 

of special concern. 

White Ibis — The white ibis (Eudocimus 

albus), a state-listed species of special 

concern, is a bird of the coastal plains. It nests 

on islands, marshes, and mangrove stands, 

and feeds on the adjacent shallow mud flats. 

Successful nesting depends on there being 

adequate nearby feeding areas. 

Florida Sandhill Crane — Florida sandhill 

cranes (Grus canadensis pratensis) prefer wet 

prairies, marshy river edges, and sparsely 

vegetated wetlands. They avoid forests and 

areas of heavy human habitation. The state 

lists the Florida sandhill crane as threatened 

because the species has a very low reproductive potential. This renders the species 

incapable of responding quickly to changes in 

environmental conditions. 

American Oystercatcher — Although listed 

as a state species of special concern, the 

American oystercatcher (Haematopus 

palliatus) has an extensive range. It spends 

the winter along the coast from Maryland to 

the Gulf of Mexico, and is abundant on the 

shores of Florida. At the approach of spring, 

it moves toward the middle states and North 

Carolina to breed. In winter, these birds 

assemble in parties of 25 or 30 individuals, 

but for most of the year they are typically 

found in one to four pairs with their families. 

Offspring appear to remain with the parent 

birds until the spring following hatching. 

American oystercatchers are never found 

inland, not even along large rivers. In the 

national seashore, they remain on the sandy 

beaches and saltwater marshes. 

Black Skimmer — Black skimmers 

(Rynchops niger) are about the size of a crow. 

They are black on top and white on the 

bottom, with a distinctive orange and black 

bill. Males are larger than females. Black 

skimmers breed in Maryland from April 

through November, preferring to nest in 

colonies on coastal beaches and dredge spoil 

islands. They spend the winter along the 

southeastern coast from South Carolina to 

Florida, and they are listed as a state species 

of special concern. 

Glossy Ibis — The glossy ibis (Plegadis 

falcinellus) lives in fresh, brackish, and 

saltwater wetland areas. Even though the 

glossy ibis has expanded its breeding range in 

recent years, the overall number of this 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

168 

species appears to be declining. Because of 

this fact, and the species’ dependence on 

interior wetlands, the state has listed it as a 

species of special concern. 

State of Florida Listed Plant Species. The 

state Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services lists 24 species of plants 

occurring in Canaveral National Seashore 

area as threatened, endangered, or 

commercially exploited (see table 9). 

Sand Dune Spurge — Sand dune spurge 

(Chamaesyce cumulicola) grows across the 

ground with long, smooth, stringlike, flexible 

stems. It is endemic to the coastal dune areas 

of southeastern Florida and listed as 

endangered by the state because so much of 

this habitat has been lost. 

East Coast Lantana — The floridana variety 

of the East Coast lantana (Lantana depressa 

var. floridana) is a small shrub with groundhugging stems. It is seen in dry pineland and 

coastal strand areas of Canaveral. 

Pine Pinweed — Similar to nodding 

pinweed, pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata)

grows in the dry, sandy soil areas of the 

national seashore. 

Hand Fern — The hand fern (Ophioglossum 

palmatum = Cheiroglossa palmata) is a 

tropical fern found almost exclusively in the 

detritus-filled base or “boot” of cabbage 

palms in low, moist, and heavily shaded 

hammocks. It is listed as endangered 

primarily because of lost habitat due to 

drainage projects and intensive collection. 

These plants also are very sensitive to fire, 

and because of statewide drainage projects, 

more of their natural habitat is now exposed 

to this risk. It is known from a handful of 

scattered sites at the national seashore. 

Scrub Bay — Scrub bay (Persea borbonia var. 

humilis) is also called silk bay and occurs in 

scrub habitats throughout peninsular Florida. 

The scrub bay is a shrub or small tree, 

reaching about 10 feet in height. The leaves of 

scrub bay are shiny green on top and adorned 

beneath with a dense carpet of silky, rustyred hairs, an adaptation to reduce water loss 

by maintaining high humidity at the leaf 

surface. This plant is listed because of 

commercial exploitation. 

False Coco — False coco (Pteroglossaspis 

ecristata = Eulophia ecristata) is a rare orchid 

species inhabiting open longleaf pine forests 

and grassy saw palmetto barrens such as 

those on both sides of Indian River Lagoon. 

It is rare and under pressure from 

commercial collectors and hobbyists. 

Narrow-Leaved Hoary Pea; Coastal Hoary 

Pea — Both the Tephrosia angustissima and 

variety T. a. curtissii species of hoary pea are 

critically imperiled. Endemic varieties are 

known only along coasts from Brevard to 

Palm Beach counties and inland to Hendry 

County, Florida. They live in the coastal 

scrub community that is threatened in 

Florida. 

Giant Wild Pine or Giant Air Plant —

Distribution of bromeliads in Florida is 

determined largely by the frost tolerance of 

each species. The endangered giant wild pine 

(Tillandsia utriculata) has the greatest cold 

tolerance, ranging up the Atlantic coast to 

Virginia. Giant wild pine was added to the 

state list as endangered because it is under 

attack by weevils, but the other, similar 

bromeliad species were already listed because 

of pressures from land development and 

collectors. 

Coastal Vervain — Coastal vervain 

(Glandularia maritima) is a small creeping 

plant that is endemic to southern Florida 

coastal dunes and pinelands. It is listed 

because so much of its native habitat has been 

destroyed by coastal development. 

Celestial Lily — Endemic to Florida, celestial 

lily (Nemastylis floridana) is a beautiful blueviolet flower that was recently found in a wet 

hammock on the mainland side of the 

national seashore. It blooms in the afternoon 

during July and August. 
Natural Resources 

169 

Soundscapes and Noise 

In accordance with NPS Management Policies

2006 and “Director’s Order 47, Sound 

Preservation and Noise Management,” the 

National Park Service strives to preserve 

natural soundscapes associated with national 

park system units. By definition, noise is 

human-caused sound that is considered to be 

unpleasant and unwanted. Whether a sound 

is considered unpleasant depends on the 

individual listening to the sound and the 

activity being performed by the individual 

when the sound is heard (e.g., working, 

playing, resting, and sleeping). While 

performing certain tasks, people expect and 

therefore accept certain sounds. For instance, 

if a person works in an office, sounds from 

printers, copiers, and typewriters are 

generally acceptable and not considered 

unpleasant or unwanted. By comparison, 

when resting or relaxing, these sounds are 

not desirable. Sounds that people prefer 

during these times are referred to as natural 

quiet, a term used to refer to ambient 

(outdoor) natural sounds without intrusion 

of human-caused sounds. Natural quiet can 

be essential for some individuals to achieve a 

feeling of peace and solitude. Natural sounds 

(surf on the beach, the calls of gulls and 

shorebirds, and wind through dune 

vegetation) are not considered to be noise. 

Generally, the federal government establishes 

standards for transportation-related noise 

sources that are closely linked to interstate 

commerce such as aircraft, locomotives, and 

trucks. For those sources, states cannot 

establish more stringent standards. State 

governments establish noise standards for 

automobiles, light trucks, and motorcycles. 

Noise sources associated with industrial, 

commercial, and construction activities are 

generally subject to local control through 

noise-related plans and policies. 

Noise is measured with instruments that 

record instantaneous sound levels in 

decibels. A-weighted sound level measurement is used to characterize sound frequencies that can be sensed by the human ear. 

Most people are exposed to sound levels of 

50 to 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or higher 

on a daily basis. Noise levels in residential 

areas vary depending on the housing density 

and proximity to parks and open space, 

major traffic areas, or airports. As shown on 

table 13, a normal suburban area is about 55 

dBA, which increases to 60 dBA for an urban 

residential area and to 80 dBA in the 

downtown section of a city. 

TABLE 13. TYPICAL OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS 

Day-Night 

Average Aweighted 

Sound Level 

(dBA) 

Location 

50 

residential area in a small 

town or quiet suburban 

area 

55 suburban residential area 

60 urban residential area 

65 noisy urban residential area 

70 very noisy urban residential 

area 

80 city noise (downtown of 

major metropolitan area) 

88 3rd floor apartment in a 

major city next to a freeway 

SOURCE: FHWA 1980 

Studies specifically conducted to determine 

noise impacts on various human activities 

show that about 90% of the population is not 

significantly bothered by outdoor sound 

levels below 65 dBA (USEPA 1974). 

Existing sources of dominant noise at the 

national seashore have two origins. External 

sources include aircraft overflights and periodic launching of space vehicles from the 

neighboring NASA facility. Internal noise 

sources include motor vehicles on roads 

within the national seashore, maintenance 

equipment (e.g., mowers), visitors in heavily 

used areas, and motor boats in Mosquito 

Lagoon. 

Space shuttle launch operations, which have 

ended, were the loudest source of noise in the 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170 

national seashore area. In 2007, only three 

shuttle launches occurred, along with four 

rocket launches (NASA 2008c). These 

operations, while noisy, are generally wellpublished before they occur, and can be seen 

as both a reason to avoid or visit the 

Canaveral National Seashore depending on 

the person asked. Launch operations, when 

occurring, add to the ambient noise. Portions 

of the national seashore that are owned by 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration are closed to public access 

during operations, limiting the impact on 

visitors during these times (NPS 2008c). 

There are about 66 aircraft operations per 

week at the NASA landing facility (AirNav 

2008). Ninety percent of these operations are 

completed by general aviation aircraft, 6% 

from military aircraft (including shuttle 

landings), and 4% include air taxi operations. 

Aircraft using this airfield impact the ambient 

noise in the national seashore area. However, 

flights are sporadic and mainly from quieter 

general aviation aircraft. 

Canaveral National Seashore has attracted 

more than one million visitors per year since 

2000 (NPS 2008b). The north entrance to the 

seashore is near Apollo Beach, and the 

southern access point is near Playalinda 

Beach. The highest noise levels from visitors 

and vehicles likely occur in these areas of the 

national seashore. 

In the national seashore there are several boat 

launches with access to Mosquito Lagoon 

and the Indian River (NPS 2008b). Several 

areas of Mosquito Lagoon are restricted to 

polling and troll of motorized boats, which 

limit their impact on the ambient noise in 

these areas. Personal watercraft use (e.g., jet 

skis) is not allowed in Canaveral National 

Seashore, in part because of the noise 

impacts. 

The ambient noise around the perimeter and 

in the more populated areas of Canaveral 

National Seashore is likely to be similar to a 

suburban or urban residential area, which is 

about 55dBA to 60 dBA (see table 13). In the 

interior areas of the national seashore, the 

ambient noise environment is likely to be 

around 50 dBA. 

Air Quality 

In accordance with federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements, the air quality in a given 

region or area is measured by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. 

The air quality in a region is also influenced 

by surface topography, the size of the 

topological “air basin,” and the prevailing 

meteorological conditions. 

Under the act, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency developed numerical 

concentration-based standards, or national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for 

pollutants that have been determined to 

affect human health and the environment. 

These standards are currently established for 

six criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate 

matter (PM), and lead (Pb). If an area’s air 

quality is better than the standards, it is 

considered “in attainment.” Brevard and 

Volusia counties are in attainment for all 

criteria pollutants (USEPA 2008a). 

In August 1977 Congress passed legislation 

specifically making air quality management of 

national parks part of a national effort, 

thereby affecting activities outside as well as 

inside national seashore boundaries. 

Canaveral National Seashore is classified as a 

class II airshed. Class II airsheds are those 

that are currently in attainment of the 

national standards. Canaveral National 

Seashore is in the Central Florida Intrastate 

Air Quality Control Region. 

The air pollutants of most concern for the 

Canaveral National Seashore are ozone, 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, wet 

deposition, and dry deposition, which are 

linked to effects on national seashore 

resources. These pollutants, their sources, 

their effects, and recent monitoring data for 

the national seashore area are described 

below. 
Natural Resources 

171 

Ozone (O3). Ozone has been shown to be the 

principal component of smog, which affects 

visibility in our national parks. The federal 

NAAQS thresholds for ozone are 120 parts 

per billion (ppb) (1-hour) and 80 ppb (8-

hour). Brevard and Volusia counties each 

have two ozone monitoring sites. Brevard 

County data for 2007, from the AIRS 

(Aerometirc Information Retrieval System) 

database for monitoring stations AIRS C009-

0007 and AIRS C009-0011, indicated 

maximal ozone readings below the 120 ppb 

1-hour ambient standard and only one 

maximum ozone reading slightly above the 80 

ppb 8-hour ambient standard. Volusia 

County data for 2007 from monitoring 

stations AIRS C127-2001 and AIRS 

C127-5002 indicated maximal ozone readings 

below both the 1-hour and 8-hour ambient 

standards (USEPA 2008b). 

Carbon Monoxide (CO). Because of its 

unstable nature, carbon monoxide is usually a 

localized air pollution problem. In nature, 

carbon monoxide is released from combustion of plant material during forest fires. On a 

much larger scale, carbon monoxide is 

produced by incomplete combustion of the 

carbon in fuels used in vehicles, coal and oil 

furnaces, and smelters and steel production. 

Carbon monoxide is toxic to all animals (and 

humans), starving the body of needed 

oxygen. 

There are no carbon monoxide monitoring 

stations in the national seashore. The closest 

carbon monoxide monitoring station in the 

EPA air quality monitoring network is in 

neighboring Orange County. Orange County 

data for 2008 indicated CO 1-hour and 8-

hour maximum concentrations of 1.1 parts 

per million (ppm) and 1.0 ppm, respectively, 

compared to the 35 ppm 1-hour ambient 

standard and the 9 ppm 8-hour ambient air 

quality standard (USEPA 2009a). There have 

been no recorded exceedances of the carbon 

monoxide ambient standards for the entire 

state since 1986 (FDEP 2009a). 

Particulate Matter. The federal NAAQS 

thresholds for PM2.5 (respirable particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in size, PM2.5) 

are 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) 

(annual average) and 65 μg /m3

 (24-hour). 

Brevard County has two particulate matter 

monitoring stations and Volusia County has 

one particulate matter monitoring station 

(FDEP 2008c). Brevard County data for 2007 

(from the AIRS database for monitoring 

stations AIRS C009-0007 and AIRS C009-

0011) indicated PM2.5 values between 12.2 

μg/m3 and 66.1 μg/m3. Volusia County data 

for 2007 (from monitoring station AIRS 

C127-5002) indicated maximal 24-hour PM2.5

readings well below the standards (USEPA 

2008b). 

Wet Deposition. Wet deposition fluctuates 

with the amount of annual on-site precipitation, and is useful because it gives an 

indication of the total annual pollutant 

loading at the site. Concentration is 

independent of precipitation amount; 

therefore, it provides a better indication of 

whether ambient pollutant levels are 

increasing or decreasing over the years. 

The National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program/National Trends Network 

(NADP/NTN) is a nationwide network of 

precipitation monitoring sites. The purpose 

of the network is to collect data on the 

chemistry of precipitation to monitor 

geographical and temporal long-term trends. 

The precipitation at each station is collected 

weekly and analyzed for hydrogen (acidity as 

pH), sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, 

and base cations (such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium). The NADP/ 

NTN site at Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

(site FL99) has been operating since 1983. 

Site data show an increase in concentration 

and deposition of wet nitrate and wet 

ammonium, but no overall trends in 

concentration and deposition of wet sulfate. 

Dry Deposition. The Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network (CASTNet) is considered 

the nation’s primary source for atmospheric 

data to estimate dry acidic deposition. Each 

CASTNet dry deposition station measures 

weekly average atmospheric concentrations 

of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, 

and nitric acid; hourly concentrations of 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

172 

ambient ozone; and meteorological 

conditions required for calculating dry 

deposition rates. Dry deposition rates are 

calculated using atmospheric concentrations, 

meteorological data, and information on land 

use, vegetation, and surface conditions. None 

of the southeast coast network parks has a 

CASTNet monitor on site. Nine of the parks 

have a monitor within 120 miles that can or 

will eventually provide representative data. 

The most recent data available from the 

CASTNet monitor in Indian River County, 

Florida (site IRL141) show a decrease in total 

nitrogen and total sulfur from 2005 to 2006 

(USEPA 2009b). 
173 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Regional Prehistorical Chronology 

Humans have inhabited Florida for at least 

14,000 years, attracted by the area’s fertile 

estuaries and temperate climate. However, the 

first major occupation of the St. Johns River 

Valley and surrounding coastal lagoons 

occurred during the Middle Archaic period 

(5000 BC–4000 BC) as evidenced by the 

accumulation of large shell middens along the 

river and lagoons of east-central Florida. 

Middle Archaic sites are denoted by largestemmed projectile points, especially the 

Newman type. In addition, silicified coral was 

more prevalent than stone as a tool material, 

and thermal alteration of the stone became 

more common. 

The Middle and Late Archaic periods 

(4000 BC–2000 BC) are subsumed under the 

pre-ceramic Mount Taylor period (5000 BC–

2000 BC) in the east-central Florida area. The 

latter portion of the Late Archaic has been 

termed the Orange period (1000 BC–500 BC) 

based on the production of orange or vegetable 

fiber-tempered ceramics, including the use of 

saw palmetto and Spanish moss fibers. The 

Orange period is generally recognized as the 

period when coastal shellfish exploitation 

became predominant and the first levels of the 

great coastal shell mounds were laid down. 

Research conducted in northeast Florida 

strongly suggests that late Archaic peoples 

were living year-round along the coast, using 

the resources of the coastal marshes and the 

nearby hardwood forests as the basis for their 

hunting-fishing-gathering lifestyle. The earliest 

site yet identified in Canaveral National 

Seashore—the Max Hoeck midden—dates to 

the Late Archaic period. 

The Orange period evolved into the St. Johns 

Tradition. The subsistence economy appears 

to have remained consistent, although there 

was a change in the ceramic technology as sand 

began to be used as a tempering agent and the 

use of fibers was decreased. A temperless or 

chalky ware, known as the St. Johns series, 

made its appearance at this time. Freshwater 

sponge spicules in the clay give the ware a 

chalky feel. In the Canaveral area, this period 

was marked by the appearance of St. Johns 

Plain ceramics during the St. Johns I period, 

and check-stamping—incised ceramics—

became the dominant decoration during the St. 

Johns II period. 

The St. Johns archeological tradition began 

around 500 BC and continued until 

approximately AD 1565 when European 

intrusion significantly altered aboriginal 

lifestyles. Archeological studies suggest that the 

construction of burial mounds, increased 

sedentism, horticultural activities, and the 

presence of a more stable environment 

distinguishes the St. Johns Tradition from the 

preceding Late Archaic period. The huntinggathering-fishing lifestyle that characterized 

the Archaic continued to be sufficient to 

support the St. Johns peoples. 

The St. Johns cultural tradition is divided into 

six temporal periods based on ceramic styles 

and other characteristics. The periods are as 

follows: 

 

St. Johns I (500 BC–AD 100) 

St. Johns Ia (100–500) 

St. Johns Ib (500–750) 

St. Johns IIa (750–1050) 

St. Johns IIb (1050–1513) 

St. Johns IIc (1513–1565) 

Sites associated with the St. Johns culture are 

distributed throughout the St. Johns River 

Valley and surrounding coastal lagoons. 

Oysters became the dominant shellfish used 

for food during the St. Johns period, and they 

comprise from 60% to 90% of the bulk of shell 

heaps in coastal middens. Prominent examples 

of St. Johns shell middens in the national 

seashore include Turtle Mound and Castle 

Windy, and Snyder’s Mound is one of the few 

remaining St. Johns I sites in the region. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

174 

Smaller sites, generally associated with 

resource procurement, tend to be in the 

western uplands; the pine woods between the 

river and coast; and in and near bottomland 

marshes, swamps, and cypress domes. Larger, 

more permanent sites are along the coast and 

the river. These are evidenced by large shell 

midden deposits and occasionally burial 

mounds and truncated pyramidal ceremonial 

mounds. The clustering of midden deposits is 

often considered to be representative of village 

sites, although they may represent multiple 

visits to the area over several 

hundred/thousand years. 

Prehistorical Settlement and Subsistence 

Archeological research conducted on the east 

coast of Florida suggests that the aboriginal 

populations maintained long-term residential 

base camps from which task-specific forays 

were made (as opposed to moving the 

household from place to place). 

Residential camps or household sites are 

characterized by many artifact types and 

subsistence resource remains. The materials 

reflected diverse production and consumption 

activities, and the sites were located so that 

access to critical resources was maximized — 

along the shores on the lagoons and marshy 

embayments. The intermittently occupied 

sites, such as field camps, were near a 

concentrated resource location including 

“good fishing holes” or shellfish beds. These 

sites had a more specialized toolkit and a 

narrower range of subsistence items. 

Ethnographic studies suggest that in marshy 

areas, the higher lands tended to be occupied 

repeatedly, resulting in these areas becoming 

even higher with the periodic deposition of 

debris. Shell midden deposits, along the shores 

of lagoons and other waterways, are of two 

basic types in the national seashore—large, 

high concentrated shell heaps, such as Turtle 

Mound or Seminole Rest, and linear shell 

ridges, such as Ross Hammock in the national 

seashore, and the nearby sites of Futch Cove 

and Edgewater Landing outside the national 

seashore. The large shell heaps along the shore 

appear as if they grew up and toward the water. 

These sites, and even their previous locations if 

destroyed, can easily be identified by the 

extension of the shore line into the lagoon. It is 

suggested that archeological deposits with this 

topographic signature may represent areas of 

special or long-term use. The determination of 

use depends on the types of artifacts and 

subsistence remains recovered. Coastal sites 

formed by transient bands may appear similar 

to sites occupied by sedentary people who 

seasonally gathered shellfish. However, the 

differences in their subsistence strategies 

should be apparent when all aspects of the 

settlement system are examined and 

compared. 

Regional Historical Chronology 

European Contact in 1513 to Late 18th 

Century. At the time of European contact, 

peninsular Florida was dominated by two main 

groups of Indians—the Timucuan, a linguistic 

group occupying north and central Florida and 

southeastern Georgia who inhabited the 

northern part of the present-day national 

seashore, and the Ais, a small tribal group living 

along the Atlantic coastal lagoons and inlets to 

the south. There is some question as to the 

dividing line between the two groups in the 

vicinity of the national seashore; some 

investigators believe that it was near the Haulover Canal. Timucuan culture was based on 

agriculture, while the Ais adhered primarily to 

a hunting, fishing, and gathering subsistence 

economy that relied almost entirely on the sea, 

lagoons, and rivers. Linguistically, the 

Timucuan language formed a separate unit, 

while the Ais spoke dialects more closely 

related to those of the Muskhogean tribes. 

There were various tribal divisions within 

these two groups—in the northern Canaveral 

area were the Surruque, a group described as 

being the southernmost tribe of the Timucuan 

nation and sharing its same linguistic and 

political cultural affiliations. At the time of 

European contact, the Surruque populated the 

area of Ross Hammock south to beyond the 

Haulover Canal, and the Ulumay of the Ais 

inhabited the Canaveral area from near 
Cultural Resources 

175 

Haulover, at the headwaters of the Indian 

River, southward to present-day Fort Pierce 

and the St. Lucie River and inland for some 20 

miles. Positioned immediately between the 

Timucuan nation to the north, and the Ais to 

the south, the Surruque subsisted on the sea 

much like the Ais (with supplementary agricultural production), established large villages, 

and lived in relative peace with their neighbors. 

During Spanish times the Ais occupied 

virtually all of the land along the Indian River. 

So strong was their identification with the river 

that it was known as the Rio de Ais until the 

United States took possession of Florida in the 

early 19th century. The head chief of the Ais 

lived on the river, probably near the former 

Indian River inlet, and outlying areas were 

ruled by lesser chiefs who were at least 

nominally subject to the head chief. 

The lands of the Timucuans and the Ais were 

the first land sighted by the armed three-vessel 

Spanish expedition of Juan Ponce de Leon 

during early April 1513. Ponce de Leon made 

two landings, the first of which was somewhere 

between present-day St. Augustine and the St. 

Johns River, and the second at an undetermined location in the general vicinity of the 

present-day national seashore. The latter 

location may have been at present-day Ponce 

de Leon Inlet, south of Daytona Beach. At this 

second landing, the first recorded European 

contact with the natives of Florida occurred, 

although it is widely believed that other 

Spaniards had previously come ashore as 

survivors of shipwrecks. 

Following their initial contact with the native 

population in the Canaveral area, the Spanish 

concentrated their exploratory efforts along 

the west coast of Florida. However, there were 

occasional contacts with the Indians in the 

region as a result of efforts to rescue shipwrecked sailors from the treasure ships that 

sailed from Mexico and Peru through the 

Straits of Florida on their way to Spain. 

Jean Ribault reached the upper east coast of 

Florida in 1562 with 150 French Huguenot 

(Protestant) colonists and claimed the territory 

for France as a political asylum for his 

persecuted co-religionists. Ribault established 

his settlement—Charlesfort—at present-day 

Port Royal, South Carolina. When Ribault 

returned to Europe, the colony at Charlesfort 

failed and was abandoned. In April 1564 Rene 

Goulaine de Laudonniere, who had accompanied Ribault, was sent back to Florida with 

another company of 300 Huguenots. They 

settled near the mouth of the St. Johns River, 

constructing the fort of La Caroline which is 

today commemorated by Fort Caroline 

National Memorial in Jacksonville. 

Upon hearing of the French fort, King Philip II 

of Spain sent Pedro Menendez de Aviles to 

destroy the French fortification and establish a 

Spanish colony in its place. Menendez’s fleet 

arrived within days of Ribault and attacked the 

French fleet, but the French escaped. 

The Spanish moved to the south and took steps 

to establish a settlement near the site of 

present-day Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument that would eventually become the 

city of St. Augustine. Ribault intended to attack 

the Spanish, but a hurricane swept Ribault’s 

fleet southward along the Florida coast; the 

fleet wrecked somewhere north of Cape 

Canaveral. 

The remains of one or more ships from 

Ribault’s ill-fated fleet may lie just offshore of 

the national seashore, and one site in the 

national seashore may relate to the French 

shipwreck survivors’ camp. Archeological 

remains appear to indicate an extended 

occupation by a small European group living 

among the native population, thus reflecting 

the establishment of intercultural relations. 

In 1605 the Spanish governor of Florida, Pedro 

de Ybarra, initiated a period of friendship with 

the Ais by dispatching Alvaro Mexia to visit the 

Surruque and Ais. Ybarra forged an agreement 

with the Indians to limit their attacks to Dutch, 

French, and English intruders and report the 

presence of Spanish shipwreck survivors to the 

authorities at St. Augustine. Several European 

shipwrecks that are associated with this period 

are believed to lie in the national seashore’s 

boundaries. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

176 

French encroachments from the west and 

English pressure from the north limited the 

growth of Spanish Florida. The contest with 

the English led to the destruction of the 

Spanish missions, frontier warfare in the 

disputed land between Florida and Georgia, 

and the eventual cession of Florida to Great 

Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 

1763. 

Before the Treaty of Paris, British planters 

north of Florida lost many slaves who slipped 

across the border into Spanish territory to live 

among the Indians. As a result, slave-hunting 

expeditions were organized, and the raiders 

enslaved or killed many of the Florida Indians. 

The Spanish took the few surviving Indians, 

who had numbered an estimated 40,000 at the 

time of European contact, to Cuba when 

Florida was turned over to Great Britain in 

1763. 

During the late 18th century bands of 

displaced Creek, Yamasee, and Miccosukee 

Indians filtered into Florida from Georgia and 

Alabama because of conflicts with European 

settlers and other tribes. These bands would 

ultimately become known as the Seminole. 

In 1766–1767 William Bartram, America’s first 

native-born naturalist/artist, visited the 

Canaveral and Mosquito Lagoon area. Bartram 

portrayed nature through personal experience 

as well as scientific observation, and described 

the region in his Travels published in 1791. 

The Treaty of 1763 established British colonial 

government in Florida and divided the region 

at the Apalachicola River into East Florida and 

West Florida. Under British land policy, land 

grants were issued to British citizens capable of 

establishing viable enterprises in the newly 

acquired lands. Among the first land speculators to take advantage of this policy was Dr. 

Andrew Turnbull, a wealthy Scottish physician 

who, with the financial backing and influence 

of his partners, established a settlement on 

more than 40,000 acres in 1767 in newly 

christened New Smyrna. More than 1,400 

Greeks, Spaniards, Sicilians, Minorcans, and 

Italians helped found the settlement. The 

Turnbulls intended to use these Mediterranean 

peoples, who were acclimated to the semitropical Florida weather, to grow a variety of 

cash crops for export back to England. The 

colony never became profitable, and many 

settlers died, primarily as a result of yellow 

fever and malaria. By 1777, the colony was 

abandoned, its surviving members migrating to 

St. Augustine and the surrounding area. The 

English also established a settlement at St. 

Lucia, which became a major trading post and 

eventually evolved into the city of Fort Pierce. 

The site of Elliot Plantation provides a prime 

example of early colonial life in Florida. The 

plantation is partly in the national seashore and 

partly in Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. The site is the southernmost and 

earliest British Colonial period sugar 

plantation in North America. Dating to the 

1760s, it is unusually well preserved and 

contains rare remnants of two period slave 

villages, as well as the features of a sugar 

factory or sugar works. Some of the features of 

the villages include the remains of a 

blacksmith’s shop, the overseer’s house, a 

possible well, and a possible chicken house. 

Further testing has been recommended for 

these sites. 

Both East Florida and West Florida remained 

loyal to the British Crown during the American 

War for Independence. During this war, East 

Florida was the objective of several attacks by 

American forces. Under the terms of the Paris 

Peace Treaty in 1783 that formally ended the 

war, both East Florida and West Florida were 

returned to Spain in exchange for the Bahamas. 

Some 10,000 British colonists left Florida, and 

the Spanish Crown began issuing land grants in 

the New Smyrna-Canaveral area to encourage 

Spanish settlements. 

U.S. Territory and State. West Florida was 

claimed by the United States as part of the 

Louisiana Purchase in 1803. An increase in 

American pressure and continued lack of 

interest by Spain led to a rapid decline in 

Spanish control of East Florida after 1814. 

Pirates, thieves, renegade sailors, and runaway 

slaves all used Florida as a haven from pursuit. 

Spain ceded title of West Florida and East 

Florida to the United States in July 1821 under 
Cultural Resources 

177 

the terms of the Adams-Onis Treaty. That same 

year the U.S. Territory of Florida was 

established. The first decade of American rule 

brought economic growth to the territory as 

numerous plantations were developed for the 

production of cotton, oranges, lumber, sugar 

cane, tobacco, corn, and rice. 

Soon after the War of 1812, Captain Adolphus 

and Elonza Swift of Falmouth, Massachusetts, 

settled in “Live Oak Hill” in east central Florida 

and started the live oak and cedar timber trade 

to capitalize on government contracts for 

shipbuilding materials. Live oak was shaped on 

Shipyard Island, one of the hammock-covered 

islands in Mosquito Lagoon just across from 

Turtle Mound, before being shipped north. 

As white settlement pressures increased in 

Florida, government efforts were undertaken 

to deal with the Indians. By the terms of the 

1832 Treaty of Payne’s Landing, some of the 

Seminole agreed to move to new lands or 

reservations west of the Mississippi River. The 

main body of the Seminole rejected this plan, 

however, choosing instead to battle the U.S. 

Army. 

Opposition to this plan by the Seminoles 

resulted in heightened tensions until Indian 

raids on white settlers and the “Dade 

Massacre” initiated open hostilities in 1835. 

Economic development was halted abruptly 

because the sugar mill at New Smyrna, along 

with other plantations in the area, were 

destroyed and burned by Osceola, 

Coacoochee, and their followers. 

Douglas Dummett (or Dummitt in other 

sources), son of a British officer who had 

emigrated to Florida and settled near New 

Smyrna, was commissioned captain of 

Company B, Florida Militia when hostilities 

with the Seminoles broke out. His “Mosquito 

Roarers” militia operated in the Canaveral area, 

attempting to protect local plantations and 

homesteads. 

During the winter campaign of 1837–38, in 

what came to be known as the Second 

Seminole War, U.S. military forces mounted a 

multipronged advance designed to drive the 

Seminole southward into the rugged and 

swampy peninsula. Gen. Joseph M. Hernandez 

assembled his troops and proceeded down to 

the “haulover” between Mosquito Lagoon and 

the Indian River where canoes and other 

shallow draft vessels were portaged. After 

camping for nearly a month at the “haulover,”

and building an earthen fort (Fort Ann) in the 

present-day Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, the main force (all but one company) 

proceeded south. The fort’s purpose was to 

forward supplies of provisions, forage, and 

materials required by the U.S. Army on the 

mainland to the west. Having seen no action, 

the post was abandoned during spring 1838. 

Despite the efforts of the military, conditions 

remained unsettled in the area, causing white 

residents to abandon their plantations and 

farms and flee to St. Augustine during the late 

1830s. An outbreak of citrus scale further 

devastated citrus cultivation in the area. 

As armed conflict with the Seminoles slowly 

dwindled to a stalemate during the early 1840s, 

with remaining holdouts of the tribe hidden 

but considered harmless in the vast Everglades 

to the south, the U.S. Army and Florida militia 

established supply posts and routes throughout 

the area. With the decline of hostilities, 

adventuring pioneers slowly began to 

reestablish new lives and homes on the Indian 

River frontier. 

Congress enacted legislation in August 1842 to 

encourage settlement and development of the 

Florida peninsula south of Palatka. The 

legislation, known as the Armed Occupation 

Act, granted 160-acre homestead tracts to 

families who would settle south of the line 

dividing Townships 9 and 10. The act 

produced the first concentrated development 

of the Indian River region with more than 20 

families settling there. 

Douglas Dummett, former leader of the 

“Mosquito Roarers,” took advantage of the 

Armed Occupation Act and settled on the 

lands near the site of Fort Ann on March 16, 

1843. The location of his citrus groves 

(between an arm of the Indian River now 

known as Dummett Creek on the west and 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

178 

Mosquito Lagoon on the east) was probably 

the critical factor in protecting his citrus trees 

from freezes. He increased the size of his grove 

over the years, and by 1859 his total annual 

crop production was estimated at 60,000 

oranges. By 1867 the Dummett grove was 

reportedly the largest in the state, and the 

Dummett homestead (on the west side of State 

Route 3) included a main house (remnants of 

house foundations and chimney remain 

extant), boathouse, storehouse, and kitchen. 

This grove is credited as beginning the wellknown Indian River citrus fruit industry. 

Dummett was a pioneer of the Indian River 

citrus industry. After his death in 1873, the 

Indian River area developed into one of the 

world’s choicest citrus belts and produced 

probably the best known oranges in the United 

States. 

To expedite the transportation of cargo along 

the inland waterway, the federal government 

spent some $5,000 in 1854 for the construction 

of the Old Haulover Canal (just south of the 

former site of Fort Ann), linking Mosquito 

Lagoon on the east with the Indian River on 

the west on the narrowest part of Merritt 

Island. The possibility of constructing a canal 

at this point was investigated, and in 1854 

federal funds were appropriated for 

constructing the canal. A contract was let to 

Dr. George E. Hawkes, a local citrus grower. 

Hawkes’ used his African American slaves to 

dig the canal. Completed several years after the 

close of the Civil War, the waterway was used 

for shallow draft vessels. It was one of the first 

major man-made improvements to the inland 

waterway system that had served Florida 

travelers since prehistoric times. 

Florida seceded from the Union on January 10, 

1861, and subsequently joined the 

Confederacy. Most major military activities 

bypassed the Canaveral area. 

The principal economic activities in the region 

during the Civil War were salt-making and 

contraband trading. What has been speculated 

to be the remains of a Confederate salt-making 

works, once consisting of huge iron vats in 

which salt water was evaporated, can be seen in 

the national seashore. Recent evidence 

suggests the structure may be much older and 

related to the Elliott plantation. New Smyrna 

and the Indian River, particularly the Sand 

Point area, became a haven for Confederate 

blockade runners as numerous small vessels 

ran the Union blockade to Nassau and Cuba 

carrying cotton to be exchanged for arms, 

quinine, needles, coffee, piece cloth, and other 

supplies for Southern military forces. 

Following Reconstruction, a resurgent 

Democratic Party ushered in an era of 

“Bourbon democracy” in Florida, dedicated to 

commercialization and industrialization, as 

well as improvement of state transportation 

networks and agricultural lands. Steamboat 

traffic began to increase in the Indian River 

Lagoon region because of the Intercoastal 

Waterway construction. The establishment of a 

waterway transportation route became the 

most important factor promoting development 

of communities along the Indian River Lagoon, 

providing a base for expanding trade in 

commercial crops and industries. The inland 

area, mostly low and swampy and more 

difficult to reach than the communities along 

the coast, was not heavily settled until drainage 

projects could create large expanses of dry 

land for citrus groves. In 1873 the name of the 

growing community of Sand Point was 

changed to Titusville in honor of Col. Henry T. 

Titus, an entrepreneur and leading developer 

of the town. 

In 1877, the community of Eldora (in the 

northern part of the national seashore) was 

established on the east side of Mosquito 

Lagoon as a docking point for shipping citrus 

crops on the Indian River and Florida Coast 

Line Canal. Eldora was one of dozens of small 

waterfront villages in east central Florida that 

began as homesteads and then grew into truck 

farms and led to the establishment of post 

offices, improved roadways, and river channels. 

As both African American and white residents 

moved to the Mosquito Lagoon region to 

support its growing economic endeavors, other 

communities were formed in the present-day 

national seashore area during the post-Civil 

War period. In 1872, Butler Campbell, a former 
Cultural Resources 

179 

slave, moved from South Carolina and 

established a homestead, which would become 

known as “Laughing Waters.” This homestead 

was several miles north of the Old Haulover 

Canal on the edge of Mosquito Lagoon near 

the site of the aboriginal village of Surruque. 

“Laughing Waters” became the nucleus of 

Haulover, an African American community 

that changed its name to Clifton in 1889. 

Another African American community—

Allenhurst—was also established south of the 

canal during the late 19th century. By the turn 

of the 20th century both Clifton and Allenhurst 

had become thriving communities. The towns’

remnant buildings were torn down by the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) during the 1960s, but 

their cemeteries remain. 

Shiloh, populated exclusively by white 

residents, was also established north of the Old 

Haulover Canal during the post-Civil War 

period. The first wooden houses in the 

northern Merritt Island area were constructed 

in this community in 1880 after a hurricane 

wrecked a Bahamas-bound schooner, loaded 

with lumber, off the coast. The wreckage 

washed ashore on the beach opposite Shiloh, 

and the area’s residents used the lumber to 

construct dwellings. 

Because the first Haulover Canal needed 

improvements, a new Haulover Canal was laid 

out north of the old waterway by the U.S. 

Coast Survey in 1875. Construction was 

completed in 1887, and it was opened for 

operation by the Florida East Coast Line Canal 

Company. 

The site commonly known as Seminole Rest, 

but traditionally known as Snyder’s Mound or 

Oak Hill, was originally settled by whites 

during the early 1870s. The area had been 

harvested for live oaks that were used to build 

ships, but this ended about 1870 with the 

advent of steel-hulled naval ship construction. 

Snyder’s Mound was divided into several lots 

during the 1870s and 1880s. One lot became 

the post office that served Oak Hill. The 

mound, consisting mainly of clam shells that 

dated from 2000 BC to AD 1565, escaped the 

fate of many other mounds along Florida’s east 

coast that were used for road construction 

materials during the late 19th and early 20th 

centuries because its owners, the Turnors and 

the Snyders, refused to sell. 

The extant main house at Seminole Rest was 

constructed sometime before 1890 and may 

have been moved from its original location 

elsewhere on the mound. The late Victorian 

style wood frame structure was enlarged from 

9 to 14 rooms plus three baths with addition of 

a third floor by Christopher Hatton Turnor 

and his wife Sarah, owners of the property 

from 1890 to 1911. In 1911 the property was 

purchased by Wesley H. Snyder, an oil 

entrepreneur from Pennsylvania who renamed 

the property Seminole Rest. The property 

remained in the Snyder family until the late 

1980s when it was sold to The Nature 

Conservancy before its conveyance to the 

National Park Service. The nearby caretaker’s 

house or cottage, a Gothic Revival wood frame 

structure that also dates to pre-1890, may have 

been the post office for Oak Hill for some 

years. 

In 1885, a House of Refuge was constructed on 

Mosquito Lagoon in the northern part of the 

present-day national seashore (Apollo Beach 

parking area 5) as part of the U.S. Life-Saving 

Service’s facilities along the Florida coast to aid 

shipwrecked sailors. This facility became a U.S. 

Coast Guard Life-Saving Station in 1915. The 

station was manned throughout World War I, 

and by World War II it had been designated a 

Life Boat Station. 

Although the “Great Freezes” of 1894–1895 

devastated the citrus groves of east central 

Florida and shattered most growers’ dreams of 

fortune, it resulted in improved techniques of 

citrus production. When its agricultural base 

was impacted by the freezes that destroyed 

both citrus and a host of blossoming plants that 

supported apiaries (bee houses), Eldora 

residents and other affected Floridians began 

to seek other opportunities and investments. 

Eldorans shifted their labors to building the 

modern community of New Smyrna and 

accommodating the growing trends of tourism 

and recreation. The town became known for 

sport hunting and fishing lodges and as a resort 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

180 

for wealthy visitors seeking refuge from cold 

northern winters. 

Development of additional transportation 

routes to the Indian River Lagoon also fostered 

the growth of commerce in the region and 

provided improved access for new residents. 

The Florida East Coast Railway extended 

service from St. Augustine south into the 

Indian River Lagoon region and ultimately to 

Palm Beach and Miami by 1896. The railroad 

constructed some of the first bridges over the 

tributary streams and rivers of the lagoon, and 

drainage patterns of the pine flatwoods and 

wetlands of the coastal ridges adjacent to the 

lagoon began to be altered. Competition 

between Flagler’s railway and the Florida Coast 

Line Canal and Transportation Company 

established a transportation network along 

coastal Florida that led to the founding of a 

number of coastal communities. 

As transportation routes expanded, so did the 

human population. After the expansion of the 

railroad and other land-based travel routes, 

such as the John Anderson Highway and the 

Dixie Highway (present-day U.S. Highway 1), 

the population of the Indian River Lagoon 

region increased from 317 in 1825 to 8,792 

persons by 1910. 

Commercial exploitation of Indian River 

Lagoon fisheries did not begin until the late 

1890s. The opening of new inlets and the 

dredging of channels during this period 

improved boat access which, along with 

improved land transportation, expanded 

market access for fishery products. 

Flood and drainage control projects and 

establishment of mosquito control districts 

after 1910, along with expansion of commercial fishing, citrus agriculture, resort tourism, 

and a variety of smaller industries, continued 

to fuel the economy and development of east 

central Florida until World War II. With 

completion of the Florida East Coast Railway 

through the region in 1896 and completion of 

the Intercoastal Waterway on the west side of 

Mosquito Lagoon during the late 1890s, the 

community of Eldora, on the east side of the 

lagoon, became isolated from the arteries of 

commerce, and it slowly became an isolated 

hamlet. Taking advantage of this transition, 

some individuals from northern states 

acquired Eldora properties as winter retreats 

and investment holdings, setting the stage for 

the 1920s effort to subdivide land on the 

Eldora peninsula and sell the lots for winter 

homes as part of the 1920s land boom in 

Florida. The Moulton-Wells house (also 

known as the Eldora State House), a wood 

frame Dutch Colonial Revival structure 

constructed during 1913–26, is significant as a 

surviving example of this “winter retreat” era 

and the early 20th-century settlement and land 

development in the Volusia County area. The 

house and acreage were purchased by 

Walter M. Wells in 1927. Until his death in 

1938 he improved the property by landscaping 

the grounds, maintaining its outbuildings, and 

cultivating a substantial garden and citrus 

grove and using his winter home for extensive 

entertainment and recreation. 

During World War II a variety of military 

installations were developed in the Canaveral 

area, including airfields, storage and training 

facilities, and troop housing, thus contributing 

to the region’s growth. Spotter towers, a gun 

emplacement, and other installations for 

observation of enemy submarine and air traffic 

along the Atlantic coast were constructed in 

the southern portion of the present-day 

national seashore as part of America’s 

homeland defenses. An observation tower (no 

longer extant) was built at the Mosquito 

Lagoon Life Boat Station to search for German 

submarines during the war. 

In the years immediately following 1945, the 

undeveloped coastal scrub of Cape Canaveral 

became the home of America’s missile testing 

program. On October 1, 1949, Cape Canaveral 

was activated as the Joint Long Range Proving 

Ground under U.S. Air Force administration, 

and the following year the proving ground was 

placed under the administration of Patrick Air 

Force Base; construction of missile launch 

complexes was begun with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers as the principal 

construction agency. 

In 1958, the National Space and Aeronautics 

Administration selected Merritt Island as a 
Cultural Resources 

181 

major testing and research center for the U.S. 

space program. Acquisition of Merritt Island 

land began in 1962 and ended with the eventual purchase of some 140,000 acres extending 

from the southern tip of Cape Canaveral to 

Oak Hill, 30 miles to the north. Because it did 

not directly use all of this land for the space 

program, the space administration invited the 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (which 

became part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1973) to assist in managing the 

nonstrategic acreage. The Merritt Island 

Wildlife Refuge was thus established in 1963 as 

an overlay of the space center (renamed the 

John F. Kennedy Space Center after the 

president’s assassination in 1963) to provide a 

sanctuary for wintering waterfowl, protect 

habitat for special status species, and serve as a 

buffer zone for NASA space activities. 

The aerospace industrial complex at Cape 

Canaveral, including Patrick Air Force Base, 

Cape Canaveral Air Station, and numerous 

other service industries that produce or service 

space technology components, resulted in 

additional development, rapid population 

growth, and prosperity for east central Florida. 

Disney World opened near Orlando in 

October 1971, boosting the region’s economy 

and attracting even more visitors to the 

Canaveral area. 

On January 3, 1975, Congress established 

(Public Law 93-626) Canaveral National 

Seashore 

to preserve and protect the outstanding 

natural, scenic, scientific, ecological, and 

historic values of certain lands, 

shoreline, and waters of the State of 

Florida, and to provide for public 

outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of 

same. 

Earlier, on December 11, 1974, the Senate 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

reported that the national seashore’s enabling 

legislation was intended 

to ensure the continuing protection of 

the natural features and to afford 

opportunities for leisure activities in an 

undeveloped uncrowded setting. 

On October 31, 1988, congressional legislation 

(Public Law 100-564) provided for the 

expansion of Canaveral National Seashore by 

authorizing acquisition of approximately 25 

acres at Seminole Rest to protect and interpret 

archeological and historic resources and 

approximately 10 acres (Stuckey’s) for the 

purpose of establishing an administrative 

headquarters and visitor center for the national 

seashore in Volusia County. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

More than 100 archeological sites dating from 

the transitional and St. Johns periods (ca. 4000 

BC to AD 1565) have been recorded in 

Canaveral National Seashore; most are 

associated with shell middens or burial 

mounds. Sites having historic archeological 

components include shipwrecks and 

shipwreck-related terrestrial sites, the Civil 

War “salt works” and Old Haulover Canal, and 

historic structures associated with the Eldora, 

Clifton, Allenhurst, and Shiloh communities; 

the House of Refuge/Coast Guard Station; and 

Seminole Rest. Various archeological surveys 

have been conducted in the Cape Canaveral 

area since the late 1870s. As early as 1877, 

J. Francis LeBaron, an engineer for the St. 

Johns and Indian River Railroad, surveyed 

mounds along both shores of Mosquito 

Lagoon. Additional archeological work in the 

present-day national seashore area was 

conducted by various researchers between 

1885 and 1963. 

The first comprehensive survey of Kennedy 

Space Center lands, which included the 

southern two-thirds of the present-day 

national seashore, was conducted by George A. 

Long, then a candidate for a M.A. degree in 

Anthropology at the University of Florida, in 

1967. The survey focused on the shoreline of 

Mosquito Lagoon and gave less attention to 

inland areas or islands. After the national 

seashore was established, the National Park 

Service conducted a limited survey of the 

national seashore lands to the north in 1976. In 

1978 John W. Griffin and James J. Miller of 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

182 

Cultural Resource Management, Inc., 

conducted a cultural resource reconnaissance 

of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 

Interagency Archeological Services, National 

Park Service, Atlanta. In 1992 and 1996, 

surveys of the area adjacent to the national 

seashore’s western boundary along State 

Highway 3 and the southwestern portion of 

the national seashore were funded by the 

National Space and Aeronautics 

Administration. 

Although most archeological sites in the 

national seashore have not been examined in 

detail, a few have received additional attention. 

Castle Windy and Ross Hammock were 

investigated during the late 1950s and early 

1960s by Ripley Bullen, Frederick W. Sleight, 

Adelaide Bullen, and William Bryant. NPS 

investigations were conducted by the NPS 

Southeast Archeological Center staff at the 

Armstrong Site (French shipwreck survivors’

camp) in 1990 and 1995 and Seminole Rest in 

1993. 

Many of the archeological sites recorded in 

1967 and 1976 were not revisited until 1991 

when national seashore staff, with the help of 

NPS Southeast Archeological Center staff, 

began to relocate sites and implement a 

national-seashore-wide archeological site 

monitoring plan. Preparation of this plan 

involved consideration of resource 

significance, condition, vulnerability, and 

known threats. 

Portions of the national seashore have been 

adequately surveyed for archeological sites; 

however, other sections have received only 

cursory survey or none at all. Thus, a thorough 

systematic archeological survey needs to be 

conducted for the entire national seashore. 

Although a magnetometer survey was 

conducted by Southeast Archeological Center 

staff on the 24 miles of Atlantic beach face in 

1994 with additional investigations in 2004, to 

search for evidence of shipwrecks, the 

underwater portions of the national seashore, 

both in the NPS-administered portion of the 

Atlantic Ocean extending 0.5 mile offshore and 

in Mosquito Lagoon, have not been 

systematically surveyed for historic and 

prehistoric sites. Although these submerged 

resources are considered property of the state 

of Florida, the National Park Service is 

responsible for their administration and 

preservation. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

An ethnographic overview and assessment for 

Canaveral National Seashore was started in 

2010. Historic resources related to ethnic 

communities in the vicinity include Clifton and 

Allenhurst, former African American enclaves 

to the north and south of the New Haulover 

Canal, respectively, that thrived on the edge of 

Mosquito Lagoon during the late 19th and 

early 20th centuries. A small frame schoolhouse building was discovered in a wooded 

area near the former community of Clifton 

after the National Space and Aeronautics 

Administration purchased the property in the 

1960s. An old trunk inside the building 

contained a few objects, personal papers, 

letters, and postcards that were associated with 

Eugenia Campbell, daughter of Butler 

Campbell, a former slave who moved from 

South Carolina and homesteaded (“Laughing 

Waters”) in the Clifton area in 1872. 

Shiloh, a white enclave north of the Haulover 

area, was also settled during the post-Civil War 

era. 

Ethnographic resources associated with 

American Indians may be identified through 

future consultations, overviews, and 

assessments. Historic and archeological 

resources associated with the Seminole Tribe 

of Florida, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, 

and the Miccosukee Tribe may in the future be 

identified as ethnographically significance. 

PREHISTORIC/HISTORIC 

STRUCTURES/BUILDINGS 

A historic resource study for Canaveral 

National Seashore was completed in 2008. 

The national seashore’s List of Classified 

Structures (LCS) is an inventory of all historic 
Cultural Resources 

183 

and prehistoric structures that have historical, 

architectural, or engineering significance in 

which the National Park Service has or plans to 

acquire any legal interest. Included are 

structures that individually meet the criteria of 

the National Register of Historic Places or are 

contributing resources of sites and districts 

that meet national register criteria. Also 

included are other structures—moved, 

reconstructed, and commemorative structures 

as well as structures achieving significance 

within the last 50 years—that are managed as 

cultural resources because of management 

decisions that have been made pursuant to the 

planning process. 

At present, the following 15 structures are 

listed in the national seashore’s List of 

Classified Structures: 

Max Hoeck Burial Mound (considered eligible 

for listing in the national register by the 

National Park Service) 

Old Haulover Canal (listed in the national 

register) 

Allenhurst Cemetery Headstones (considered 

ineligible for listing in the national register 

by the National Park Service because of lack 

of integrity but managed by national 

seashore as a cultural resource) 

Ross Hammock Burial Mound I (listed in the 

national register as contributing resource to 

the Ross Hammock Site) 

“Confederate salt works” (listed in the national 

register as contributing resource to the Ross 

Hammock Site) 

Ross Hammock Burial Mound 2 (listed in the 

national register as contributing resource to 

the Ross Hammock Site) 

Castle Windy (considered eligible for listing in 

the national register by the National Park 

Service) 

Turtle Mound (listed in the national register) 

William Bartram Trail Marker 1 (considered 

ineligible for listing in the national register 

by National Park Service because marker 

does not meet 50-year rule, but it is 

managed by national seashore as a cultural 

resource) 

William Bartram Trail Marker 2 (considered 

ineligible for listing in the national register 

by National Park Service because marker 

does not meet 50-year rule, but it is 

managed by national seashore as a cultural 

resource) 

Bill’s Hill Burial Mound (considered eligible 

for listing in the national register by 

National Park Service) 

Seminole Rest Main House (listed in the 

national register as contributing resource to 

Seminole Rest) 

Seminole Rest Caretaker’s House (listed in the 

national register as contributing resource to 

Seminole Rest) 

Moulton-Wells House—also known as the 

Eldora State House (listed in the national 

register) 

Cistern at Seminole Rest (listed in the national 

register as contributing resource to 

Seminole Rest) 

Schultz House (also known as the Leeper 

House)—in consultation with the state, was 

found ineligible for listing in the national 

register but is managed by national seashore 

as a cultural resource 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

According to the National Park Service 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline (DO28), a cultural landscape is “...a reflection of 

human adaptation and use of natural resources 

and is often expressed in a way land is 

organized and divided, patterns of settlement, 

land use, systems of circulation, and the types 

of structures that are built. The character of a 

cultural landscape is defined both by physical 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

184 

materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and 

vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values 

and traditions.” 

To date the National Park Service has 

completed a preliminary survey of cultural 

landscapes at Canaveral National Seashore. 

Four landscapes have been identified as 

cultural landscapes potentially eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places—Eldora Historic District, Haulover 

Canal, Indian River Citrus Landscape, and 

Seminole Rest. Further research is needed to 

fully document and assess these landscape 

resources. 

RESOURCE CONDITIONS 

AND THREATS 

Archeological sites in the national seashore 

have been adversely affected by human factors 

(vandalism, looting, foot and vehicular traffic, 

backcountry camping, etc.) as well as natural 

forces (animal burrowing, vegetation growth, 

weathering, erosion, fire, etc.) The digging of 

mosquito ditches and the creation of 

impoundments have damaged some sites 

located along the Mosquito Lagoon shoreline. 

Storms and high water are eroding many 

lagoon sites, feral hogs and armadillos have 

dug into middens and mounds, causing 

changes to its stratigraphy. Several of the island 

middens have been used by local residents as 

backcountry campsites. Shipwreck sites are 

extremely vulnerable to vandalism and the 

forces of nature. Despite a number of these 

impacts, which can be severe, recent 

archeological investigations have found the 

vast majority of sites to be in stable condition. 

Water levels have varied greatly over the past 

several thousand years. Some prehistoric 

archeological sites may be submerged, particularly older Archaic sites that were occupied 

when the sea level was lower than it is today. 

The proximity of the Windover site (Early 

Archaic 7000–8000 BC) in Titusville to the 

national seashore offers the possibility that 

similar burials may occur in the swampy and 

marshy environs of the national seashore. 

One of the greatest impacts on the national 

seashore’s archeological resources to date 

appears to have been the work of antiquarians 

and early avocational archeologists who 

carried out extensive explorations but left little 

in the way of data. Many of the artifact 

collections resulting from these early nonprofessional efforts were divided among repositories across the United States, further complicating the situation. Even post-World War II 

investigators have relied heavily on surface 

collections and trenching of the shell middens 

and burial mounds. These methods have often 

resulted in highly biased samples, with little 

quantification, that are related to a limited 

research problem. 

The historic structures at Seminole Rest and 

Eldora are maintained. Other prehistoric and 

historic structures and buildings in the national 

seashore have been adversely affected by wear 

and tear, weathering, pest infestations, and lack 

of maintenance and preservation treatment. 

A number of archeological sites at Canaveral 

National Seashore may be especially vulnerable to the increasing storm frequency and 

intensity and increased flooding that is 

anticipated in the future due to climate change 

(Loehman and Anderson 2009). Concentrations of shells in middens at Turtle Mound, 

Castle Windy, Snyder’s Mound, and Ross 

Hammock may be highly disturbed due to their 

exposed locations. Burial mounds and other 

marsh bottomland and western upland sites 

may be disturbed due to floods. 

Additional undiscovered sites may be 

uncovered or exposed to the elements during 

storms or floods. The historic Haulover Canal 

may likewise be disturbed due to increased 

intensity of flooding and storms. Historic 

structures such as the Eldora State House, 

Instone House, and caretaker’s cottage at 

Seminole Rest may be vulnerable to damage 

from storms; changes in the freeze/thaw cycle 

and flood stage may affect the structures and 

their foundations. 
Cultural Resources 

185 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF 

HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATIONS 

During fall 1975, the NPS Southeast Archeological Center staff undertook a cultural 

resource inventory and assessment of the 

national seashore. The resultant study, entitled 

Canaveral National Seashore: Assessment of 

Archeological and Historical Resources, (NPS 

1976), concluded that 62 cultural sites were 

“currently known to lie within the boundaries 

of Canaveral National Seashore.” Three 

prehistoric districts, four prehistoric sites, and 

three historic sites were determined “to be 

culturally and scientifically significant” and 

qualified “for nomination to the National 

Register.” These included the following: 

Prehistoric District 

Three prehistoric districts in Mosquito 

Lagoon (later combined into one North 

Mosquito Lagoon Archeological District 

that included Turtle Mound, Castle 

Windy, and 15 other sites on mangrove 

islands in North Mosquito Lagoon) 

Prehistoric Sites 

Ross Hammock Midden 

Ross Hammock Mound 

Cat Hammock 

northwest tip of Shelton Kurt Island 

Historic Sites 

Canaveral Shipwreck Site – 18th or 19th 

century shipwreck 

Old Haulover Canal 

“Confederate salt works” 

Consultations with the Florida state historic 

preservation officer and various Southeast 

Archeological Center professionals resulted in 

conclusions that the nominations for the 

North Mosquito Lagoon Archeological 

District, Cat Hammock Site, northwest tip of 

Shelton Kurt Island, and the Canaveral 

shipwreck site be held until further fieldwork 

provided needed information in support of the 

nominations. 

Subsequent research and documentation 

resulted in further NPS conclusions regarding 

the significance of the national seashore’s 

cultural resources. According to the national 

seashore’s current List of Classified Structures, 

the following properties are considered by the 

National Park Service to be locally significant 

under National Register of Historic Places 

criterion D (historic properties that have 

yielded, or are likely to yield, information 

important in prehistory or history), although 

their national register eligibility has not been 

formally evaluated. These include the 

following: 

Max Hoeck Burial Mound 

Castle Windy 

Bill’s Hill Burial Mound 

Properties Listed in, or Determined Eligible 

for Listing in, the National Register of 

Historic Places 

Turtle Mound (listed in 1970 under criterion 

D). In the northern part of national seashore, 

Turtle Mound is the largest and most prominent of the several prehistoric shell midden 

mounds along the east central section of the 

Florida coast. 

Old Haulover Canal (listed in 1978 under 

criterion A). Covering a 4.6-acre parcel, the 

Old Haulover Canal extends about one-third 

of a mile from Mosquito Lagoon on the east to 

Indian River on the west. 

Ross Hammock Site (listed in 1981 under 

criteria A and D). The 9-acre Ross Hammock 

site includes a shell midden village area dating 

to the St. Johns I and II periods, two sand 

burial mounds dating to the St. Johns I period, 

as well as the “Confederate salt works.” 

Seminole Rest (also known as Snyder’s 

Mound, Snyder’s Hill, Oak Hill, Live Oak 

Hill) (listed in 1997 under criteria A and D). 

Covering approximately 21 acres on the west 

shore of Mosquito Lagoon, Seminole Rest 

consists of one major prehistoric archeological 

site and a historic complex containing several 

structures. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

186 

The archeological site consists of a large shell 

mound (Snyder’s Mound), a small shell-capped 

mound (Fiddle Crab Mound) about 250 feet to 

the west of Snyder’s Mound, and several 

smaller associated middens (major constituent 

is quahog clam shell). 

Eldora State House (listed in 2001 under 

criterion A). The Eldora State House, a wood 

frame Dutch Colonial Revival structure 

constructed during 1913–1926, is significant as 

a surviving example of the “winter retreat” era 

of the Eldora community and of the early 20th 

century settlement and land development in 

the Volusia County area. 

Properties Nominated for Listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

Elliott Plantation. Elliot Plantation lies partly 

on the national seashore and partly on adjacent 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. The 

site is the southernmost and earliest intact 

British Colonial period sugar plantation in 

North America. Dating to the 1760s, it is 

unusually well preserved and contains rare 

remnants of two period slave villages, as well as 

the features of a sugar factory or sugar works. 

Some of the features of the villages include the 

remains of a blacksmith’s shop, the overseer’s 

house, a possible well, and a possible chicken 

house. Further testing has been recommended 

for these sites. A national register nomination 

is to be completed in fiscal year 2010. The 

national seashore has already funded two 

archeological investigations of the site. Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge, who is 

partnering with Canaveral National Seashore 

and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration to conduct the archeological 

work, also has voiced support for the 

nomination. 
187 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

VISITOR ACCESS 

Canaveral National Seashore is centrally 

located on Florida’s eastern coast midway 

between Daytona Beach and Melbourne and 

42 miles east of Orlando International Airport. 

There are a number of transportation networks 

that provide convenient access to and through 

the national seashore. Some of the major 

regional transportation corridors providing 

visitor access to the national seashore include 

the following. 

Regional Transportation Networks 

Interstate Highway 95. Interstate 95 (I-95) is a 

major four-lane, divided, north-south 

interstate limited-access highway along the east 

coast of Florida and the eastern seaboard of 

the United States. It is part of the Florida 

Intrastate Highway System and the National 

Highway System that serves high-speed and 

high-volume traffic. Paralleling and within 5 to 

10 miles of the national seashore’s west 

boundary, I-95 serves as a major tourism and 

freight corridor for the region, connecting to 

all the major roadways that provide access to 

the national seashore. In 2000, the annual 

average daily traffic on the section of I-95 that 

parallels the national seashore was 27,485 

vehicles per day as recorded by the Florida 

Department of Transportation. 

U.S. Highway 1. U.S. 1 is a four-lane, paved 

north-south federal highway that parallels I-95 

on the east and also provides convenient access 

to a number of national seashore access ways. 

In 2000, the annual average daily traffic on the 

section of U.S. 1 just north of downtown 

Titusville was 21,500 vehicles per day as 

recorded by the Florida Department of 

Transportation. 

Bee Line Expressway. The Bee Line Expressway (State Route 528) is a major four-lane, 

divided east-west principal arterial/ 

expressway that connects Orlando with I-95 

and U.S. 1. The Bee Line serves as a major 

tourism and freight corridor for central 

Florida. In 2000 the annual average daily traffic 

on the section of State Route 528 just before its 

intersection with State Route 407 was 28,000 

vehicles per day as recorded by the Florida 

Department of Transportation. 

Intracoastal Waterway. The Intracoastal 

Waterway provides boat access into Mosquito 

Lagoon from waters outside the national 

seashore. The maintenance and operation of 

the waterway is under the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Intracoastal Waterway forms the western boundary 

of the northern area of the national seashore 

for 6.5 miles and passes through the national 

seashore for an additional 7 miles before 

entering Haulover Canal, which provides 

access to the Indian River outside the national 

seashore. Where the waterway passes through 

Mosquito Lagoon, an easement of 250 feet on 

either side of the channel centerline has been 

retained by the Corps of Engineers. 

Local Transportation Networks 

There are a number of local transportation 

networks that go through or just outside 

Canaveral National Seashore. Many of these 

routes provide visitor access to national 

seashore features. These corridors are 

described below from the South District of the 

national seashore to the North District. 

Titusville Road. Titusville Road (S.R. 406; see 

“Alternative A” map), outside the national 

seashore boundary, provides a two-lane, paved 

arterial connection between Titusville and 

Kennedy Parkway (S.R. 3), which borders the 

western boundary of the southern two-thirds 

of the national seashore. State Route 406 also 

provides access to Beach Road (S.R. 402) and 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge’s Black 

Point Wildlife Drive. The space center’s gate 

4TT, which is used to restrict public access 

during NASA launch and landing operations, is 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

188 

just east of the Max E. Brewer Causeway over 

the Indian River on State Route 402. The 

posted speed limit is 55 mph, reducing to 35 

mph as the road approaches Kennedy 

Parkway. In 2001 the average annual daily 

traffic on the section of Titusville Road 

between the east end of the causeway (gate 

4TT) and Beach Road was 4,504 vehicles per 

day, and the stretch between Beach Road and 

the Kennedy Parkway was 383 vehicles per 

day, as recorded by Team ZHA, the preparers 

of the 2002 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master 

Plan. 

Kennedy Parkway. Kennedy Parkway (S.R. 3) 

is a north-south arterial that extends north 

from Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

and ends at the intersection of U.S. 1 in the 

Bill’s Hill area of the national seashore. 

Kennedy Parkway bisects the Kennedy Space 

Center and parallels the western boundary of 

the national seashore in the south. The primary 

users of the parkway are NASA employees. 

The section of the parkway that parallels the 

national seashore boundary is characterized as 

a two-lane paved road that also provides visitor 

access between the south end of the national 

seashore and the Bill’s Hill area; the northern 

end of Bio Lab Road; two designated, but 

undeveloped public boat launch areas 

accessing Mosquito Lagoon; a manatee 

viewing area adjacent to Haulover Canal; and 

the Scrub Ridge and Pine Flatwoods 

interpretive trails—all within the USFWS/ NPS 

Joint Management Area. The parkway also 

provides access to a developed public launch 

facility at Haulover Canal, which is just west of 

the national seashore boundary but within 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Gate 

6TT for the space center, which is used to 

restrict public access during launch and 

landing operations, is on the parkway just 

south of the boat launch. 

The parkway also provides access to the 

national seashore’s South District maintenance 

compound, which is west of the national 

seashore boundary but within Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge near Wilson’s 

Corner. In 2001 the average annual daily traffic 

on the section of Kennedy Parkway between 

Titusville Road and U.S. 1 was 1,348 vehicles 

per day, and the stretch between Titusville 

Road and gate 6TT was 1,296 vehicles per day, 

as recorded by Team ZHA, the preparers of the 

2002 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan. 

Beach Road. Beach Road (former S.R. 402; see 

“Alternative A” map) is now owned by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is a two-lane, 24-foot wide, paved 

collector road oriented east-west, and it 

provides access to Playalinda Beach and the 

northern section of the space center complex. 

The posted speed limits on Beach Road range 

from 35 to 55 miles per hour, with a lower 

speed imposed along intersection approaches. 

The speed limit from the entrance station into 

the national seashore is 25 mph. Beach Road 

extends east from Kennedy Parkway. The 

road’s at-grade signalized intersection with 

Kennedy Parkway marks the national 

seashore’s southwest corner. At this point, the 

road extends 4.5 miles east into the national 

seashore until it transitions into the Playalinda 

Beach Road. 

About 1 mile east of the national seashore 

boundary and the intersection of Kennedy 

Parkway and Beach Road, the national 

seashore maintains an entrance station and fee 

collection booth. The South District ranger 

station and curatorial facility are accessed just 

south of this facility. There are eight interpretive and wildlife viewing pullouts, five on the 

north side and three on the south side, which 

are dispersed along Beach Road between the 

national seashore entrance station and Playalinda Beach Road. Just east of the Kennedy 

Parkway, Beach Road is gated and closed 

routinely around sunset, prohibiting overnight 

public use in this area of the national seashore. 

In 2001 the average annual daily traffic on the 

section of Beach Road outside the national 

seashore, between Titusville Road and 

Kennedy Parkway, was 3,601 vehicles per day, 

and the stretch between Kennedy Parkway and 

Playalinda Beach was 1,018 vehicles per day, as 

recorded by Team ZHA. Beach Road is 

maintained by the refuge, although the national 

seashore maintains the grass shoulders. 

Bio Lab Road. Bio Lab Road is a two-way 

gravel road (sometimes not two lanes) con-
Visitor Experience 

189 

necting Beach Road with Kennedy Parkway. It 

traverses the southwestern shoreline of 

Mosquito Lagoon and provides excellent 

opportunities for wildlife observation. The 

south terminus of the road at Beach Road is 

east of the entrance station, and it is possible 

for visitors to bypass the entrance station and 

fee collection booth. To discourage this type of 

shortcutting into the national seashore, plastic 

bollards have been placed along the centerline 

of Beach Road to prevent south-bound visitors 

from turning east on Bio Lab Road from Beach 

Road.

Florida State Route A1A. In the north end of 

the national seashore, A1A provides access to 

the national seashore from I-95 through New 

Smyrna Beach to its Volusia County southern 

terminus at Apollo Beach. Route A1A is a twolane, paved, north-south route that mainly 

parallels I-95 and U.S. 1. Route A1A provides 

access to and through most of Florida’s eastern 

coastal beach communities. 

Volusia County’s Public Transit System 

(Votran). Volusia County operates a public 

transit bus system that includes service to the 

New Smyrna community. The closest bus stop 

to the national seashore is in a public parking 

area on the corner of S. R. A1A and Hiles 

Boulevard, approximately 4 miles north of the 

national seashore’s northern boundary. 

National Seashore 

Transportation Networks 

There are a number of roads, beach, and water 

access areas available in the national seashore. 

These access features are described below 

from the South District to the North District. 

Playalinda Beach Road. Playalinda Beach 

Road (about 4.8 miles long) is a two-lane, 20-

foot wide, paved roadway that parallels the 

west side of the primary north/south dune 

ridge along Playalinda Beach. The road 

originates from Beach Road (S.R. 402) and 

provides vehicular access to a number of 

designated beach access areas and the Eddy 

Creek boat launch facility. The roadway 

provides excellent sight distances because of 

the absence of grade changes and the general 

absence of severe curves and lateral 

obstructions. 

Playalinda Beach Access Areas. There are 13 

designated beach access areas providing public 

parking, restroom facilities, and boardwalk 

trails over the primary dune to access Playalinda Beach. The first series of beach access 

areas start about 0.25 mile north of the intersection with Beach Road (S.R. 402). There are 

four parking areas (1 through 4), with 500 feet 

between each lot, with parking capacities 

ranging between 51 and 108 vehicles. Parking 

area 2 is the only area with designated oversized vehicle parking. Farther north (0.5 mile), 

a second series of three beach access areas (5 

through 7) accommodate 88 vehicles each and 

are separated by about 400 feet. Parking area 8 

(0.5 mile farther north) accommodates 109 

vehicles and provides an accessible trail to the 

beach for visitors with disabilities. Parking 

areas 9 and 10 (0.5 mile farther north) 

accommodate 78 vehicles each and are 800 feet 

apart. The last series of parking areas (11 

through 13) are the only beach access parking 

areas on the west side of the road. They 

accommodate only 50 to 60 vehicles each and 

are separated by 800 feet and 1,000 feet, 

respectively. Just beyond parking area 13, a 

turnaround loop is provided, along with a 

gated, restricted access drive into NASA’s 

Camera Pad 10 area. The total parking capacity 

of all 13 beach access areas is 1,005 standard 

and 18 oversized vehicles. 

Eddy Creek Boat Launch Area. Located 2 

miles north of the Beach Road and Playalinda 

Beach intersection, the Eddy Creek boat 

launch area provides boat access into 

Mosquito Lagoon. The paved boat launch and 

parking area accommodates 24 standard, four 

accessible, and 10 boat trailer parking spaces; a 

courtesy dock; an interpretive pavilion; a 

storage building; and restrooms. 

Klondike Beach Access. Access into this area 

is by permit only, and maximum capacity is 25 

people/day. This 12-mile stretch of primitive 

beach and shoreline is between Playalinda 

Beach in the south and Apollo Beach in the 

north. It is accessible by foot from either beach 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

190 

area or via boat by way of Mosquito Lagoon or 

the Atlantic Ocean. 

Apollo Beach Road. The roadway serving 

Apollo Beach is a two-lane undivided paved 

road approximately 5.5 miles in length that 

parallels the beach behind the primary dune. It 

originates at the national seashore boundary at 

the terminus of S.R. A1A, which serves the 

New Smyrna beach community. Apollo Beach 

Road goes south and ends in a turnaround 

loop and parking area. Like the Playalinda 

Road, this roadway has excellent sight distances because of the absence of grade changes 

and the general absence of curves and lateral 

obstructions. The road accesses a number of 

visitor use and administrative use areas, 

including the national seashore’s visitor 

information center, ranger station, maintenance compound, beach access areas, boat 

launch areas, interpretive trails, and the Eldora 

Hammock area. 

Apollo Beach Access Areas. There are five 

beach access areas providing public parking, 

restroom facilities, and boardwalk trails over 

the primary dune to access Apollo Beach. The 

first area is just south of the entrance station 

and accommodates the largest visitor parking 

capacity in the North District—82 standard, 3 

accessible, and 3 oversized vehicle parking 

spaces. Boardwalk trails to the beach are 

provided on each end of the parking lot; the 

north side is accessible for visitors with disabilities. The only outdoor shower available for 

public use in the national seashore is here. 

Beach access area 2, 2 miles farther south, 

accommodates 24 standard and 1 accessible 

parking spaces. Beach access area 3, about 

another mile south, accommodates 24 

standard and 1 accessible parking spaces. 

Beach access area 4, about another mile south, 

accommodates 21 standard and 1 accessible 

parking spaces. Beach access area 5, just over 2 

miles farther south, accommodates 34 standard 

and 2 accessible parking spaces and provides 

an accessible trail to the beach for visitors with 

disabilities. The total parking capacity of all 5 

beach access areas is 193 standard (including 

accessible) and 3 oversized vehicles. 

Beach access for equestrian riders is provided 

over the administrative boardwalk across from 

the visitor information center. Parking is 

permitted in a designated area near the boardwalk. A permit is required, and use is restricted 

to Apollo Beach with a maximum of six horses 

at any one time. During sea turtle nesting 

season, horseback riding is prohibited (April 15 

through October 31 or when the first turtle 

nest is laid). 

The total parking capacity of Apollo Beach is 

about 20% of that provided at Playalinda 

Beach. Consequently, Apollo Beach fills to 

capacity more often and sometimes requires a 

temporary closure to visitors entering this area 

by automobile. 

Parking lot 5 consistently fills to capacity 

shortly after the national seashore opens in the 

morning. Visitors who arrive later hoping to 

use this access into the undeveloped heart of 

the national seashore are unable to find 

parking. Roadway congestion is sometimes a 

problem because some visitors wait for spaces 

to become open, requiring NPS rangers to 

clear these areas. 

For those visitors who do visit Apollo Beach, 

they find more opportunities to experience 

natural seashore environments because of the 

greater distance between beach access areas. 

Fewer visitors on the beach in some areas 

allow an uncrowded experience. 

Eldora Hammock Road. Almost 1.5 miles 

south of the entrance station, Apollo Beach 

Road provides access to Eldora Hammock 

Road. This road is a 1.2-mile, one-way paved 

loop through the Eldora Hammock area, and it 

accesses four visitor use areas, spaced 

approximately 0.25 mile apart. The second 

parking area (7) provides access to an 

undeveloped canoe/kayak boat landing for 

Mosquito Lagoon and accommodates 11 

standard and 1 accessible parking spaces. 

Parking area 7 provides access to a fishing pier 

and accommodates 8 standard and 1 accessible 

parking spaces. Parking area 8 provides access 

to a shell and sand trail to the historic Eldora 

State House and dock facility. Restrooms are 

provided at the parking area, which 
Visitor Experience 

191 

accommodates 20 standard, 1 accessible, and 2 

oversized vehicle parking spaces. Parking area 

9 provides access to the Eldora Hammock 

Interpretive Trail and accommodates 8 

standard and 1 accessible parking spaces. 

Apollo Beach North Boat Launch Area. 

Located just inside the national seashore’s 

north boundary, a developed boat launch 

facility provides 24-hour boat access into 

Mosquito Lagoon. The paved boat launch and 

parking area accommodate 22 boat trailer 

parking spaces, a courtesy dock, and 

restrooms. 

Apollo Beach South Boat Launch Area. At 

the southern terminus of the Apollo Beach 

Road and opposite parking area 5, an 

undeveloped, gravel boat launch area provides 

for boat access into Mosquito Lagoon. The 

area accommodates parking space for up to 

four boat trailers. 

Accessible Facilities 

At Apollo Beach, the visitor information center 

and education pavilion are accessible, the 

Turtle Mound Interpretive Trail is accessible 

with assistance, and there is an accessible 

boardwalk across the dune from parking lot 1 

to the beach. Two accessible boardwalks are 

provided at Playalinda Beach in the South 

District (one opposite the Eddy Creek access 

road and another at parking area 8). A beach 

wheelchair is available for loan to visitors at the 

visitor information center at Apollo Beach and 

at the entrance station at Playalinda Beach. All 

national seashore restroom facilities are 

accessible. Recent renovations at Seminole 

Rest included providing an accessible entry 

into the main house and elevator access to the 

second floor. The interpretive loop trail was 

also made accessible. 

Visitor Access Restrictions 

The John F. Kennedy Space Center, south of 

the national seashore, is an active national 

security area. Launch and retrieval activities at 

the space center may require the National 

Space and Aeronautics Administration to 

impose temporary closures of areas of the 

national seashore and national wildlife refuge. 

The entire South District is closed to the public 

during launch operations. Visitors who are 

unaware of the closures in time to make 

alternate plans are often frustrated, 

disappointed, or irate. 

Natural cycles of the seashore environment 

influence visitor use. Fall hurricanes require 

evacuation of visitors and closure of facilities. 

Summer proliferation of mosquitoes and other 

insects in vegetated areas force visitors to seek 

shelter in the more hospitable beach and 

lagoon. The islands, hammocks, and shell 

mounds receive little visitor use until insects 

vacate in winter. 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES 

Canaveral National Seashore offers visitors a 

wide range of recreational, interpretive, and 

educational opportunities on both land and 

water. User groups include the following: 

sightseers/wildlife viewers (birders, etc.) 

beach sunbathers/enthusiasts 

swimmers/surfers 

boaters 

boat tour operators 

fishermen 

hunters and trappers 

fishing guides 

backcountry campers 

equestrians 

hikers 

bicycle riders 

environmental education groups 

school groups – elementary, secondary and 

post-secondary groups 

Surveys have been conducted at the national 

seashore for several years to assess visitor 

satisfaction with the overall quality of facilities, 

services, and recreational opportunities. 

Satisfaction has been relatively high when 

compared to satisfaction surveys at other units 

of the national park system. The survey for 

fiscal year 2003 reflected a positive 91% 

satisfaction measure (composite Very Good 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

192 

and Good scores). Visitors at Canaveral 

National Seashore were most satisfied with the 

quality of walkways/trails/roads (97%), 

sightseeing (97%), outdoor recreation (97%), 

and assistance from employees (95%). Some 

scores related to interpretation were less 

positive: visitor center (94%); map/brochure 

(94%); learning about nature, history, or 

culture (92%); exhibits (91%); ranger 

programs (84%). By far the lowest satisfaction 

was with restrooms (only 58%). 

Recreational Opportunities 

Beach Areas. Many opportunities for 

recreational activities such as sunbathing, 

wading, fishing, shell collecting, wildlife 

observation, and photography are provided at 

three beach locations. Informational wayside 

exhibits at many parking areas and interpretive 

exhibits on some boardwalks present topics 

related to beach ecology and safety. Beach 

camping at one site on Apollo Beach is 

permitted six months of the year. Seasonal 

equestrian use is permitted in select locations. 

The best opportunities for visitors seeking 

solitude can be found along Klondike Beach. 

This section of the national seashore is 

designated as “backcountry” and is limited to 

25 persons per day on the south end of the 

beach and 25 persons per day on the north end 

of the beach; a permit is required. 

At Turtle Mound a trail with interpretive 

markers provides access to a prehistoric 

mound. 

Mosquito Lagoon. Mosquito Lagoon has

outstanding opportunities for fishing, wildlife 

viewing, backcountry camping, canoeing, 

kayaking, and motorboating. The Haulover 

Canal Manatee Viewing Area provides a 

popular manatee viewing opportunity for 

visitors. Seasonal hunting of migratory 

waterfowl is allowed within both the national 

seashore and national wildlife refuge and is 

part of the refuge’s waterfowl management 

plan. Backcountry camping (by reservation 

only) is permitted at 14 designated lagoon 

islands sites year-round. Fishing/wildlife 

observation decks provide additional 

recreational opportunities. Fishing guide 

services and boat tour operators are permitted 

on the lagoon by way of a commercial use 

authorization. Commercial harvesting of 

clams, oysters, shrimp, crabs, bait fish, and fish 

in accordance with Florida state laws is 

permitted by way of a commercial harvesting 

permit. 

The historic Eldora Statehouse provides 

visitors with a look into the early 20th century 

settlement and history of this part of Florida. 

Interpretive tours and signs are provided. 

Bill’s Hill Area. This area of the national 

seashore is just north of the USFWS/NPS Joint 

Management Area. Access is by way of U.S. 1 

and Bill’s Hill Road (south of the town of Oak 

Hill). There are a number of remnant sand and 

shell roads into the area that provide access to 

a remote pine flatwoods area and Mosquito 

Lagoon. Adventurous hikers and shoreline 

fisherman are the primary users because the 

area has not yet formally been developed to 

accommodate public access and visitor use. 

Seminole Rest, north of Bill’s Hill, provides 

visitors with an opportunity to visit an 

important prehistoric shell mound. A museum 

and historic houses provide insights into the 

early 20th century settlement of the area. 

Information, Interpretation, and Education 

Entrance Stations. Visitors have opportunities 

to interact with NPS personnel for orientation 

and information at entrance stations in the 

North and South districts of the national 

seashore. A brochure and map, available at 

each entrance station, provides basic 

information about Canaveral National 

Seashore and Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. Visitors arriving at the Apollo Beach 

entrance station are encouraged to stop at the 

visitor information center for directions to 

other points of interest in the national 

seashore. 

Visitor Information Centers. The national 

seashore visitor information center at Apollo 

Beach is staffed with NPS rangers and 
Visitor Experience 

193 

volunteers who provide visitors information 

on how to best visit the national seashore. The 

center includes an office, information desk, 

audiovisual room, a sales area dedicated to 

interpretive and visitor convenience materials, 

and a few exhibits. Exhibits include a touch 

table of seashore objects and a wall aquarium 

displaying “Creatures of the Lagoon.” Two 

glass-enclosed exhibits display models of the 

Eldora State House and the 1886-1920 

Mosquito Lagoon Coast Guard Station. The 

other room is used for video projection, which 

accommodates 30 visitors. This space does not 

accommodate peak visitation, nor does it allow 

for effective visitor orientation or interpretation. Water and restrooms are also 

provided. Outside the center, along the 

Mosquito Lagoon shoreline, are an education 

pavilion and dock. The pavilion is used to 

assemble groups for interpretive presentations. 

The dock is where visitors can access the 

interpretive pontoon boat tours through 

Mosquito Lagoon. A shell and sand parking 

area accommodates 21 standard and 2 

accessible parking spaces. 

There is no national seashore visitor information center in the South District. This district 

includes the heavily visited Playalinda Beach 

adjacent to Kennedy Space Center and Titusville, Florida. However, the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge visitor information 

center near the southwest boundary of the 

national seashore distributes an information 

brochure describing the wildlife refuge and 

national seashore. Other information and 

interpretation at the center focuses on national 

wildlife refuge resources and stories. 

Some information about the national seashore 

is available at Canaveral National Seashore 

headquarters in Titusville, for the few visitors 

who find and stop at the office. Videos, previsit packets, and the national seashore’s 

website also provide information. 

Historic Sites. There are two historic sites 

open to the public in Canaveral National 

Seashore. The first site includes the Eldora 

State House, surrounded by century-old oaks; 

it is a representative remnant of the oncethriving village of Eldora. For a century people 

lived here and adapted to changing economic 

and social trends. Now the only surviving 

structure is listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places. The building has been restored 

and is open to visitors when volunteers or NPS 

staff are available. A small sales area and 

exhibits on the first floor help visitors learn 

about the history of this site. Access to the site 

is by way of the Eldora Hammock road; a short 

trail from a parking area leads visitors through 

an oak forest to the building overlooking 

Mosquito Lagoon. A trailhead wayside exhibit 

interprets the village and invites visitors to 

walk to the Eldora State House. A bulletin 

board at the parking lot includes information 

about hours of operation. 

The second historic site, Seminole Rest, is 

along the west shoreline of Mosquito Lagoon 

in the town of Oak Hill in southern Volusia 

County. Access is by private vehicle only. It is 

easily reached via Interstate 95 or U.S. 1. The 

entrance to the site is about 1.5 miles from U.S. 

Highway 1 via either of two routes. Signs on 

the highway in Oak Hill directing visitors to 

Seminole Rest do not identify the site as an 

NPS area. 

Seminole Rest consists of several prehistoric 

shell mounds dating from 2000 BC to AD 1565. 

Snyder's Mound, the largest mound at this site, 

is unique because few structures this large 

remain intact today. Two turn-of-the-century 

buildings (main and caretaker houses) have 

been built atop the mound, which has aided in 

its preservation. A 0.5-mile loop trail provides 

access to historic and prehistoric features of 

the site. In the more sensitive areas the trail is 

an elevated boardwalk, transitioning into a 

paved walkway closer to the parking area. The 

historic structures and shell mounds are 

interpreted by wayside exhibits depicting 

Timucuan and later cultures that relied on 

bounty of the lagoon for survival. Benches and 

wayside exhibits encourage visitors to pause 

for beautiful views of the lagoon and 

contemplation of past and present uses of 

resources in this area. The site includes a large 

parking area and restrooms. 

Interpretive Trails. In addition to the 

Seminole Rest trail described above, there are 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

194 

four additional self-guided trails in the national 

seashore that are interpreted with pamphlet 

trail guides or wayside exhibits. The Castle 

Windy trail is directly across the Apollo Beach 

Road from parking area 3, which serves as the 

trailhead parking area. The 0.25-mile trail is an 

interpretive sand path that crosses the barrier 

island to Mosquito Lagoon, providing access 

through an upland hammock area to a 

prehistoric Timucuan Indian midden dating to 

around AD 1000. A trail guide pamphlet 

interprets numbered stops along the way, 

introducing visitors to the types of natural and 

cultural features found in this unique 

hammock community. 

The Turtle Mound Trail is less than a mile 

from the Apollo Beach entrance station. A 

small paved, parallel parking area 

accommodates 10 standard and 1 accessible 

parking spaces on the west side of the road. 

This self-guiding, 1,000-foot boardwalk trail 

leads visitors through an upland hammock area 

to the top of another Timucuan Indian mound 

along Mosquito Lagoon. Two overlook 

platforms provide unobstructed panoramic 

views of the Atlantic Ocean and Mosquito 

Lagoon. A gated, unimproved, two-track drive 

just south of the parking area provides limited 

access to a clearing adjacent to Mosquito 

Lagoon, which is sometimes used for larger 

groups attending interpretive programs. 

The 0.5-mile Eldora Hammock Trail is a loop 

sand trail that winds through a densely 

vegetated upland hammock area. A number of 

trail plaques along the trail provide a series of 

philosophical quotes highlighting the 

environmental preservation movement. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a 

number of interpretive trails in the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Scrub 

Ridge Interpretive Trail, within the national 

seashore boundaries in the NPS/USFWS Joint 

Management Area, provides visitors with an 

opportunity to learn about the endangered 

scrub-jay and its habitat. The Pine Flatwoods 

Trail interprets the role of fire in maintaining 

the natural ecosystem. 

Interpretive and Educational Programs. The 

small staff provides a variety of information, 

interpretation, and education programs at the 

national seashore. Large shade structures with 

benches on the dune at Eddy Creek in the 

South District and at the visitor information 

center in the North District are used for 

scheduled interpretive presentations. Other 

undeveloped sites throughout the national 

seashore, including the shoreline area near 

Turtle Mound, are also used for staging 

programs. Conducted activities include 

recreational skills and safety, talks, walks, 

exploration of cultural sites, investigation of 

marine biology, and canoe/pontoon boat trips 

into Mosquito Lagoon. As staffing allows, 

some programs are also conducted in 

classroom settings at local schools. 

Visitor Services 

Many services are not available inside the 

national seashore. There is no drinking water 

and there are no developed picnic areas, food 

services, or telephones, available at national 

seashore beaches. Food, lodging, gasoline, and 

recreational equipment rental are provided in 

communities outside the national seashore 

boundary. 
Visitor Experience 

195 

FIGURE 1: RECREATION VISITS

TABLE 14: VISITOR USE

Year Recreation 

Visits 

Overnight

Stays 

1990 1,079,022 948 

1991 1,159,001 965 

1992 1,032,992 1,581 

1993 1,211,492 2,549 

1994 1,432,880 2,122 

1995 1,380,438 1,900 

1996 1,496,961 3,215 

1997 1,368,632 5,185 

1998 703,301 2,311 

1999 846,512 2,142 

2000 1,115,345 2,189 

2001 1,062,962 4,332 

2002 1,075,747 3,694 

2003 1,045,898 3,931 

2004 1,050,211 2,308 

2005 1,007,446 2,277 

2006 1,005,401 2,883 

2007 1,038,450 2,900 

2008 994,453 2,474 

2009 1,001,664 2,081 

SOURCE: NPS Public Use Statistics Office

VISITOR USE 

Figure 1 and table 14 display historical visitor 

use data in recreation visits to the national 

seashore and overnight stays for the last 19 

years. (Recreation visits are one person 

entering a park system unit for any part of a 

day for recreation purposes, and overnight 

stays are one person spending the night in a 

backcountry campsite.) During this period, the 

national seashore averaged about 1,117,000 

recreation visits per year. During the last 10 

years, the annual average was 995,000. Visitor 

use has been more than one million recreation 

visits a year for all but two consecutive years 

during the last 18 years. In the last eight years, 

the national seashore hosted between 1.0 

million and 1.1 million recreation visits 

annually. Visitation has fluctuated over the 

years, by as much as 100,000 visitors. 

The national seashore offers primitive camping 

opportunities on some of the islands in the 

north end of Mosquito Lagoon and on the 

Recreation Visits

Year

Recreation Visits at Canaveral 

National Seashore

Data source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

196 

beach. Overnight use, while relatively low, has 

exhibited an up and down trend fluctuating 

from a low of 948 in 1990 to a high of 5,185 in 

1997. In 2009 overnight stays numbered 2,081. 

The impacts of climate change on visitor 

experience may range from altered timing of 

visitation to restrictions on public access. 

Longer, hotter summers may shift the spring 

and fall visitation seasons, and visitation may 

decline during the hottest summer months or 

during months with increased storms. Visitor 

facilities may need to be upgraded or moved to 

withstand severe weather and floods. Energy 

expenditure for cooling buildings may increase 

in the summer, and expenditures for heating 

facilities may decline in the winter. Pollenbased allergies and outbreaks of mosquitoborne diseases may also increase. Visitation for 

birding and fishing may change if new species 

from the south shift northward into the 

national seashore or if extant species move 

northward or have dramatic declines in 

population, as might occur with the manatee. 

Sea level rise and erosion, or the need to 

protect certain areas, may alter visitor access to 

certain parts of the national seashore. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Many of Canaveral National Seashore’s visitors 

come from other parts of the United States or 

foreign countries. They are unaware of the 

numerous dangers presented by a Florida 

barrier island environment. Although the 

National Park Service attempts to inform 

visitors of dangers through signs, bulletin 

boards, brochures, and individual contacts, the 

seashore continues to present a variety of 

hazards. These include drownings and near 

drownings as a result of rough surf conditions, 

strong ocean currents, and rip tides; getting 

struck by sudden lightning storms (central 

Florida receives more lightening strikes than 

any other section of North America); sunburn 

and heat stroke/exhaustion; jellyfish/ 

Portuguese man-of-war stings (in the ocean 

surf); stepping on sting rays (in Mosquito 

Lagoon); bites by poisonous snakes, sharks, 

and sick or rabid animals; boating accidents (in 

Mosquito Lagoon); fish hooks (on the ocean 

beach and in Mosquito Lagoon); and surfing. 

Jagged protrusions on the beach from 

shipwrecks and other marine debris pose 

additional threats. 

First aid services are available at the visitor 

contact station in the North District. 

Lifeguard stations are staffed from 10:00 am to 

5:00 pm at Apollo Beach area 1 and Playalinda 

Beach areas 1 and 2 from Memorial Day to 

Labor Day. 

There is no bicycle path to the visitor contact 

station in the North District. This is a hazard 

because the roadway is barely wide enough for 

two motor vehicles to pass. The adjacent 

community’s bike path ends abruptly at the 

national seashore’s boundary, forcing cyclists 

who enter the national seashore to ride in the 

lane of traffic. 

Florida state regulations require water quality 

monitoring of public beach areas. The regulations require the national seashore to sample 

water monthly for bacteria such as enterrococci

to determine if conditions are safe for 

swimmers. 

Offshore shipping and the Intracoastal 

Waterway along the national seashore’s 

boundary provide the potential for toxic spills. 

Occasionally, hazardous waste washes up on 

the beach, primarily from offshore shipping. 

This includes toxic material and medical waste. 

Day use permits to access Klondike Beach 

allow NPS staff to know who is in the area. 
197 

NATIONAL SEASHORE OPERATIONS 

ORGANIZATION 

Management of the Canaveral National 

Seashore is organized into the superintendent’s 

office and five functional divisions. Operations 

are further organized into a three-district 

framework with the North District 

encompassing Apollo Beach, Eldora 

Hammock, and the northern portion of 

Mosquito Lagoon; the Central District 

encompassing Seminole Rest and Bill’s Hill; 

and the South District encompassing 

Playalinda Beach and the Joint Management 

Area (including the southern two-thirds of 

Mosquito Lagoon). As of 2011, there were 53 

full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions 

authorized for supporting national seashore 

operations. 

TABLE 15: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN

STAFFING BY FISCAL YEAR

Fiscal Year Total FTE Percentage Change 

2011 53 0% 

2010 53 1.0% 

2009 52 8.3% 

2008 48 1.1% 

2007 45.5 5.8% 

2006 43 -8.5% 

2005 47 2.2% 

2004 46 6.9% 

2003 43 -6.5% 

2002 46 -6.1% 

2001 49 -2.0% 

2000 50 -3.9% 

1999 52 -1. 9% 

1998 53 26.2% 

1997 42 13.5% 

1996 37 -

Superintendent’s Office 

The superintendent of Canaveral National 

Seashore is responsible for managing the 

seashore, its staff, all of its programs, and its 

interactions with stakeholders, visitors, 

agencies, and organizations. The 

superintendent supervises the five division 

chiefs. These divisions provide the full scope of 

functions and activities needed to provide for 

resource and visitor protection, resource 

management, interpretation, education, maintenance of national seashore infrastructure, 

and administrative support. National seashore 

headquarters is based in a leased building in 

Titusville, Florida. 

Administration Division 

The Administration Division is responsible for 

the national seashore’s payroll, budget, procurement, contracting, and property management activities. Administration also has 

responsibility for human resources and 

information technology. The main base of 

operations for administrative staff is the 

headquarters building in Titusville. Staff in this 

division advise superintendent in all matters 

relating to law, policy, and regulation relating 

to the administration of the national seashore, 

including but not limited to performance 

management, position management, 

accountability, management reviews, and 

internal controls. 

Law Enforcement Division 

The Law Enforcement Division is responsible 

for all activities related to visitor and resource 

protection, including visitor and employee 

safety, lifeguard services, emergency response, 

emergency medical services, search and rescue, 

patrols, security, structural fires, and law 

enforcement in the national seashore. The 

main base of operations for this division is the 

headquarters building in Titusville, with 

district ranger stations at Apollo Beach, and 

Playalinda Beach. 

Law enforcement efforts at the national seashore strive to provide visitor protection 

services for more than one million visitors 

annually in a recreational setting that also 

features remote backcountry areas and an 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

198 

extensive array of natural and cultural 

resources. Most visitors to the national 

seashore arrive by automobile, but increasing 

numbers are accessing the national seashore by 

bicycle, on foot, or by boat. The national 

seashore is accessible primarily from urban 

areas to its north and southwest; however, the 

national seashore’s vast watershed is accessible 

and traversable via the Intracoastal Waterway 

on a 24-hour basis. Other areas of the national 

seashore, such as Seminole Rest and the Bill’s 

Hill area, are also open and accessible on a 24-

hour basis. 

The national seashore’s boundaries extend for 

24 miles from north to south, and 0.5 mile into 

the ocean. Law enforcement work is more 

difficult because of major commercial and 

noncommercial fishing activities in the 

national seashore; multiple, conflicting, and 

competing user groups; some 180 documented 

archeological sites; an expanding incidental 

business permit program that includes 

numerous commercial fishermen and 

commercial guide services; and major post9/11 antiterrorism and national security 

concerns related to the Kennedy Space Center 

and other nearby national assets. 

The national seashore staff protect numerous 

significant and varied natural and cultural 

resources. Following is a list of law enforcement concerns relating to these resources: 

1. Some 180 plus archeological sites are not 

routinely patrolled because of insufficient 

staff. 

2. Commercial shell fishing and incidental 

business permit activities are not 

adequately monitored because of staff 

shortages. 

3. Staff shortages and post-9/11 mandates 

(homeland security details and NASA 

security restrictions) result in ranger patrol 

activity that is reactive instead of proactive. 

4. Mosquito Lagoon estuary activities in 

general are not monitored adequately 

because of staff and equipment limitations. 

The national seashore has two fully 

equipped law enforcement vessels to 

provide for marine estuary protection and 

enforce boat safety regulations. 

5. Mainland poaching activities are not 

monitored adequately because of 

insufficient staff. 

Resource Management Division 

The Resource Management Division is 

responsible for all activities related to the 

management, preservation, and protection of 

the national seashore’s cultural and natural 

resources. Activities include inventory and 

monitoring of resource conditions; research, 

restoration activities, species-specific management programs such as the sea turtle protection program; wildland fire management; 

archives and collections management; and 

historic site protection. The division is 

operated out of the headquarters building in 

Titusville. 

Interpretation Division 

The Interpretation Division is responsible for 

providing education services for diverse 

audiences, interpretation of themes, staffing 

the Apollo Beach visitor information center 

and Seminole Rest, providing information and 

orientation for visitors through personal 

(guided) and nonpersonal services (e.g., website, publications, exhibits, and Volunteers-inthe-Parks program), and the fee collection 

program. Until 2009, interpretation services 

was a part of the Law Enforcement Division, 

with limited staffing available for managing 

interpretive and educational programs. With 

the recent establishment of a separate division, 

increases in staffing were approved and 

partially funded, and the fee collection 

program was transferred to this division. This 

organizational change provided fee collection 

staff an opportunity to dedicate 20% of their 

time to expanded interpretive programs. The 

Chief of Interpretation’s office is located in the 

newly constructed Apollo District Ranger 

Office, and there are district operations at the 

Apollo Beach visitor information center, 

Seminole Rest, and the administrative complex 

across from the Playalinda Beach entrance 

station. 
National Seashore Operations 

199 

Maintenance Division 

The Maintenance Division is responsible for 

operation and maintenance of facilities and 

equipment, including historic and nonhistoric 

structures and grounds, utilities, roads and 

parking areas, trails and trailheads, signs, 

docks, boats, and vehicles. (See following 

“Facilities and Infrastructure” discussion.) The 

facility manager is stationed at headquarters in 

Titusville, and the other employees are 

assigned to field locations. These include the 

North District maintenance complex adjacent 

to the visitor information center at Apollo 

Beach; the South District maintenance complex at Wilson’s Corner, just outside the 

national seashore in the wildlife refuge; and a 

small maintenance field office in the caretaker’s house at Seminole Rest. 

Volunteers and Partners 

Currently, Canaveral National Seashore has 

160 active volunteers on its roster. During 

FY 2003 about 17,000 hours of work were 

logged by volunteers. Some 50 volunteers 

conduct the sea turtle protection program each 

summer, and volunteers staff the national seashore’s visitor contact station, Eldora State 

House, and Seminole Rest; assist with 

environmental education programs and other 

public interpretive programs; conduct turtle 

programs in area schools; and help with 

maintenance projects. The national seashore 

relies on volunteers more and more each year. 

The national seashore provides trailer pad 

space that enables a volunteer/couple to stay at 

the national seashore during the busy winter 

months and staff the Eldora State House. The 

primary problem facing the volunteer program 

is its seasonal nature; there is plentiful 

volunteer help in the winter, but the numbers 

dwindle to just a few year-round residents 

during the remainder of the year. This results 

in reduced volunteer support on all programs 

and activities except for the visitor contact 

station. 

The existing partnership between the national 

seashore, Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, and the Kennedy Space Center has 

provided critical support for national seashore 

operations. Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge provides planning and support for 

prescribed fire, feral hog eradication, 

monitoring of special status species, exotic 

plant control, and environmental research. 

Kennedy Space Center provides GIS support, 

long-term monitoring of amphibians and 

reptiles, monitoring of water quality and 

shoreline erosion, training support, supplies, 

graphic design, and printing. 

In addition to the primary support received 

from both of these federal agencies, there are a 

number of local groups who have partnered 

with the national seashore resulting in 

enhanced effectiveness in managing such a 

diverse resource. The Nature Conservancy 

conducts scrub-jay monitoring. The University 

of Central Florida is implementing oyster reef 

restoration in Mosquito Lagoon and providing 

long-term monitoring of invasive aquatic 

species. The Saint Johns River Water 

Management District conducts marsh 

restoration and seagrass monitoring. 

Other partners provide additional funds to 

support national seashore programs and 

activities. Eastern National is a nonprofit 

cooperating association that provides 

educational products and services to visitors. A 

portion of proceeds are donated back to 

national seashore interpretive and educational 

programs. Eastern National operates bookstores at the visitor information center at 

Apollo Beach and the main house at Seminole 

Rest. The Friends of Canaveral provide fundraising support, programs, and some exhibits. 

The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection provides support and funding for 

exotic plant removal. 

Facilities and Infrastructure 

Introduction. Infrastructure at Canaveral 

National Seashore includes a diverse set of 

facilities or “assets” (e.g., historic and nonhistoric structures, roads, parking areas, utility 

systems, maintained landscapes, backcountry 

campsites, and communication systems). 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

200 

Increased operational requirements, reduced 

funding, and vacant staff positions have caused 

the staff to defer routine maintenance of some 

facilities. Deferred maintenance is work that 

should ideally have been done at specific times 

but was not, primarily because of budget 

constraints. Deferred maintenance often leads 

to costly repairs over time. The National Park 

Service is striving to reduce the deferred 

maintenance backlog throughout the national 

park system. The national seashore reassesses 

the conditions of facilities and updates the 

database every two years. 

Structures. National seashore staff is 

responsible for maintaining 67 structures. 

Examples include a visitor information center, 

entrance stations, ranger stations, maintenance 

shops, storage buildings, research facilities, fire 

caches, a curatorial facility, employee 

residences, comfort stations (restrooms), and 3 

historic structures (the Eldora State House and 

the main and caretaker houses at Seminole 

Rest). 

Visitor Contact Facilities— There are five 

visitor contact facilities in the national 

seashore. Two are entrance stations, one at 

Apollo Beach and the other at Playalinda 

Beach. These facilities provide visitors with 

their first opportunity to come in contact with 

national seashore staff and obtain national 

seashore information. 

Just beyond the entrance station at Apollo 

Beach, a new visitor center facility has been 

constructed. 

The Eldora State House (3,330 sf) provides 

another opportunity for visitors in the north 

area of the national seashore to interact with 

NPS staff and volunteers. The historic 

structure has been rehabilitated, with exhibits 

and a small sales area provided. 

At Seminole Rest, the first floor of the recently 

renovated main house (1,900 sf) provides a 

small book sales outlet operated by Eastern 

National. 

Administrative Facilities— In addition to the 

leased headquarters building in Titusville, 

there are a number of facilities throughout the 

national seashore that provide space for 

management support activities. In the Apollo 

Beach area, north of the visitor information 

center, there is a ranger station. A small 

parking area accommodates 8 to 10 vehicles. A 

boathouse and dock accommodate patrol boat 

access into Mosquito Lagoon and provide 

shelter for a pontoon boat that is used for 

interpretive tours during the weekends. 

Directly across Apollo Beach Road from the 

visitor center entrance, a shell and sand drive 

accesses a number of former residential 

garages, which currently provide storage for 

emergency equipment (591 sf), lifeguard 

operations (576 sf), and resource management 

(744 sf). An administrative beach access 

boardwalk on the north side provides for quick 

beach access by NPS personnel during 

emergencies. The dune crossover is also the 

designated access route for visitors on 

horseback. 

South of the visitor information center parking 

area, two access drives connect to the North 

District maintenance complex. The complex 

accommodates a maintenance shop (1,600 sf), 

equipment repair shop (1,536 sf), garage (2,880 

sf), storage sheds (264 and 576 sf), and a fuel 

station. Circulation in this area and onto 

Apollo Beach Road can get congested at times 

because of the layout of facilities and the fact 

that maintenance traffic travels through the 

visitor center parking area. 

In the Eldora Hammock area, there are a 

number of former residential properties that 

are currently used for NPS administrative 

purposes. Between parking areas 7 and 8, a 

shell and sand access drive connects to the 

former Hebner property, where the garage 

(383 sf) provides for resource management 

storage. On the adjacent property to the south, 

a second shell and sand drive provides access 

to the former Grey property, presently used as 

short-term housing for researchers. 

Just south of parking area 8, a 0.5-mile shell 

and sand drive extends south from the Eldora 

Hammock Road and provides access to two 

former residential properties. The first 
National Seashore Operations 

201 

property, about 0.125 (1/8) mile south of the 

junction, includes the former Feller house 

(1,587 sf), which is maintained by the National 

Park Service but is being used by the University 

of Central Florida as a research station under a 

cooperative agreement with the national 

seashore. The second property, the Schultz 

house (1,352 sf) and garage (551 sf), is being 

used by the national seashore for temporarily 

housing employees, researchers, and interns 

and/or for staging special events. 

At Seminole Rest, the upper floor of the main 

house (1,900 sf) provides interpretive staff 

office space, and the caretaker’s house (1,461 

sf) provides space for a ranger station and 

maintenance field office. 

In the South District, there are three staging 

areas for national seashore operations—the 

Wilson’s Corner maintenance complex, the 

South District administrative complex, and the 

lifeguard operations area. 

The South District maintenance area at 

Wilson’s Corner is just outside the national 

seashore but within Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. NPS-owned facilities include 

a maintenance shop (2,354 sf); east pole shed 

(1,100 sf); west pole shed (2,688 sf); Bally 

building (390 sf) housing maintenance 

supplies; and a petroleum, oil, and lubrication 

building (168 sf). Because a water source is not 

available on-site, water would continue to be 

trucked in and stored for NPS use. Potable 

water would continue to be provided 

separately. 

The South District administrative complex 

includes a ranger station (1,210 sf), curatorial 

storage facility (1,000 sf), and garage (1,181 sf). 

The lifeguard operations area, south of the 

Playalinda Beach Road, includes a beach 

maintenance garage (1,080 sf); lifeguard 

building (577 sf); and a petroleum, oil, and 

lubrication building (286 sf). Beach access for 

all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for staff responding 

to beach emergencies as well staff and 

volunteers supporting the turtle management 

program is provided by an administrative 

boardwalk dune crossover (245 lf). 

Beach Access Points. There are three main 

beach areas in the national seashore—

Playalinda, Klondike, and Apollo. These 

features are described in more detail under the 

visitor experience section of this chapter. 

Roads, Trails, and Boat Ramps. These 

features are described in more detail under the 

visitor experience section of this chapter. 

Campsites. There are 14 primitive backcountry campsites with only picnic tables and 

grills on the lagoon islands in the national 

seashore. Two group campsites (one group per 

site) are available on Apollo Beach during the 

winter. 

Utilities. Drinking water is available for 

national seashore visitors at the visitor 

information center at Apollo Beach, and an 

unscreened outdoor shower is available at 

parking area 1. 

National seashore areas on NASA property 

have restrictions on the level of development 

permitted. For this reason, in the Playalinda 

Beach area drinking water and showers (and 

water and sewer utility service) have not been 

provided. 

Each parking area has recirculating chemical 

vault toilets with 1,050-gallon storage tanks, 

which are pumped out on a regular basis. The 

North District visitor contact station, ranger 

station, and maintenance area and their 

associated buildings are connected with the 

New Smyrna Beach water and sewage systems. 

Structures in the Eldora area, including the 

Eldora State House, are connected to the New 

Smyrna Beach water system but do not have 

sewer connections. These buildings all have 

septic systems. Overhead telephone and 

powerlines supply service to the entrance 

stations, visitor information center, and Eldora 

Hammock area. In the South District, the 

lifeguard operations, maintenance, and 

administrative complex areas are also serviced 

by overhead lines. There are no telephones at 

any of the parking areas. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

202 

An aboveground fuel storage tank for gasoline 

is available at the maintenance area in the 

North District. 

Additional utility systems supporting the South 

District administrative complex include a well, 

pumphouse, and septic system. 

Marine Vessels 

Canaveral National Seashore uses three vessels 

in its marine operations. These include the 

following: 

Vessel No. 1 is a pontoon boat that is used 

primarily for public natural history 

interpretive programs. The boat is operated 

all year except for July and August (because 

of heat and the distracting effects of 

insects). Additionally, this vessel is used for 

special tours and resource management 

activities. 

Vessel No. 2 is a patrol boat powered that is 

used mostly for law enforcement activities, 

but the boat is also occasionally used for 

resource management activities. 

Vessel No. 3 is a patrol that is used for law 

enforcement, emergency medical service, 

search-and-rescue, and resource 

management activities. 

The three vessels are also used for maintenance activities related to backcountry 

campsites on the islands, including garbage 

removal and facility upkeep. 
203 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

INTRODUCTION 

Canaveral National Seashore straddles Volusia 

and Brevard counties on the coast of eastcentral Florida. These two counties make up 

the area of analysis for socioeconomic impacts. 

The southern boundary of the national 

seashore adjoins the John F. Kennedy Space 

Center. The national seashore occupies part of 

the area that was originally acquired for use by 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) for the U.S. space 

program. This land was acquired but not 

needed for the space program, and so was 

turned over to the National Park Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage. The 

space center is the core of space operations in 

east-central Florida. The national seashore, 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and 

the Kennedy Space Center are premier tourist 

attractions in this part of Florida. 

POPULATION 

In 2008, Florida was the fourth most populous 

state in the United States, with nearly 18.3 

million people. There are 67 counties in 

Florida, and Brevard and Volusia counties 

together accounted for about 5.6 % of the 

state’s population. Brevard County ranked 

10th and Volusia County ranked 11th in the 

state in population. In 2008 the gateway towns 

ranged in population from less than 1,600 for 

Oak Hill to about 44,700 for Titusville (table 

16). 

Since 1990, Volusia County has grown from 

370,700 to nearly 498,000 in 2008—an annual 

rate of growth rate of 1.7% (table 16). The total 

increase of more than 127,000 for the 18-year 

period was more than 34%. Likewise, Brevard 

County grew from just under 399,000 to about 

537,000, an increase of nearly 138,000 

persons—representing an annual growth rate 

of 1.7%. The total increase was 34%. These 

growth rates were higher than the national 

rates, but they lagged slightly behind Florida’s 

growth rates of 2.0% annually and 42% overall. 

Population growth in the last 18 years in 

Florida has been nearly twice that of the 

United States as a whole. 

However, population growth in the nearby 

towns varied considerably. For example, Oak 

Hill had a high growth rate (4.2% from 1990 to 

2000) and increased its population by more 

than 50% (461 persons) during the decade 

TABLE 16: POPULATION OF THE AFFECTED AREA

Area 1990 % of State 

Population 2000 % of State Population 2008 % of State Population 

Volusia County 370,712 2.9% 443,343 2.8% 498,036 2.7% 

New Smyrna Beach 16,543 0.1% 20,048 0.1% 23,325 0.1% 

Edgewater 15,337 0.1% 18,668 0.1% 21,415 0.1% 

Oak Hill 917 0.01% 1,378 0.01% 1,596 0.01% 

Brevard County 398,978 3.1% 476,230 3.0% 536,521 2.9% 

Titusville 39,394 0.3% 40,670 0.3% 44,756 0.2% 

Cocoa 17,722 0.1% 16,412 0.1% 16,478 0.1% 

Florida 12,937,926 100.0% 15,982,378 100.0% 18,328,340 100.0% 

USA 248,709,873 281,421,906 304,059,724 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990a, 2000a, and March 16, 2006 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

204 

TABLE 17: POPULATION GROWTH

Area 

Annual 

Rate of 

Growth 

1990–2000 

Total % 

Increase 

1990–2000 

Annual

Rate of 

Growth

2000–2008 

Total % 

Increase 

2000–2008 

Annual 

Rate of 

Growth 

1990–2008 

Total % 

Increase 

1990–2008 

Volusia County 1.8% 19.6% 1.5% 12.3% 1.7% 34.3% 

New Smyrna Beach 1.9% 21.2% 1.9% 16.3% 1.9% 41.0% 

Edgewater 2.0% 21.7% 1.7% 14.7% 1.9% 39.6% 

Oak Hill 4.2% 50.3% 1.9% 15.8% 3.1% 74.0% 

Brevard County 1.8% 19.4% 1.5% 12.7% 1.7% 34.5% 

Titusville 0.3% 3.2% 1.2% 10.0% 0.7% 13.6% 

Cocoa -0.8% -7.4% 0.1% .4% -0.4% -7.0% 

Florida 2.1% 23.5% 1.7% 14.7% 2.0% 41.7% 

USA 1.2% 13.2% 1.0% 8.0% 1.1% 22.3% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990a, 2000a, and March 16, 2000 

between the censuses. Growth then slowed, 

and its population increased by about 16% 

from 2000 to 2008. Titusville’s population 

remained relatively stable over the 18-year 

period, with an overall annual growth rate of 

only 0.7% and a total increase of about 10% or 

4,086 people. To the south and more distant 

from the national seashore, the city of Cocoa 

actually lost population with a negative growth 

rate of about -0.4%. This community lost more 

than 1,300 persons—a -7.4% decline during the 

1990s. Cocoa has since increased its population 

slightly (66 people or less than 1%) from 2000 

to 2008. 

INCOME 

Per Capita Income 

Income is one important measure of the 

socioeconomic condition of an area. The per 

capita personal income (PCPI) for Florida, at 

100% of the 2008 national average, is on par 

with that of the nation as a whole (table 18). 

(Per capita personal income is the total 

personal income divided by the total population of an area. Personal income included 

income from all sources—wages, investments, 

social security, etc.) The residents of Volusia 

County had average per capita personal 

incomes that were about 10% and 9% less than 

the state and national averages in 1989 and 

1999. Volusia County continued to advance its 

per capita personal income and in 2004, 

TABLE 18: PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME

Area 1989 % of 1989 

State PCPI 1999 % of 1999 State PCPI 2004 % of State PCPI 

Volusia County $13,288 90.4% $19,664 91.2% $22,582 96.0% 

New Smyrna Beach $14,501 98.7% $23,547 109.2% na - 

Edgewater $11,025 75.0% $17,017 78.9% na - 

Oak Hill $9,003 61.3% $16,158 75.0% na - 

Brevard County $15,093 102.7% $21,484 99.7% $23,477 99.8% 

Titusville $14,274 97.1% $18,901 87.7% na - 

Cocoa $11,347 77.2% $15,665 72.7% na - 

Florida $14,698 100.0% $21,557 100.0% $23,532 100.0% 

USA $14,420 98.1% $21,587 100.1% $24,020 102.1% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990d and 2000b
Regional Socioeconomics 

205 

at $22,580, it was 96% of the state figure. New 

Smyrna Beach had a per capita personal 

income that was only slightly below the state 

average in 1989 and one that exceeded the 

state average by nearly $2,000 in 1999. The 

communities of Edgewater and Oak Hill had 

much lower per capita personal incomes in 

1989 and 1999 than the state and national 

average, even though Edgewater made some 

slight gain and Oak Hill had made a significant 

relative gain (75% of the state per capita 

personal income versus 61% in 1989) by 1999. 

The per capita personal incomes for Brevard 

County compare favorably with Florida and 

the United States in 1989 and 1999. In 2004 the 

county figure was 99.8% of the Florida average 

of $23,530. However, the cities of Titusville 

and Cocoa were not as prosperous. In 1989 

Titusville was below, but close to the state 

average per capita personal income. By 1999 it 

had slipped to less than 90% of the state 

average. Cocoa started at about 77% ($11,347) 

of the state average of $14,700, but by 1999 

Cocoa had a per capita personal income that 

was less than 73% ($15,665) of Florida’s per 

capita personal income of $21,557. 

In 2004, the national per capita income had 

risen to $24,020, and the Florida per capita 

personal income was slightly less at $23,532. 

Both counties were nearly equal to the state 

average with Volusia at 96.0% and Brevard at 

99.8% of the Florida per capita personal 

income. This represented a relative improvement over the 1999 figure for Volusia County. 

Median Income 

Median household incomes are shown in table 

19. The median income is the value at which 

half of the households have incomes above and 

half of the households have incomes below the 

median value. The Florida state median 

income was about 90% of the national value in 

1989, 1999, and 2004. Volusia County median 

incomes were only about 90% of the state 

value in 1989 and 1999. In 2004 the county had 

improved to about 95% of the state value. New 

Smyrna Beach and Edgewater were 

comparable to the county, but Oak Hill was 

quite a bit lower than the county and state 

figures. 

Brevard County had median incomes that were 

higher than the state averages for the years 

shown, but by 1999 they had fallen below the 

national figures by nearly $1,895 in 1999 and 

$1,700 in 2004. Titusville was better off than 

the state in 1989, but became relatively less well 

off by 1999. The community of Cocoa’s 

median income was 85% that of the 

TABLE 19: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Area 1989 

% of 1989 

State 

Median 

Income* 

1999 

% of 1999 

State 

Median 

Income 

2004 

% of 2004 

State 

Median 

Income 

Volusia County $24,818 90.3% $35,219 90.7% $39,048 94.7% 

New Smyrna Beach $23,630 86.0% $35,372 91.1% na - 

Edgewater $25,053 91.2% $35,852 92.4% na - 

Oak Hill $19,250 70.0% $32,130 82.8% na - 

Brevard County $30,534 111.1% $40,099 103.3% $42,971 104.2% 

Titusville $8,425 103.4% $35,607 91.7% na - 

Cocoa $23,279 84.7% $27,062 69.7% na - 

Florida $27,483 100.0% $38,819 100.0% $41,236 100.0% 

United States $30,056 109.4% $41,994 108.2% $44,684 108.4% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census 1990d, 2000b, and 2004b 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

206 

state in 1989 and only 70% of the state average 

in 1999. The lower per capita and median 

incomes coincide with Cocoa’s loss of 

population during this period. 

EARNINGS BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 

Both counties had diversified economies, but 

in each certain industrial sectors were more 

important than others. In Brevard County the 

top three industry sectors (in 2003) by earnings 

were manufacturing (16.4% of total earnings), 

administrative and waste services (12.6%), and 

health care and social assistance (11.3%) (see 

table 20). Total earnings for the county were 

$9.7 billion. These three sectors 

TABLE 20: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY

Earnings in 1,000s of dollars for 2003 

Industry / County Brevard 

% of

Brevard 

Total 

Volusia 

% of 

Volusia 

Total 

Florida 

% of 

Florida 

Total 

Farming $7,235 0.1% $49,297 0.8% $1,791,793 0.5% 

Forestry, Fishing, etc., and Other (D) - (D) - $1,582,976 0.5% 

Mining (D) - (D) - $483,927 0.1% 

Utilities $37,696 0.4% $37,077 0.6% $2,357,217 0.7% 

Construction $593,598 6.1% $451,472 7.3% $24,061,064 6.9% 

Manufacturing $1,596,451 16.4% $442,486 7.2% $22,561,978 6.5% 

Wholesale Trade $236,439 2.4% $212,166 3.6% $19,104,253 5.5% 

Retail Trade $760,784 7.8% $656,783 10.7% $28,549,038 8.2% 

Transportation and Warehousing $145,997 1.5% $100,544 1.6% $10,981,599 3.2% 

Information $204,746 2.1% $133,602 2.2% $12,043,139 3.5% 

Finance and Insurance $300,577 3.1% $214,261 3.5% $24,053,889 6.9% 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $122,318 1.3% $367,583 6.0% $10,583,314 3.1% 

Professional and Technical Services $923,691 9.5% $337,384 5.5% $28,827,362 8.3% 

Management of Companies and Enterprises $70,470 0.7% $63,235 1.0% $5,569,356 1.6% 

Administrative and Waste Services $1,221,147 12.6% $237,493 3.9% $24,138,051 7.0% 

Educational Services $83,938 0.9% $165,579 2.7% $3,631,053 1.0% 

Health Care and Social Assistance $1,100,152 11.3% $930,114 15.1% $36,426,836 10.5% 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $91,017 0.9% $164,009 2.7% $6,636,012 1.9% 

Accommodation and Food Services $245,071 2.5% $280,796 4.6% $13,150,355 3.8% 

Other Services, except Public Administration $309,753 3.2% $299,240 4.9% $12,624,889 3.6% 

Federal, Civilian $471,918 4.9% $107,174 1.7% $9,670,073 2.8% 

Military $225,987 2.3% $34,840 0.6% $6,556,287 1.9% 

State Government $97,057 1.0% $145,849 2.4% $9,034,191 2.6% 

Local Government $862,741 8.9% $701,035 11.4% $31,967,814 9.2% 

Total $9,720,267 100.0% $6,142,584 100.0% $346,386,466 100.0% 

Note: (D) Data not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for these items are included in the totals. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 2005b 
Regional Socioeconomics 

207 

accounted for more than 40% of the total. 

Adding the next two largest sectors—nearly 

59% of all earnings. The industries professional and technical services (9.5%) and local 

government (8.9%)—accounts for most closely 

associated with tourism (arts, entertainment, 

and recreation) and accommodation and food 

services together provided only 3.5% of all 

earnings for the county. (Not all earnings in 

these two segments are attributable to tourism, 

but the use of these two segments for tourism 

does provide a frame of reference for 

comparison.) At the state level, these two 

industry sectors accounted for 5.7% of 

Florida’s total earnings of $346.4 billion for 

2003. 

Although the population of Volusia County 

was only slightly less than that of Brevard 

County, total earnings ($6.1 billion) for Volusia 

County were only about 60% of the total for 

earnings in Brevard County. The major 

industries by earnings in Volusia County (in 

2003) were health care and social assistance 

(15.1% of the total), local government (11.4%), 

and retail trade (10.7%). Including 

construction (7.3%) and manufacturing 

(7.2%), the top five sectors account for more 

than half of all earnings. Tourism (the arts, 

entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation and food services sectors) is 

relatively more important than in Brevard 

County, providing about 7.2% of all earnings. 

Total earnings for both counties were $15.8 

billion in 2003. 

EMPLOYMENT BY 

MAJOR INDUSTRIES 

The major sources of employment in Brevard 

County were retail trade (12.8% of the total), 

administrative and waste services (11.7%), 

health care and social assistance (10.9%) (see 

table 21). These industries provided more than 

one-third of all the nearly 255,800 positions in 

2003. Add manufacturing (9.3%) and local 

government (7.8%), and more than half of all 

jobs are accounted for. Tourism, including the 

arts, entertainment, and recreation, and the 

accommodation and food services sectors, 

provided nearly 9% of the jobs in this county. 

Providing 9% of the jobs and only 3.5% of the 

earnings indicates that tourism-related 

positions are relatively low paying and/or these 

positions can also be seasonal as well as being 

part-time rather than full-time jobs. The largest 

sources of jobs do not necessarily provide the 

largest earnings in a local economy. 

Again, although both counties’ economies are 

diversified, a few industry sectors account for 

most of the employment opportunities. Three 

of the 24 industrial sectors accounted for more 

than one-third of all 194,000 jobs in Volusia 

County in 2003. Retail trade (14.5% of the 

total), health care and social assistance 

(12.6%), accommodation and food services 

(9.1%), local government (8.8%), and construction (7.6%) employed more than half of 

the county’s workers. In this county tourismrelated positions made up more than 11% of 

the jobs. 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

Unemployment in the gateway communities in 

Volusia County was lower than in the state, 

nation, or Volusia County overall (table 22). A 

little more than 700 persons in this local 

workforce of nearly 17,000 were unemployed 

in 2000. At the same time the county’s available 

civilian workforce of more than 200,000 had 

more than 12,600 people unemployed. (Note: 

U.S. Census unemployment estimates count 

only those who are actively seeking but have 

not found employment.) The opposite pattern 

occurred in Brevard County. The county had 

an unemployment rate of 4.9%, which was 

lower than the one for Florida or the nation at 

the same time. Yet the gateway towns had 

higher unemployment rates resulting in more 

than 1,700 people being out of work. Brevard 

County had a larger available workforce than 

Volusia County, yet it had fewer people out of 

work—about 10,700. 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

208 

TABLE 21: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (NUMBER OF FULL- AND PART-TIME JOBS FOR 2003) 

Industry / County Brevard 

% of

Brevard 

Total 

Volusia 

% of 

Volusia 

Total 

Florida 

% of 

Florida 

Total 

Farming 807 0.3% 2,970 1.5% 97,589 1.0% 

Forestry, Fishing, etc., and Other (D) - (D) 90,285 1.0% 

Mining (D) - (D) 13,211 0.1% 

Utilities 632 0.2% 510 0.3% 25,385 0.3% 

Construction 17,049 6.7% 14,680 7.6% 619,025 6.6% 

Manufacturing 23,858 9.3% 9,854 5.1% 410,012 4.4% 

Wholesale Trade 5,385 2.1% 5,211 2.7% 343,833 3.7% 

Retail Trade 32,741 12.8% 28,170 14.5% 1,093,594 11.6% 

Transportation and Warehousing 4,063 1.6% 3,209 1.7% 277,449 3.0% 

Information 3,379 1.3% 3,159 1.6% 195,839 2.1% 

Finance and Insurance 7,471 2.9% 5,737 3.0% 464,897 4.9% 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 10,482 4.1% 7,581 3.9% 450,372 4.8% 

Professional and Technical Services 17,162 6.7% 9,458 4.9% 576,582 6.1% 

Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,001 0.4% 757 0.4% 71,400 0.8% 

Administrative and Waste Services 29,910 11.7% 13,011 6.7% 958,758 10.2% 

Educational Services 3,692 1.4% 5,508 2.8% 134,793 1.4% 

Health Care and Social Assistance 27,908 10.9% 24,475 12.6% 906,614 9.6% 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 5,569 2.2% 4,787 2.5% 243,026 2.6% 

Accommodation and Food Services 16,911 6.6% 17,719 9.1% 689,710 7.3% 

Other Services, except Public Administration 15,320 6.0% 13,639 7.0% 588,262 6.3% 

Federal, Civilian 5,600 2.2% 1,381 0.7% 123,591 1.3% 

Military 3,493 1.4% 1,021 0.5% 109,067 1.2% 

State Government 2,362 0.9% 3,302 1.7% 211,170 2.2% 

Local Government 19,870 7.8% 16,985 8.8% 701,037 7.5% 

Total 255,782 100.0% 194,037 100.0% 9,395,501 100.0% 

Note: (D) Data not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the 

totals. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005
Regional Socioeconomics 

209 

TABLE 22: EMPLOYMENT STATUS 2000 

Area Civilian 

Labor Force Employed Unemployed 

Percent of Civilian 

Labor Force 

Unemployed 

Volusia County 201,658 189,035 12,623 6.3% 

New Smyrna Beach 7,977 7,610 367 4.6% 

Edgewater 8,329 7,997 332 4.0% 

Oak Hill 538 522 16 3.0% 

Brevard County 218,095 207,366 10,729 4.9% 

Titusville 18,229 17,071 1,158 6.4% 

Cocoa 7,545 6,974 571 7.6% 

Florida 7,407,458 6,995,047 412,411 5.6% 

United States 137,668,798 129,721,512 7,947,286 5.8% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b 

In 2004 the unemployment rates for Brevard 

(5.0%) and Volusia (6.2%) counties changed 

only a little, but the number of unemployed 

individuals increased from 23,352 to 25,645, an 

increase of 2,293 (table 23). (Note: data for 

cities and towns was not available at the time of 

this writing.) Relatively speaking, the twocounty region was better off than the state and 

nation because at the same time Florida and 

the nation had unemployment rates were more 

than 7% each. 

POVERTY 

Both Volusia and Brevard counties had lower 

poverty rates than the state or nation in 1989 

and in 1999 (table 24). Although both counties 

were relatively better off when compared to 

Florida and the nation, there were pockets of 

higher rates of poverty as evidenced by Oak 

Hill in 1989 (23.3%) and 1999 (14.4%), and 

Cocoa in 1999 (24.1%). In fact, poverty in 

Cocoa increased by nearly 200 people, rising 

from 21.4% to more than 24% in 10 years. 

Poverty rates in 2004 remained about the same 

for Volusia County (11.5%), decreased for 

Brevard County (8.6%) and the state (12.2%), 

and increased to 13.1% for the nation. (Note: 

data for cities and towns was not available at 

the time of this writing.) 

TABLE 23. EMPLOYMENT STATUS 2004 

Area Civilian 

Labor Force Employed Unemployed 

Percent of Civilian 

Labor Force 

Unemployed 

Volusia County 215,965 202,578 13,387 6.2% 

Brevard County 243,604 231,346 12,258 5.0% 

Florida 8,291,669 7,700,854 590,815 7.1% 

United States 144,720,309 134,259,460 10,460,849 7.2% 

 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

210 

TABLE 24. POVERTY

Area 

Number of 

Individuals 

Below the 

Poverty Level 

 in 1989 

Percent 

Below 

the Poverty 

Level in 1989 

Number of 

Individuals 

Below the Poverty 

Level in 1999 

Percent 

Below 

the Poverty 

Level in 1999 

Volusia County 43,568 12.1% 49,907 11.6% 

New Smyrna Beach 2,286 14.0% 2,157 10.8% 

Edgewater 1,556 10.2% 1,718 9.2% 

Oak Hill 224 23.3% 190 14.4% 

Brevard County 35,815 9.1% 44,218 9.5% 

Titusville 4,137 10.6% 4,932 12.4% 

Cocoa 3,757 21.4% 3,951 24.1% 

Florida 1,604,186 12.7% 1,952,629 12.5% 

United States 31,742,864 13.1% 33,899,812 12.4% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990d and 2000b 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and Kennedy Space Center 

have been a key part of the regional economy 

since the 1960s. This importance increased 

over the years with the buildup of the manned 

space program, the moon landing, and the 

space shuttle flights to build the international 

space station. Now the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration is transitioning from 

the space shuttle program, ending in 2010, to 

continued support of satellite and other 

launches. A result of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-

161) is that the work at the space center will 

change, requiring a different mix of skilled 

workers and fewer of them. 

The redirection of NASA programs, 

operations, and activities is likely to have 

substantial effects on socioeconomics in 

Titusville and Brevard and Volusia counties. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 

CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE 

In recent years the National Park Service has 

supported researchers at Michigan State 

University as they developed and refined a 

model—the NPS Money Generation Model, 

version 2 (MGM2)—that provides an easy-tounderstand analysis of the economic impact of 

a park unit on the local/regional economy. The 

MGM2 was used the estimate the economic 

impact of Canaveral National Seashore in 

terms of sales, income, and jobs attributable to 

visitor use at the national seashore in 2003 

(tables 25 and 26) (Michigan State University 

2001). 

This model employs the annual amount of 

visitor use at a park unit as a main data 

requirement, so the economic impact varies 

from year to year depending upon the annual 

visitation to the park unit. Visitor use is 

segmented into local and nonlocal visitors 

(nonlocal visitors come from outside the twocounty area), and day use or overnight visitors 

(overnight visitors stay in hotels or campgrounds both inside and outside the park unit). 

The average amount spent per party-day was 

$110. (Party days are the number of days 
Regional Socioeconomics 

211 

TABLE 25. VISITS AND SPENDING BY VISITOR SEGMENT (2003) 

 Local Day 

Use Visitors 

Nonlocal 

Day Use 

Visitors 

Hotel 

Visitors 

Camp 

Visitors Total 

Recreation Visits 208,918 417,835 313,376 105,769 1,045,898 

Segment Shares in Recreation Visits 20% 40% 30% 10% 100% 

Party Days 83,551 167,102 250,653 83,685 586,502 

Average Spending per Party Day $39 $56 $176 $91 $110 

Total Spending (millions) $3.22 $9.31 $44.19 $7.71 $64.44 

SOURCE: Michigan State University 

TABLE 26. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF VISITOR SPENDING BY SECTOR (2003) 

Sectors Sales 

(Million’s) 

Personal 

Incomes 

(Millions) 

Jobs 

Value 

Added 

(Millions) 

Direct Effects 

Motel, Hotel, B&B, and Cabins $20.87 $6.81 454 $10.34 

Campsites $1.84 $0.60 40 $0.91 

Restaurants and Bars $14.25 $4.85 407 $6.76 

Admissions and Fees $6.28 $2.17 185 $3.56 

Retail $6.93 $3.54 190 $5.53 

Others $4.12 $1.39 56 $1.99 

Total Direct Effects $54.29 $19.36 1,333 $29.09 

Secondary Effects $25.02 $9.08 353 $15.69 

Total Effects $79.31 $28.44 1,687 $44.78 

SOURCE: Michigan State University 

each visitor party spends in the local area. 

Average spending per party-day is the average 

expenditures one visitor group spent per day in 

the local area.) 

The model estimated that visitors to the 

national seashore spent more than $64 million 

in 2003. The direct effects of this spending 

resulted in $54 million in sales and $19 million 

in personal income (wages and salaries), 

supported 1,333 jobs, and provided $29 million 

in value added (the sum of employee 

compensation, proprietary income, and 

indirect business tax; value added is the value 

added by the region to the final good or service 

being produced). Secondary effects occur as 

money from sales and income recirculates 

within the local area, adding additional 

amounts to sales, income, jobs, and value 

added. 

The $64 million in expenditures supported a 

total of $79 million dollars in sales, $28 million 

in personal income, 1,687 jobs, and $45 million 

in value added. Although these figures 

represent a valued contribution to the local 

economy, they are but a small part of the totals 

for the two-county region, i.e., $26.38 billion 

(BEA 2005) in total personal income and more 

than 449,800 full and part-time positions (BEA 

2005) for the region in 2003. 

In 2006, all visitors to the national seashore 

spent an estimated $71.4 million, including 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

212 

nonlocal visitors who spent about $67.8 

million. This direct spending supported 1,364 

jobs and contributed more than $41.9 million 

of value added to the local economy. 

OTHER TOPICS OF INTEREST 

National Seashore Budget 

The annual expenditures by the national 

seashore represent an additional input of 

federal funds into the regional economy. From 

2001 to 2009 the total operating budget for the 

national seashore has risen from $2.13 million 

to $3.27 million. These direct expenditures and 

the employees’ expenditures of wage and 

salary income result in further indirect effects 

because the funds recirculate within the 

regional economy—adding to sales, income, 

and jobs. Expenditures by the national 

seashore for labor, goods, and services occur 

mostly within the local region. These funds are 

allocated for resource preservation and 

management, visitor services (including law 

enforcement and interpretation), facility 

operations and maintenance, and 

administration. 

Commercial Use Authorizations 

There are approximately 79 commercial use 

authorizations (CUAs) in place. Two 

businesses offer canoe tours, two provide boat 

tours, one features kayak tours, and the rest 

cover fishing guides. All permits are issued on a 

calendar year basis, and fees are charged to 

cover the costs of administering the program. 

In 2008, there were 100 commercial harvesting 

permits and 78 fishing guide/tour boat permits 

issued on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Park Service. (NPS 

staff manage the commercial harvesting and 

guiding permitting for both the national 

seashore and the refuge.) Income from these 

activities amounted to $34,800 (table 27). Some 

of the commercial harvesters make a living 

fishing for shellfish, others work at it part-time, 

and others do it for a hobby. It is likely that the 

fishing guide/tour boat business may have 

some participants that operate in a similar 

manner. 

TABLE 27. COMMERCIAL USE PERMITS

Commercial 

Use Cost No. of Permits Revenue 

Fishing/Tour 

Boat Guides 

renewal $250 75 $18,750 

new $350 3 $1,050 

Commercial 

Harvesting $150 100 $15,000 

Total 178 $34,800 

 SOURCE: National Park Service 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

program makes payments to local governments 

to help offset losses in property taxes due to 

nontaxable federal lands within their 

boundaries. Table 28 displays the amounts of 

these payments for recent fiscal years. PILT 

funds help fund local government services like 

police and fire protection, school and road 

construction, etc. Payments are determined by 

a formula that considers population, receipt 

sharing payments, and the amount of federal 

land within an affected county. The amount of 

PILT payments that are made each year are 

determined by congressional appropriation 

levels. 

TABLE 28. ANNUAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Fiscal 

Year 

Volusia 

County 

Brevard 

County 

2001 $18,373 $29,689 

2002 $19,328 $31,233 

2003 $22,132 $35,664 

2004 $22,700 $36,681 

2005 $23,200 $37,490 

2006 $23,594 $38,126 

2007 $23,475 $37,933 

2008 $37,256 $60,202 

2009 $38,138 $61,627 

SOURCE: National Association of Counties
Regional Socioeconomics 

213 

The National Park Service manages almost all 

federal lands that qualify for the PILT program 

in the two counties. During fiscal year 2007, 

Brevard County received $37,933, covering a 

total of 26,289 acres of federally owned lands 

within the county. Volusia County received 

$23,475 for 16,269 acres of federal lands. As 

table 28 shows, these payments are relatively 

small, and they do not vary much from year to 

year. (Note: USFWS-owned lands do not 

qualify for the PILT program. Local 

governments receive federal funds in lieu of 

taxes for USFWS lands as provided by the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act [16USC 715s], as 

amended. Brevard County does not receive any 

funding from this program. Volusia County has 

received annual payments ranging between 

about $3,500 to $6,200 for Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge in recent years.) 
214 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Natural or Depletable Resource 

Conservation Potential 

There would be no measurable differences in 

natural or depletable resource conservation 

among the alternatives being considered in this 

management plan. Limited construction 

activities would reduce surface natural 

resources, such as vegetation and wildlife 

habitat; however, these effects are addressed 

under the “Vegetation and Wildlife” section in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.” 

Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Potential 

Under any alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to implement its 

policies of reducing costs, eliminating waste, 

and conserving resources by using energyefficient and cost-effective technology (NPS 

2006b). The National Park Service would 

continue to look for energy-saving 

opportunities in all aspects of national 

seashore operations. Because the National 

Park Service would promote energy efficiency 

under any alternative, this impact topic was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Prime or Unique Farmlands 

In 1980 the Council on Environmental Quality 

directed federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their actions on farmland soils classified by the 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

as prime or unique. Prime farmlands are soils 

that produce general crops such as common 

foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique 

farmlands produce specialty crops such as 

fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service manages about 150 acres of 

inactive orange groves near Haulover Canal 

and is returning the groves to their natural 

state. There are no prime or unique farmlands 

on the national seashore (NPS 1982), and 

prime or unique farmlands was dismissed as an 

impact topic. 

Ecologically Critical Areas Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, Other Unique Natural Areas 

Canaveral National Seashore was set aside to 

preserve Mosquito Lagoon as an Estuary of 

National Significance, and to preserve other 

prime habitat for federally threatened and 

endangered species. Impacts on the Mosquito 

Lagoon estuary are discussed in the “Water 

Resources” section under “Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences.” Impacts on 

prime habitat are addressed in the “Fish and 

Essential Fish Habitat” and “Special-Status 

Species” sections under in chapter 4. There are 

no wild and scenic river designations within 

the national seashore. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from detailed analysis. 

Carbon Footprint 

For the purpose of this planning effort, 

“carbon footprint” is defined as the sum of all 

emissions of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and ozone) 

that would result from implementation of 

either of the action alternatives. Understanding 

the carbon footprint of each alternative is 

important for determining its contribution to 

climate change. 

It has been determined that the action alternatives described in this document would only 

emit a negligible amount of greenhouse gases 

that contribute to climate change; therefore, 

this impact topic has been dismissed from 

detailed analysis in this plan. The reasons for 

dismissing this impact topic are that (1) no new 

road construction is proposed under either 

alternative, and (2) changes to facilities are 

largely in-kind and should have an overall 

benefit due to newer sustainable building 

practices. Because of the negligible amount of 
Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed 

215 

greenhouse gas emissions that would result 

from each alternative, a quantitative 

measurement of their carbon footprint was 

determined by the planning team not to be 

practicable. 

Night Sky 

NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the 

National Park Service will preserve, to the 

greatest extent possible, the natural lightscapes 

of parks, including natural darkness. The 

agency strives to minimize the intrusion of 

artificial light into the night scene by limiting 

the use of artificial outdoor lighting. Mitigation 

of necessary lighting to reduce impacts on 

wildlife and visitors would include shielding 

and using minimal impact lighting techniques 

on existing and new facilities. The actions 

proposed in the alternatives would have 

negligible to minimal and highly localized 

impacts on the night sky, and management 

actions would be similar under all alternatives. 

Therefore, this topic was dismissed from 

further analysis. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Museum Collections 

Museum collections was dismissed as an 

impact topic because Canaveral National 

Seashore only maintains a small portion of its 

museum collection (with the exception of 

archival documents), and none of the 

alternatives considered in this plan affect the 

collections. 

Although the national seashore’s website 

indicates that the museum collection currently 

contains 340,896 cataloged objects, the 

national seashore’s August 2003 “Scope of 

Collection Statement” indicates that when 

fully cataloged, its museum collection will 

include more than 1 million items, most of 

which are shellfish remains and other 

archeological objects (and associated field 

records) collected from midden sites and 

housed at the NPS Southeast Archeological 

Center in Tallahassee, Florida. Some of the 

artifacts collected within the seashore and 

stored at the NPS Southeast Archaeological 

Center are also owned by NASA. Curated 

objects include natural history items (plant 

specimens, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and 

faunal remains from archeological sites); 

history objects (potsherds, structural elements 

from historic structures, tools from archeological sites, bottles, personal belongings from 

an early 20th century ethnic community, and 

miscellaneous objects); and archival materials. 

All but some reference items are eventually 

slated for deposit in the Timucuan Ecological 

and Historic Preserve museum storage facility.

Facilities in the national seashore that exhibit 

museum items include the Eldora State House 

and the Apollo Beach visitor information 

center. Although no artifacts are exhibited in 

the main house at Seminole Rest, some 

museum objects may eventually be displayed in 

that rehabilitated historic structure. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts on Indian trust resources from 

a proposed project or action by Department of 

the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in 

environmental documents. The federal Indian 

trust responsibility is a legally enforceable 

fiduciary obligation on the part of the United 

States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, 

and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to 

carry out the mandates of federal law with 

respect to American Indian and Alaska Native 

tribes. 

None of the actions that might be implemented 

as a result of the plan alternatives would 

change any existing conditions or practices 

concerning American Indian treaty or statutory 

rights or cultural interests that the tribes 

traditionally associated with the national 

seashore maintain. However, such recognition 

does not translate into the creation of a trust 

resource because these actions take place in 

the context of preserving and managing the 

resources for the benefit of all Americans as 

required by the Organic Act and subsequent 

legislation. There are no Indian trust resources 
CHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

216 

as defined in the order in the national seashore. 

Therefore, this topic was dismissed from 

further consideration. 

SOCIAL RESOURCES 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,”

requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately 

high and/or adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs and 

policies on minorities and low-income 

populations and communities. According to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(1998), environmental justice is the 

fair treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people, regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income, with respect to 

the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment 

means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, 

should bear a disproportionate share of the 

negative environmental consequences 

resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution of 

federal, state, local, and tribal programs 

and policies. The goal of this “fair treatment” is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potentially disproportionately high and adverse effects and 

identify alternatives that may mitigate these 

impacts. 

There are both minority and low-income 

populations in the vicinity of the national 

seashore. However, environmental justice is 

dismissed as an impact topic because 

 NPS staff actively solicited public participation as part of the planning process and 

gave equal consideration to input from all 

persons, regardless of age, race, income 

status, or other socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

 The impacts associated with 

implementation of the alternatives would 

not disproportionately affect any minority 

or low-income population or community. 

 Implementation of the alternatives would 

not result in any identified effects that 

would be specific to any minority or lowincome community. 

 NPS staff does not anticipate that any 

adverse impacts on public health and/or 

the socioeconomic environment would 

appreciably alter the physical and social 

structure of the nearby minority or lowincome populations or communities. 

Urban Quality and Design 

of the Built Environment 

Limited construction would occur under any 

of the alternatives. New construction would be 

built to match the style and/or enhance the 

existing buildings. However, these actions 

would cause little impact on the built environment because the national seashore currently 

has very limited development. Therefore, 

quality of the built environment was dismissed 

from further analysis in this assessment. 
Chapter 

Environmental Consequences

4

219 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508) requires that 

environmental documents include discussion 

of the environmental impacts of a proposed 

federal action, feasible alternatives to that 

action, and any adverse environmental effects 

that could not be avoided if a proposed 

action should be implemented. In this case, 

the proposed federal action is implementation of the General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Canaveral National Seashore. This chapter 

contains the analysis of the environmental 

impacts on natural resources, cultural 

resources, visitor experience, national 

seashore operations, and regional 

socioeconomics that would result from the 

actions of each of the four alternatives. The 

analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse effects that would be 

caused by implementing each alternative. 

Because the proposed actions described in 

the alternatives are general and conceptual, 

the impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

after the Final General Management Plan is 

published and approved, appropriate 

detailed environmental and cultural 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

For each topic in this chapter, first, the 

methods and assumptions are described and 

then the impacts that would occur from 

implementing each alternative are analyzed. 

Each alternative discussion also includes a 

description of the cumulative effects, 

followed by a conclusion. At the end of the 

impact section there is a brief discussion of 

the unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources, 

the relationship of short-term uses of the 

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

the energy requirements and conservation 

potential. The impacts of each alternative are 

briefly summarized in table 6 at the end of 

chapter 2. 

TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Each impact topic includes a discussion of 

impacts, including the intensity, duration, 

and type of impact. Intensity of impact 

describes the degree, level, or strength of an 

impact as negligible, minor, moderate, or 

major. Because definitions of intensity vary 

by resource topic, separate intensity 

definitions are provided for each impact 

topic. Duration of impact considers whether 

the impact would occur over the short term 

or long term. Unless otherwise noted, shortterm impacts—generally less than three 

years—are those that would no longer be 

detectable because the resource or value 

would return to its predisturbance condition 

or appearance. Long-term impacts refer to a 

change in a resource or value that is expected 

to persist for three or more years. The type of 

impact refers to whether the impact on the 

resource or value would be beneficial 

(positive) or adverse (negative). 

The impact analyses for the action 

alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D) 

describe the difference between 

implementing alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) and implementing the action 

alternative. In other words, to understand the 

consequences of any action alternative, the 

reader must also consider what would 

happen if no action were taken. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The impacts of climate change on the 

national seashore are not expected to differ 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

220 

among the alternatives, and the lack of 

qualitative information about climate change 

effects adds to the difficulty of predicting 

how these impacts will be realized in the 

national seashore. For example, mangroves 

may be impacted by sea level rise, and storm 

frequency and intensity may impact cultural 

resources and visitor amenities. 

The range of variability in the potential 

effects of climate change is large in 

comparison to what is known about the 

future under an altered climate regime in the 

national seashore in particular, even if largerscale climatic patterns such as increases in air 

and water temperature, increased seasonal 

precipitation, and more frequent severe 

thunderstorms have been accurately 

predicted for the Atlantic Coast (Loehman 

and Anderson 2009). Therefore, the potential 

effects of this dynamic climate on national 

seashore resources were included in 

“Chapter 3, Affected Environment.” 

However, they will not be analyzed in detail 

in “Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences” with respect to each alternative 

because of the uncertainty and variability of 

outcomes, and because these impacts are not 

expected to differ among the alternatives. 

Although many specific effects of climate 

change, and the rates of changes, are not 

known at the present time, additional data 

and climate change modeling will become 

available during the life of this General 

Management Plan. The best available 

scientific climate change data and modeling 

will be incorporated into specific 

management planning, decisions, or actions 

that may be taken under any of the 

alternatives described in this plan. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, which implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requires 

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively important actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

Cumulative impacts are considered for both 

the no-action and the action alternatives. 

These impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives 

proposed in this document with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. To do this, it was 

necessary to identify other such projects or 

actions at Canaveral National Seashore and 

in the surrounding area as listed below. 

Canaveral National Seashore 

The national seashore has developed a 

number of sites to accommodate visitor use. 

These include paving beach access roads and 

parking, constructing a number of boardwalk 

dune crossovers to access beach areas, and 

boat ramps and docks to enhance access to 

Mosquito Lagoon. The historic structures 

including the Eldora State House and the 

main and caretaker’s houses at Seminole Rest 

have been rehabilitated and are open to 

visitor use. Recent actions include the 

construction of a new ranger station, visitor 

center facility, and education pavilion. 

Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) 

The wildlife refuge offers a visitor 

information center, boat ramps, walking 

trails, and a one-way wildlife drive with 

interpretive media for a windshield tour of 

area resources. Most visitor activities in the 

refuge are concentrated near Titusville. The 

national wildlife refuge visitor information 

center distributes the combined brochure for 

the wildlife refuge and the national seashore, 

but does not attract visitors looking for the 

national seashore. The NPS/USFWS Joint 

Management Area represents a portion of the 
Introduction 

221 

refuge within the boundary of the national 

seashore. 

John F. Kennedy Space 

Center (NASA or KSC) 

Almost two thirds of the national seashore’s 

acreage is under NASA ownership. Satellite 

and other space exploration vertical launch 

activities are scheduled throughout the year; 

however, space shuttle operations have 

ended. Any future NASA operations may 

require complete closure of public access to 

the southern third of the national seashore 

for security purposes. Closures are enforced 

typically three to five days before launch and 

the day of landing. Access is restricted by use 

of gates along Titusville Road (State Route 

406) and Kennedy Parkway (State Route 3). 

Facility development at the space center is 

ongoing. In addition to the projects discussed 

in the cumulative impacts analyses, new 

facilities may be constructed and managed by 

the military, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, or private companies.

Intracoastal Waterway 

The Intracoastal Waterway provides boat 

access into Mosquito Lagoon from waters 

outside the national seashore. The 

maintenance and operation of the waterway 

is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. The Intracoastal 

Waterway forms the western boundary of the 

northern area of the national seashore for 6.5 

miles and passes through the national 

seashore for an additional 7 miles before 

entering Haulover Canal, which provides 

access to the Indian River outside of the 

national seashore. Where the waterway 

passes through Mosquito Lagoon, an 

easement of 250 feet on either side of the 

channel centerline has been retained by the 

Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers 

conducts periodic dredging activities along 

the Intracoastal Waterway and beach 

replenishment at New Smyrna Beach. The 

Corps of Engineers also permits or reviews 

wetland restoration projects in conjunction 

with Volusia County and the St. John’s River 

Water Management District. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

SEASHORE RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (section 1.4) requires analysis of 

potential effects to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair national 

seashore resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national 

park system, established by the Organic Act 

and reaffirmed by the General Authorities 

Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to 

conserve park unit resources and values. NPS 

managers must seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on a park unit’s resources 

and values. However, the laws do give NPS 

managers discretion to allow impacts on 

resources and values when necessary and 

appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park 

unit, as long as the impact does not constitute 

impairment of the affected resources and 

values. That discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave resources and values 

unimpaired unless a particular law directly 

and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that 

would, in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, harm the integrity 

of a park unit’s resources and or values and 

violate the 1916 NPS Organic Act’s mandate 

(NPS Management Policies 2006 1.4.5). An 

impact on a park unit’s resources or values 

may, but does not necessarily, constitute an 

impairment. An impact is more likely to 

constitute impairment to the extent that it 

affects a resource or value whose 

conservation is 

 necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation of the 

park 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

222 

 key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the park or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the park 

 identified in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents as being of 

significance 

Impairment may result from visitor activities; 

NPS administrative activities; or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, 

and others operating in the park. Impairment 

may also result from sources or activities 

outside the park. A determination on 

impairment is made for each impact topic 

related to the park’s cultural and natural 

resources. A determination of impairment is 

not required for impact topics such as visitor 

experience, the socioeconomic environment, 

and national seashore operations. The 

determination of impairment for the 

preferred alternative is found in appendix C.
223 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS 

Protection of unique geological features, 

minimization of soil erosion, and the siting of 

facilities in relation to potential geologic 

hazards are considered when evaluating 

potential effects of a proposed action on 

geological resources. Generally, adverse 

effects can be avoided or minimized if proper 

construction techniques, erosion-control 

measures, and structural engineering design 

are incorporated into project development. 

Methodology 

Effects on geologic resources and soils would 

be substantive if they would (1) alter the 

stratigraphy and geological structures that 

control groundwater quality, distribution of 

aquifers and confining beds, and 

groundwater availability; or (2) change the 

soil composition, structure, or function 

within the environment. Prime farmland and 

unique soils were dismissed from analysis 

because no prime or unique farmlands exist 

within the national seashore, as stated in the 

General Management Plan (NPS 1982). 

In addition to these parameters, the 

thresholds to determine geological resources 

and soils impacts are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes to soils 

or geologic resources. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, 

and would result in small but measurable 

changes in soils or geologic resources; the 

effects would be localized. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would result in easily detectable 

changes to soils or geologic resources; the 

effects would be localized. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and would result 

in appreciable changes to soils or geologic 

resources; the effects would be on a 

regional scale. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

A (The No-action Alternative) 

Maintenance of access roads is presumed to 

include filling potholes, resurfacing paved 

roads, clearing out drainage structures, 

and/or grading and adding gravel to gravel 

roads. 

Implementation of alternative A, the noaction alternative, is not expected to have any 

new impacts on geologic resources or soils at 

Klondike Beach or in the Titusville area. 

Therefore, these geographic areas are not 

discussed for this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Impacts on geologic 

resources and soil would remain long term 

and negligible because of maintaining the 

access road. Effects on soils would continue 

to be soil compaction and destruction of soil 

structure, as well as increased erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Apollo Beach Area. Impacts on geologic 

resources and soils would remain long term, 

negligible to minor, and adverse because of 

maintenance of access roads and pristine 

beaches and use of the unpaved parking area 

and fire cache. Effects would continue to be 

soil compaction and destruction of soil 

structure. 

Impacts on soils would remain long term and 

negligible with the continued maintenance of 

parking areas along Apollo Beach Road 

associated with Turtle Mound. Maintenance 

of the boardwalk trail and protection of the 

mound would continue to result in long-term 

beneficial impacts because soils would be 

protected from public access and associated 

compaction and disturbance of natural soil 

structure. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

224 

Eldora Hammock Area. Impacts on soil 

would remain long term and negligible with 

maintenance of the access roads and parking 

areas. Effects on soils would continue to be 

soil compaction, destruction of soil structure, 

potential erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments during storms, and erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Effects of continued maintenance of the 

Eldora Hammock and Castle Windy trails 

would continue to be long term, minor, and 

adverse from removal of vegetation or 

disturbance of soils, which could result in 

potential erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments during storms. 

Impacts of maintenance activities at the 

marine science educational station and 

resource management storage garage at the 

former Hebner property would remain long 

term and negligible and could include 

erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments during storms. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would 

continue at the lands south of the Eldora 

Hammock area because of restricted visitor 

access into this area. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. No new 

impacts on geologic resources or soils would 

be expected from the continued boat launch 

partnership at the Apollo Beach boat launch 

area. Long-term, negligible, impacts would 

continue because of maintenance of informal 

campsites at Northern Mosquito Lagoon 

islands and parking area 5 across from the 

boat launch. Impacts would be associated 

with any necessary removal of vegetation or 

disturbance of soils, which could result in 

potential erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments during storms. 

Oak Hill Area. No impacts on geologic 

resources or soils are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts on geologic resources and soils on 

Bio Lab Road would continue to be long 

term, minor, and adverse for alternative A. 

This is because of maintenance of the gravel 

road, which is assumed to involve grading 

and addition of gravel as necessary. Bio Lab 

Road maintenance would continue to 

contribute to erosion and sedimentation. 

Overall, impacts from implementing alternative A would have long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on geologic resources 

and soils. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of the alternatives proposed in this document 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, 

present, and anticipated future projects that 

would contribute to impacts on geologic 

resources or soils include the following: 

1. rockets and satellites would continue to 

be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center—no new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time 

2. potential development and operation of 

a commercial vertical launch complex at 

Canaveral Air Force Station 

3. construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as 

part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments (report 

completed in January 2007; construction 

has not begun) 

4. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(environmental impact statement 

completed in April 1998) 

5. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape Canaveral 

Air Station 

6. development of the International Space 

Research Park (ISRP) on the Kennedy 

Space Center (environmental impact 

statement completed in 2004; 

construction has not begun) 

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers periodic 

dredging activities along the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ongoing) 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

225 

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna Beach 

(ongoing) 

9. mosquito control activities by St. Johns 

River Water Management District, 

Brevard County, and Volusia County 

(ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Projects that involve launches of space 

vehicles, including projects 1 through 6, 

could deposit engine exhaust products as 

well as hydrochloric acid and aluminum 

oxide from launch exhaust. The impact of 

these activities would be expected to result in 

a short-term, moderate, adverse impact on 

geologic resources and/or soils, because 

launches would temporarily increase acidity 

in nearby soils. However, multiple monitoring studies have found that the soils close to 

the launch area are high in calcium carbonate 

and therefore acidic deposits from launches 

are quickly neutralized; therefore, long-term 

impacts from hydrochloric acid would be 

minimal (NASA 2008b, NASA 2006). 

Construction of the International Space 

Research Park at Kennedy Space Center 

would result in short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate impacts on geologic resources 

and soils. This proposed park would 

primarily disturb previously disturbed soils, 

citrus groves, and remnant wetlands, 

although a small portion of the project would 

disturb previously undisturbed soils. 

Therefore, construction of this park would 

increase soil erosion and the number of 

impervious surfaces. Stormwater detention 

ponds would be constructed to capture 

runoff, and a central greenway would reduce 

the potential for soil erosion (NASA 2004). 

Dredging activities along the Intracoastal 

Waterway would continue to have a shortand long-term moderate impact on soils. 

During dredging activities, sediment is 

removed to deepen the Intracoastal 

Waterway and allow entrance of shipping 

vessels. Erosion of soil from activities 

associated with alternative A would slightly 

increase the amount of sediment eventually 

being deposited into the Intracoastal 

Waterway; however, this increase would not 

be expected to impact the frequency of 

dredging operations. 

Although implementation of alternative A 

would not directly impact beach sediment, 

beach nourishment activities at New Smyrna 

Beach would be expected to have short-term, 

moderate, adverse and long-term beneficial 

impacts. Short-term moderate adverse 

impacts would occur during pipeline 

installation for beach sediment delivery. After 

initial construction activities have ceased and 

nourishment operations have begun, a longterm beneficial impact would be expected 

because sediment erosion would be reduced. 

Mosquito control would continue to have 

short-term minor and long-term negligible 

impacts on geologic resources and soils 

because of pesticide accumulation in soils. 

Approved larvicides are applied on select 

marsh sites among the lagoon islands, so no 

long-term impacts would be expected. 

Overall, the actions of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be moderate, adverse, and long 

term. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate adverse 

and long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative 

impacts on geologic resources and soils. 

Alternative A is expected to contribute a 

small component to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

no changes to current conditions would 

occur within the national seashore. 

Conditions for geologic resources and soils 

would remain as described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. Maintenance 

activities on roads and parking areas would 

continue to result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on soils associated 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

226 

with any necessary removal of vegetation or 

disturbance of soils, which could result in 

potential erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments during storms. Long-term 

beneficial impacts would be expected to 

continue from restricted public access to 

Turtle Mound and the lands south of the 

Eldora Hammock area. 

The actions proposed in alternative A, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse and long-term and 

beneficial cumulative impacts on geologic 

resources and soils. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, could result in shortand long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on geologic resources and soils. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would also be 

realized through revegetation of sites. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

geologic resources or soils at Klondike Beach 

or Titusville under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would be expected at the 

Playalinda Beach area. Construction of a bike 

path would result in increases in impervious 

surfaces and associated soil erosion and 

sedimentation. There would be no new longterm impacts on soils because the new 

restrooms would be built in the footprint of 

the existing restrooms. 

The boardwalk would be relocated and 

strengthened to support emergency allterrain vehicles (ATVs). This would result in 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts because 

additional posts would be required to 

strengthen the boardwalk. These activities 

would result in localized soil disturbance. 

Relocating lifeguard operations closer to 

Eddy Creek would result in negligible 

adverse impacts on soils. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would result from burial of 

overhead lines. Overhead line burial would 

disturb soil, resulting in temporary erosion 

and sedimentation until regrowth of 

vegetation occurs. Construction of bike trails 

would result in long-term, minor adverse 

impacts from increased impervious surfaces, 

erosion, and sedimentation. Replacement of 

the visitor center would be expected to result 

in short-term, minor, adverse impacts. Once 

construction is complete and revegetation 

has occurred, impacts on soil would be 

anticipated to be negligible. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on soils would 

be expected from planting vegetation to 

screen maintenance facilities from the views 

of visitors. The additional vegetation would 

result in a reduction in stormwater runoff, 

erosion, and sedimentation. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short-term, minor 

adverse impacts would be expected from 

construction activities during overhead 

power and telephone line burial because of 

vegetation removal resulting in minor 

increases in erosion and sedimentation. Once 

the area has been revegetated, impacts on soil 

would be negligible. 

Extension of the Castle Windy Trail along the 

lagoon could result in short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on geologic resources and 

soils during construction because of 

increased erosion and sedimentation caused 

by increased impervious surfaces and 

removal of vegetation. After construction, the 

impacts from the new trail would be long 

term and minor because of increased 

impervious surfaces, soil erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts would 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

227 

be expected from establishing a pole/troll 

area, therefore reducing sediment 

disturbance. Establishing a slow-speed area 

between the Eldora State House, parking lot 

7, and the first island to the west would result 

in long-term beneficial impacts by reducing 

shoreline erosion. 

Oak Hill Area. Restoration of the Stuckey 

property (if acquired) to natural conditions 

would result in long-term beneficial impacts 

from decreased impervious surfaces, erosion, 

and sedimentation. Short- and long-term 

adverse impacts would result from 

construction of a parking area and trails 

because of increased impervious surfaces, 

erosion, and sedimentation. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts for the NPS/USFWS Joint 

Management Area for alternative B would be 

the same as the impacts described (if 

alternative A. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. If 

a joint administrative facility were constructed, short- and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts could occur from increased impervious surfaces and erosion and sedimentation 

from construction of new headquarters and 

maintenance facilities on undeveloped land. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

geologic resources and soils for alternative B 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (as described under alternative 

A) and the impacts of implementing alternative B. The adverse cumulative impacts would 

be short and long term and negligible to 

moderate. Long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts would also be realized. Alternative B 

would contribute a small component to these 

impacts. 

Conclusions. Activities associated with 

implementing alternative B would result in 

short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on geologic resources and soils, primarily due 

to construction efforts that would increase 

impervious surfaces and result in erosion and 

sedimentation. In addition, long-term 

beneficial impacts would be anticipated 

because vegetation cover would be increased 

at certain locations. 

The actions proposed in alternative B, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions described in 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse, 

and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C would result 

in short-term, negligible to minor and longterm, minor, adverse impacts on geologic 

resources and soils. Long-term beneficial 

impacts would also be realized by the 

restoration of property to its natural 

condition and through revegetation efforts. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

geologic resources or soils at Klondike Beach 

or Titusville under this alternative. 

 

Playalinda Beach Area. Long-term 

moderate adverse impacts would be expected 

from replacing restroom facilities and 

developing a bike path, which could result in 

increased impervious surfaces, soil erosion, 

and sedimentation. If relocation of lifeguard 

operations closer to the beach occurred, it 

would result in negligible impacts on soils. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

geologic resources and soils would be 

expected from constructing a bike path and 

burying overhead powerlines. These activities 

would result in increased impervious 

surfaces, soil erosion, and sedimentation. 

Constructing a shade pavilion at Turtle 

Mound, and creating an unpaved parking 

area for horse trailers would result in shortand long-term, moderate, adverse impacts 

due to grading and filling, increased 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

228 

impervious surfaces, soil erosion, and 

sedimentation. Depending on the new 

location, the unpaved horse trailer parking 

area might result in increased erosion and 

sedimentation if vegetation was removed. 

Restoration of natural conditions at the 

location of the current maintenance facility 

complex (functions would relocate to the 

Bill’s Hill area or the Stuckey property, if 

acquired), would result in long-term, 

beneficial impacts from decreased 

impervious surfaces and erosion. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short- and longterm minor adverse impacts on geologic 

resources and soils would occur from 

construction of interpretive and foot trails at 

Eldora State House, extension of the Castle 

Windy Trail, additional parking areas, and 

removal and construction of facilities at the 

former Hebner property. These construction 

activities would result in increased 

impervious surfaces and soil erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Short-term, minor adverse impacts would be 

expected from construction activities on 

previously disturbed road shoulders during 

installation of water and sewer service 

because of vegetation removal. Construction 

would result in minor increases in erosion 

and sedimentation. Once the area has been 

revegetated, impacts on soil would be 

negligible. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. The new slowspeed area at Eldora would result in longterm beneficial impacts by reducing shoreline 

erosion. 

Oak Hill Area. Construction for the national 

seashore headquarters/visitor 

center/maintenance facilities at either the 

Stuckey property (if acquired) or Bill’s Hill 

would result in short- and long-term 

moderate adverse impacts. Construction 

would increase impervious surfaces, soil 

erosion, and sedimentation. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts for alternative C at the NPS/USFWS 

Joint Management Area would be the same as 

those described for alternative A at the 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. There 

would be no new impacts on soils from the 

limited public access to Target Rock. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Centralizing maintenance functions at either 

the Stuckey Property (if acquired) or Bill’s 

Hill would have no additional impacts on 

geologic resources and soils at the current 

Wilson’s Corner site at Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge due to continued 

use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

geologic resources and soils for alternative C 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (as described under alternative 

A) and the impacts of implementing 

alternative C. The adverse cumulative 

impacts would be short and long term and 

negligible to moderate. Long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts would also be realized. 

This alternative’s contributions to these 

cumulative impacts would likely not be large. 

Conclusions. Activities associated with 

implementing alternative C would result in 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts on geologic resources and 

soils primarily from construction efforts that 

would increase impervious surfaces, resulting 

in erosion and sedimentation. Long-term 

beneficial impacts would be anticipated 

because vegetation cover would be increased 

at certain locations. 

The actions proposed in alternative C, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions described in 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse, 

and long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts. 

 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D would result 

in short-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

229 

geologic resources and soils. Beneficial 

impacts would also be realized by the 

restoration of property to its natural 

condition and through revegetation efforts. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

geologic resources or soils at Klondike Beach 

or Titusville under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Construction of 

sustainable restroom facilities would result in 

increases in impervious surfaces and 

associated soil erosion and sedimentation—

long-term, negligible, adverse, impacts. 

Relocating lifeguard operations closer to 

Eddy Creek would result in negligible 

impacts on soils. 

The administrative boardwalk would be 

relocated and strengthened to support 

emergency all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). This 

would result in short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts because additional posts would be 

required to strengthen the boardwalk. These 

activities would result in localized soil 

disturbance. 

Apollo Beach Area. Long-term beneficial 

impacts would be expected from planting 

vegetation to screen North District maintenance facilities from the views of visitors. 

The additional vegetation would result in a 

reduction in stormwater runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short- and longterm, minor adverse impacts on geologic 

resources and soil would be expected at the 

former Hebner property from the construction of trailer pads, extension of utility lines, 

and expansion of facilities resulting in 

increased impervious surfaces and erosion 

and sedimentation. 

Short-term, minor adverse impacts would be 

expected from construction activities on 

previously disturbed road shoulders during 

installation of water and sewer service 

because of vegetation removal. Construction 

would result in minor increases in erosion 

and sedimentation. Once the area has been 

revegetated, impacts on soil would be 

negligible. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts would 

be expected from establishing pole/troll 

areas, therefore reducing sediment 

disturbance. Establishing a slow-speed area 

between the Eldora State House, parking lot 

7, and the first island to the west would result 

in long-term beneficial impacts by reducing 

shoreline erosion. 

Oak Hill Area. Construction of connecting 

trails would result in short- and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts from increased 

impervious surfaces and erosion and 

sedimentation. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts for alternative D at the NPS/USFWS 

joint management area would be the same as 

those described for alternative A. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. If 

a joint administrative facility were 

constructed, short- and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would occur from 

implementing alternative D, resulting in 

increased impervious surfaces and erosion 

and sedimentation from construction of a 

maintenance facility on undeveloped land 

near the USFWS visitor center. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

geologic resources and soils for alternative D 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (as described under alternative 

A) and the impacts of implementing alternative D. The adverse cumulative impacts 

would be short and long term and negligible 

to moderate. Long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts would also be realized. 

This alternative’s contributions to cumulative 

impacts would likely not be large. 

Conclusions. Activities associated with 

implementing alternative D would result in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

230 

short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on geologic resources and soils primarily due 

to construction efforts that would increase 

impervious surfaces, potentially resulting in 

erosion and sedimentation. In addition, longterm beneficial impacts would be anticipated 

as vegetation cover would be increased at 

certain locations, partially offsetting the 

increase in impervious surfaces. 

The actions proposed in alternative D, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions described in 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse, 

and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

FLOODPLAINS 

Impacts on floodplains, both adverse and 

beneficial, are described for alternatives A, B, 

C, and D. A discussion is presented for each 

affected geographic area. 

Methodology 

A proposed action would have significant 

effects on floodplains if it were to increase 

potential for flood hazards or violate established laws or regulations adopted to protect 

water resources. The thresholds to determine 

floodplains impacts are defined as follows: 

Negligible: Impacts on floodplains would 

result in no measureable or perceptible 

changes to floodplains. 

Minor: Impacts on floodplains (e.g., loss of 

floodplain volume capacity, loss of 

recharge area, and an increase in 

stormwater runoff to floodplains) would 

be slight, but detectable, or would result in 

small but measureable changes to 

floodplains. The effects would be 

localized. 

Moderate: Impacts on floodplains (e.g., loss 

of floodplain volume capacity, loss of 

recharge area, and an increase in 

stormwater runoff to floodplains) are 

readily apparent and would result in easily 

detectable changes to floodplains. The 

effects would be localized. 

Major: Impacts on floodplains (e.g., loss of 

floodplain volume capacity, loss of 

recharge area, and an increase in 

stormwater runoff to floodplains) are 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial and would result in substantial 

changes. The effects would be on a 

regional scale. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative A, the noaction alternative, would not be expected to 

impact floodplains at the Klondike Beach 

area and Titusville area. Therefore, these 

geographic areas are not discussed for this 

alternative. Long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on floodplains at the other 

geographical areas are expected as a result of 

implementing alternative A. 

Playalinda Beach Area. No new impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from the 

implementation of alternative A in the 

Playalinda Beach area. Long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts would continue as 

a result of existing impervious surfaces in the 

area, which would maintain the current 

amount of stormwater runoff to floodplain 

areas. 

Apollo Beach Area. The implementation of 

alternative A in the Apollo Beach Area would 

continue to have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on floodplains because of 

the presence of impervious surfaces, which 

would maintain the current amount of 

stormwater runoff to floodplain areas. 

Eldora Hammock Area. The implementation of alternative A in the Eldora Hammock 

Area would continue to have long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on floodplains 

because of the presence of impervious 

surfaces, which would maintain the current 

amount of stormwater runoff to floodplain 

areas. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

231 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. The 

implementation of alternative A in the 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon would continue 

to have long-term, negligible, adverse impacts 

on floodplains because of the presence of 

impervious surfaces, which would maintain 

the current amount of stormwater runoff to 

floodplain areas. 

Oak Hill Area. No new impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from the 

implementation of alternative A in the Bill’s 

Hill area or on the Stuckey property. 

The implementation of alternative A in the 

Oak Hill area would also continue to have 

long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

floodplains because of the presence of 

impervious surfaces, which would maintain 

the current amount of stormwater runoff to 

floodplain areas. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would continue as a result of the 

presence of impervious surfaces in the boat 

access areas, and the continued maintenance 

of Bio Lab Road, which would maintain the 

current amount of stormwater runoff to 

floodplain areas. No new impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from the 

implementation of alternative A in the 

Manatee viewing area, Scrub Ridge Trail, 

Pine Flatwoods Trail, Sand Road/Trail, 

historic properties, or the NASA tracking 

facilities in this area. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The implementation of alternative A in the 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

would continue to have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on floodplains because of 

the presence of impervious surfaces at the 

South District maintenance area at Wilson’s 

Corner, which would maintain the current 

amount of stormwater runoff to floodplain 

areas. No new impacts on floodplains would 

be expected from the implementation of 

alternative A at the current USFWS visitor 

information center. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

floodplains were determined by combining 

the impacts of the alternatives proposed in 

this document with the impacts off other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Past, present, and anticipated 

future projects that would contribute to 

impacts on floodplains include the following: 

1. potential development and operation of 

a commercial vertical launch complex at 

Canaveral Air Force Station 

2. construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as 

part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments (report 

completed in January 2007; construction 

has not begun) 

3. development of the International Space 

Research Park (ISRP) on the Kennedy 

Space Center (Environmental Impact 

Statement completed in 2004; 

construction has not begun) 

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers period 

dredging activities along the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ongoing) 

5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna Beach 

(ongoing) 

6. mosquito control activities by St. Johns 

River Water Management District, 

Brevard County, and Volusia County 

(ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Development of a commercial vertical launch 

complex at Canaveral Air Force Station 

would result in short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains. 

The development and operation of the 

complex would be on about 200 acres of the 

Air Force Station. Proposed Site 1 is outside 

the 100-year floodplain; therefore, there 

would be no impacts. Proposed Site 2 is 

within the 100-year floodplain (NASA 

2008a); therefore, short-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts on floodplains would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

232 

expected because of construction activities 

and associated ground disturbances and 

increased stormwater runoff. Long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would also be expected because of a 

permanent loss of floodplain volume capacity 

and increase in impervious surfaces. 

Construction of the International Space 

Research Park at the space center would 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on floodplains. The 

proposed park would primarily disturb 

previously disturbed areas, citrus groves, and 

remnant wetlands, although a small portion 

of the project would disturb a previously 

undeveloped area. Construction of the park 

would increase impervious surfaces and 

potential stormwater runoff to floodplains; 

however, stormwater detention ponds would 

be constructed to capture runoff, and zones 

have been established to avoid impacts on 

wetlands, which provide natural flood 

control. Land use plans have been developed 

to mitigate wetlands impacts and manage 

stormwater flow pursuant to “Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplains,” and “Executive 

Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.” 

Therefore, adverse impacts are expected to 

be negligible to minor (NASA 2004). 

Although implementation of alternative A 

would not directly impact beach sediment, 

beach nourishment activities at New Smyrna 

Beach would be expected to have short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on floodplains. Shortterm, minor, adverse impacts would occur 

during pipeline installation for beach 

sediment delivery. After initial construction, 

activities have ceased and nourishment 

operations have begun, a long-term beneficial 

impact would be expected because sediment 

erosion within the floodplains would be 

reduced. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate and 

adverse, and long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

Alternative A is expected to contribute a 

small component to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on floodplains would be expected to 

continue from alternative A because of the 

presence of impervious surfaces (e.g., 

buildings, parking areas, and roads) within or 

adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. Impacts 

from the existing conditions at the national 

seashore would continue to be negligible. 

The actions proposed in alternative A, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, would continue to have 

no impacts on floodplains at the Klondike 

Beach area and Titusville area. Therefore, 

these geographic areas are not discussed for 

this alternative. For all other geographic 

areas, short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative B. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected from the construction of the bike 

path and sustainable restrooms within the 

Playalinda Beach access area. Short-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from relocating the 

boardwalk to accommodate ATV access due 

to construction activities within the 100-year 

floodplain. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

233 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from the 

implementation of alternative B due to 

increased impervious surfaces from the bike 

path at Playalinda Beach. No new impacts 

would be expected from the implementation 

of alternative B if lifeguard operations were 

moved. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected because of construction 

activities proposed in alternative B, including 

replacing existing restrooms with more 

sustainable systems, removing and burying 

overhead power and telephone lines, and 

constructing a bike path. Most of the 

developed portion of the Apollo Beach area is 

outside the 100-year floodplain. Increased 

runoff during construction activities could 

impact nearby floodplain areas. 

 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on floodplains would be expected 

from the implementation of alternative B 

because of the permanent increase in 

impervious surfaces from the national 

seashore entrance relocation and bike path. 

Stormwater runoff to floodplain areas from 

these impervious surfaces would increase. 

Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts 

would be expected from screening the Apollo 

Beach maintenance area with native 

vegetation, because this would be expected to 

reduce runoff in floodplain areas. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short- and longterm, negligible, adverse impacts would be 

expected from the extension of the Castle 

Windy Trail, which would negligibly increase 

surface runoff. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Implementation of alternative B would have no new 

impacts on floodplains in the boat access 

areas and water and islands north of the 

Gomez Grant Line to the national seashore’s 

north boundary line. 

Oak Hill Area. Short-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from implementing 

alternative B. Most of Bill’s Hill is in the 100-

year floodplain; therefore, several proposed 

construction activities could occur within or 

affect nearby floodplains. 

Construction of parking and trailheads at 

Bill’s Hill would have short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts. The 

central portion of Bill’s Hill is higher in 

elevation and is outside the 100-year 

floodplain. Impacts on the floodplain would 

be lessened if parking was constructed 

outside the floodplain; however, drainage 

from parking would still cross the floodplain 

areas of Bill’s Hill, thereby adding additional 

runoff that would otherwise recharge to 

groundwater. Construction of gravel parking 

rather than paved surfaces would greatly 

reduce stormwater runoff potential. 

Therefore, with mitigation, long-term 

adverse impacts from polluted stormwater 

runoff from the parking areas would not be 

expected. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impacts on floodplains would be expected 

from the implementation of alternative B at 

the Stuckey property, if acquired, if 

impervious surfaces on the property are 

removed. Removal of impervious surfaces 

and restoration to natural conditions through 

revegetation would be expected to decrease 

stormwater runoff to floodplains. 

Restoration of some portion of the 

abandoned citrus groves for interpretive 

purposes would have long-term negligible 

impacts because of removing undergrowth 

and maintaining the grove. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. No 

new impacts would be expected on 

floodplains from the implementation of 

alternative B. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

floodplains could be expected from 

relocating maintenance operations from 

Wilson Corner (and administrative 

headquarters functions from Titusville) to a 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

234 

new multiagency facility near the USFWS 

visitor center, should it be constructed. 

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

from the development of new impervious 

surfaces at the combined interagency site 

assuming the new facilities would be built 

within the 100-year floodplain. Negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on floodplains would 

be expected if the facilities are constructed 

outside the 100-year floodplain because of 

increased stormwater runoff to nearby 

floodplains. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

floodplains for alternative B were determined 

by combining the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as 

described under alternative A) and the 

impacts of implementing alternative B. The 

cumulative impacts on floodplains would 

likely be short and long term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long term and 

beneficial. Alternative B would not likely 

contribute an appreciable portion to these 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Improvements in several 

locations, such as trailheads and parking 

areas, would create additional short- and 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on floodplains. 

The actions proposed in alternative B, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

Alternative B would not likely contribute an 

appreciable portion to these cumulative 

impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C would 

continue to have no impacts on floodplains at 

the Klondike Beach area and Titusville area. 

Therefore, these geographic areas are not 

discussed for this alternative. For all other 

geographic areas, short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would be expected as a result of 

implementing alternative C. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected as a result of implementing alternative C in the Playalinda Beach 

area. Construction of a bike path might occur 

within the 100-year floodplain, and would 

increase impervious surfaces and stormwater 

runoff, particularly if paved. 

Relocation of the lifeguard support operations would be expected to have short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts, particularly if the 

lifeguard support area is relocated to an area 

within the 100-year floodplain. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from implementing 

alternative C in the Apollo Beach area. Most 

of the developed portion of the Apollo Beach 

area is outside of the 100-year floodplain; 

however, increased runoff during 

construction activities could impact nearby 

floodplain areas because of increased 

stormwater runoff and increased impervious 

surfaces. 

With mitigation, there would be long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on floodplains 

from the new unpaved parking for horse 

trailers, access for horses, and the bike path. 

Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts 

would be expected from screening the North 

District maintenance area with native 

vegetation because that would be expected to 

reduce runoff. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from implementing 

alternative C in the Eldora Hammock area. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

235 

Construction of a parking area at Castle 

Windy Trail and demolition and construction 

of the new facilities at the former Hebner 

Property might occur within the 100-year 

floodplain. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from 

alternative C. The parking area at Castle 

Windy Trail, extension of Castle Windy Trail 

and incorporation of trails throughout the 

Eldora State House area, and construction of 

new facilities at the former Hebner Property 

would permanently increase impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff to 

floodplains. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Short- and 

long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from 

implementing alternative C in the Northern 

Mosquito Lagoon from paving the parking 

area across from parking area 5. Impervious 

surfaces would be slightly increased in the 

area, thereby increasing stormwater runoff to 

floodplains. No other new impacts on 

floodplains would be expected in this area. 

Oak Hill Area. Short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from construction 

activities proposed in alternative C, including 

construction of visitor center/ administrative 

headquarters and maintenance facilities at 

the Stuckey property (if acquired) or Bill’s 

Hill, construction of a marsh trail at Seminole 

Rest, and creation of additional trails and 

access and parking areas at Bill’s Hill. Ground 

disturbances during construction would 

increase erosion potential and stormwater 

runoff to floodplain areas; however, 

implementation of proper erosion and 

sediment control and stormwater 

management practices during and following 

construction would mitigate these effects. 

Most of Bill’s Hill and the Stuckey property 

are within the 100-year floodplain. Longterm impacts on floodplains would be 

expected from a relatively large amount of 

impervious surfaces being introduced and 

vegetation being permanently removed for 

construction. If these new facilities are 

constructed within the 100-year floodplain, a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact would 

be expected because of the permanent loss of 

floodplain volume capacity and recharge 

area. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. No 

impacts on floodplains would be expected 

from the implementation of alternative C. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Although the NPS maintenance functions 

would be relocated to the Stuckey property 

(if acquired) or Bill’s Hill, there would 

continue to be long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on floodplains because the Wilson 

Corner structures (impervious surfaces) 

would presumably remain at Wilson Corner 

and be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

floodplains for alternative C were determined 

by combining the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as 

described under alternative A) and the 

impacts of implementing alternative C. The 

adverse cumulative impacts would be short 

and long term and negligible to moderate. 

Long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

would also be realized. This alternative’s 

contribution to these impacts would be small. 

Conclusion. The greatest potential shortand long-term adverse impacts on floodplains would be from the construction of the 

visitor center/ administrative headquarters 

and maintenance facilities at the Stuckey 

property (if acquired) or Bill’s Hill. Additional short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts would also be 

expected from construction of parking areas, 

trails, and smaller structures. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts would 

also continue because of impervious surfaces 

within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. 

The actions proposed in alternative C, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

236 

moderate, adverse, and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D would have 

no new impacts on floodplains at the Klondike Beach area or at the Titusville area. 

Therefore, these geographic areas are not 

discussed for this alternative. For all other 

geographic areas, implementation of alternative D would result in short- and longterm, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts 

on floodplains. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from relocating the 

boardwalk to accommodate ATV access, 

relocating the lifeguard operations, and 

replacing the chemical toilets. Long-term 

adverse impacts would be negligible once 

these construction activities were complete. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected from implementing 

alternative D in the Apollo Beach area. Most 

of the developed portion of the Apollo Beach 

area is outside the 100-year floodplain; 

however, increased runoff during 

construction activities would be expected to 

impact nearby floodplain areas because of 

increased stormwater runoff. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on floodplains would be expected 

from implementing alternative D. The 

addition of the exterior shower in parking 

area 2 would add a negligible amount of 

impervious surfaces in the Apollo Beach area. 

Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts 

would be expected from screening the North 

District maintenance area with native 

vegetation because that would be expected to 

reduce runoff.

There would be long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on floodplains from the new 

unpaved parking for horse trailers and the 

relocation of the administrative boardwalk 

access for horses. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Alternative D 

would include a negligibly larger amount of 

impervious surfaces than alternative A with 

the addition of the trailer pads at the former 

Hebner property. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Implementation of alternative D would have no new 

impacts on floodplains in the boat access 

areas and water and islands north of the 

Gomez Grant Line to the national seashore’s 

north boundary line. 

Oak Hill Area. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on floodplains would be expected from implementing 

alternative D within the Oak Hill area. 

Ground disturbances associated with 

construction of a marsh trail at Seminole 

Rest; and creation of additional access, 

parking, trails, and trailheads at Bill’s Hill and 

the Stuckey property (if acquired) would 

increase erosion potential and stormwater 

runoff to floodplain areas. Most of Bill’s Hill 

and the Stuckey property are in the 100-year 

floodplain. Improvements placed in the 100-

year floodplain, if unavoidable, would 

represent a permanent loss of floodplain 

volume capacity and ground surface available 

within the floodplain for recharge of surface 

water. Therefore, long-term adverse impacts 

from polluted stormwater runoff from the 

parking areas would not be expected. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. No 

new impacts on floodplains would be 

expected from the implementation of 

alternative D. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

floodplains would be expected from the 

construction of the new multiagency 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

237 

maintenance facility in the USFWS 

maintenance facility area. Long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would likely occur with the development of 

new impervious surfaces at the combined 

interagency site, assuming the facility would 

be built within the 100-year floodplain. 

Negligible to minor adverse impacts would 

be expected if the facility is constructed 

outside the 100-year floodplain because of 

increased stormwater runoff to nearby 

floodplains. 

Cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

floodplains for alternative D were determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative D. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short and long term and negligible to 

moderate. Long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts would also be realized. This 

alternative’s contribution to these impacts 

would not likely be large. 

Conclusion. Short- and long-term, negligible 

to moderate, adverse impacts on floodplains 

would be expected as a result of alternative 

D. The greatest potential short- and longterm adverse impacts would be from the 

construction of the visitor information center 

in the Apollo Beach area and construction 

activities in the Oak Hill area. 

The actions proposed in alternative D, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

 

WETLANDS 

The impacts on wetlands at Canaveral 

National Seashore are analyzed below for 

alternatives A, B, C, and D. A discussion is 

presented for each affected geographic area. 

Methodology 

Evaluation criteria for impacts on wetlands 

are based on the U.S. government’s “no net 

loss” policy. A loss of a wetland includes 

degradation of size, functionality, quality, and 

connectivity of wetlands. A proposed action 

would have substantial effects on wetlands if 

it were to do one or more of the following: 

 violate established laws or regulations 

adopted to protect wetlands 

 substantially adversely affect water 

quality 

 threaten or damage unique hydrologic 

characteristics 

 cause irreparable harm to wetland flora 

or fauna or beneficial uses of wetland 

ecosystems 

Common impacts on wetlands include filling, 

grading, removal of vegetation, construction, 

and changes in water levels and drainage 

patterns. Most disturbances that result in 

impacts on wetlands are controlled by state 

and federal wetland regulatory programs. 

Impacts result from disturbances that occur 

in areas outside the wetland, such as uplands 

and other wetlands or waterways. Common 

impacts include influx of surface water and 

sediments, fragmentation of a wetland from a 

contiguous wetland complex, loss of recharge 

area, or changes in local drainage patterns. 

Given that most indirect impacts are beyond 

the authority of state and federal wetland 

regulatory programs, wetland protection can 

be provided by a watershed management 

plan under local implementation. 

Impacts on wetlands were evaluated by 

comparing projected changes resulting from 

the alternatives proposed in this plan to the 

no-action alternative, as appropriate. These 

evaluations were based on consideration of 

the national seashore’s fundamental resources and values, information concerning 

wetlands distribution and functional values, 

and professional experience. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

238 

The thresholds to determine wetlands 

impacts are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes to 

wetlands. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but 

measurable changes in wetlands and/or 

wetlands hydrology; the effects would be 

localized. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and/or would result in easily detectable 

changes to wetlands and/or wetlands 

hydrology; the effects would be localized. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or would 

result in appreciable changes to wetlands 

and/or wetlands hydrology; the effects 

would be on a regional scale. 

The USFWS National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI) data were used to determine the 

likelihood of wetland impacts from the 

implementation of alternatives. It should be 

noted that most NWI data are obtained via 

aerial photographic interpretation with 

minimal ground-truthing; therefore, 

reference to the inventory is for planninglevel information purposes only and should 

not be used for determining the actual 

location of any wetlands. Formal wetland 

delineations would need to be conducted 

before construction activities that might 

occur within or near a wetland. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

A (No-Action Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative A, the noaction alternative, would continue to have no 

impacts on wetlands at the Klondike Beach 

area and Titusville area. Therefore, these 

geographic areas are not discussed for this 

alternative. For the other geographic areas, 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would occur because of continued 

maintenance activities and impervious 

surfaces (e.g., buildings, parking areas, roads) 

in areas near wetlands. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on wetlands would continue 

from the implementation of alternative A 

within the Playalinda Beach area from 

continued maintenance and existing 

impervious surfaces. Alternative A would also 

continue to have long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on wetlands due to restricted public 

access to the lands and waters south of State 

Route 402. 

Apollo Beach Area. Implementation of 

alternative A would continue to have longterm, negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

because of surface runoff from impervious 

surfaces. Long-term negligible adverse 

impacts would remain with the continued 

operations of the current facilities (e.g., the 

fire cache) in the former beach operations 

area. 

Eldora Hammock Area. The implementation of alternative A in the Eldora Hammock 

area would continue to have long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

because of surface runoff from impervious 

surfaces and continued maintenance activities. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

would continue from the presence of motorized watercraft in the slow-speed areas in 

Mosquito Lagoon by Eldora Hammock. 

Negligible to minor, adverse impacts from 

water quality degradation from potential 

pollutants (e.g., leaked gasoline) and 

increased turbidity would also be expected to 

continue. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. According to 

the National Wetlands Inventory, the open 

water in Northern Mosquito Lagoon is 

classified as Estuarine Unconsolidated 

Bottom wetlands and the islands contain 

Estuarine Emergent, Estuarine Scrub-Shrub, 

Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore, and 

Estuarine Aquatic Bed wetlands (USFWS 

2004). Implementation of alternative A would 

continue to have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on wetlands because of 

potentially polluted surface runoff; increased 

turbidity; and shore erosion from the 

continued use of the boat launches, 

continued maintenance of the boat launches, 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

239 

and continued water activities including 

commercial harvesting and boat tours. 

Oak Hill Area. Long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would 

continue in the Bill’s Hill area from implementing alternative A from continued 

uncontrolled visitor access, exotic vegetation, 

and dumping in the area (due to the lack of 

management presence). Impacts would be 

expected to be greater over time (i.e., minor 

to moderate), particularly if exotic vegetation 

outcompetes native species in wetland areas. 

In the Oak Hill area there would continue to 

be long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

wetlands because of impervious surfaces 

(e.g., visitor contact station, caretaker’s 

house, maintenance shed, and concrete 

parking area at Seminole Rest), which would 

maintain the current amount of stormwater 

runoff to wetland areas. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on wetlands would continue under 

this alternative because of public boat access 

and the impervious surfaces of the boat 

launch ramp, parking area, dock, and 

structures in the boat access areas. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts from public boat access to Eddy 

Creek would continue under alternative A in 

this area. According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Palustrine Forested, Scrub-Shrub, 

Emergent, Estuarine Scrub-Shrub, and 

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands 

are found throughout the Eddy Creek area 

(USFWS 2004). Negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts because of water quality degradation 

from potential pollutants (e.g., leaked 

gasoline) and increased turbidity would be 

expected to continue. Minor, adverse 

impacts would be expected from boats 

entering wetlands and destroying or altering 

vegetation or soils. Regular monitoring of the 

area by NPS staff would continue to ensure 

that visitors are not damaging wetlands 

adjoining Eddy Creek. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would continue with continuing 

maintenance of Bio Lab Road (a gravel road) 

and potential polluted surface runoff from 

the road. According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Bio Lab Road is surrounded by 

patches of Palustrine Emergent wetland that 

could be affected during roadway improvements or maintenance (USFWS 2004). 

Alternative A would continue to have longterm minor beneficial impacts on wetlands 

because of restricted public access to the 

NASA tracking facility area. 

No new impacts would be expected on 

wetlands from the implementation of 

alternative A in the manatee viewing area, 

Scrub Ridge Trail, Pine Flatwoods Trail, Sand 

Road/Trail, historic properties, or the NASA 

tracking facilities. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. In 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would continue because of existing 

impervious surfaces at the South District 

maintenance area at Wilson’s Corner, which 

would maintain the current amount of 

stormwater runoff to wetland areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

wetlands were determined by combining the 

impacts of the alternatives proposed in this 

document with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Past, present, and anticipated future 

projects that would contribute to impacts on 

wetlands include the following: 

1. potential development and operation of 

a commercial vertical launch complex at 

Canaveral Air Force Station 

2. construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as 

part of U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments (report 

completed in January 2007; construction 

has not begun) 

3. development of the International Space 

Research Park (ISRP) on the Kennedy 

Space Center (Environmental Impact 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

240 

Statement completed in 2004; construction has not begun) 

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna Beach 

(ongoing) 

5. rockets and satellites would continue to 

be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center. No new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time. 

6. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(environmental impact statement

completed in April 1998) 

7. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape Canaveral 

Air Station. 

8. mosquito control activities by St. Johns 

River Water Management District, 

Brevard County, and Volusia County 

(ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Development of a commercial vertical launch 

complex at the Canaveral Air Force Station 

would result in short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on wetlands. 

The development and operation of the 

complex would occur on approximately 200 

acres of the Air Force Station (NASA 2008a). 

According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Site 1 contains small amounts of 

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, 

Palustrine Scrub Shrub, Palustrine Emergent, 

and Riverine wetlands (USFWS 2004). It is 

also bordered on the Atlantic side by Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore wetlands. Site 2 has 

relatively large amounts of Palustrine 

Emergent, Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, and 

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands 

throughout (USFWS 2004). Short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would be expected from 

construction activities and associated ground 

disturbances and increased stormwater 

runoff. If construction occurs in a wetland, 

long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would also be expected due to a 

permanent loss of wetland and an increase in 

impervious surfaces. 

Construction of the proposed International 

Space Research Park would primarily disturb 

previously disturbed areas, citrus groves, and 

remnant wetlands, although a small portion 

of the project would disturb a previously 

undeveloped area. Construction activities 

would increase impervious surfaces and 

potential stormwater runoff and siltation to 

wetlands. With mitigation, adverse impacts 

are expected to be short and long term, and 

negligible to minor (NASA 2004). 

Although implementation of alternative A 

would not directly impact beach sediment, 

beach nourishment activities at New Smyrna 

Beach would be expected to have short-term, 

minor, adverse and long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts. Short-term minor adverse 

impacts would occur during pipeline 

installation for beach sediment delivery. After 

initial construction activities have ceased and 

nourishment operations have begun, a longterm beneficial impact would be expected as 

sediment erosion from the beach would be 

reduced. 

Mosquito control activities as part of ongoing 

beach maintenance would continue to result 

in short-term, minor adverse impacts on wetlands. Mosquito-control activities involve 

applying approved larvicides on select marsh 

sites among the lagoon islands, so long-term 

cumulative impacts (e.g., toxicity) would not 

be expected. 

Overall, the impacts by others described 

above would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of alternative B, would result in short- and longterm, negligible to moderate, adverse, and 

long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Alternative A would contribute 

slightly to these cumulative impacts. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

241 

Conclusion. Long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts would continue from the 

implementation of alternative A because of 

continued maintenance activities and 

impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings, parking 

areas, roads) in areas near wetlands. 

Long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse 

impacts on wetlands would continue, 

particularly in the Bill’s Hill area, because of 

continued uncontrolled visitor access, exotic 

vegetation, and dumping (due to lack of 

management presence). 

 

The actions proposed in alternative A, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, would not impact 

wetlands at the Klondike Beach area or at the 

Titusville area. Therefore, these geographic 

areas are not discussed for this alternative. 

For the other geographic areas, long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts would 

occur because of continued maintenance 

activities and impervious surfaces (e.g., 

buildings, parking areas, roads) in areas near 

wetlands. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. The construction of 

a Playalinda Beach bike path could cause 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on wetlands. If the bike path follows 

Route 402 and connects to Playalinda Beach 

in a general east-west direction, it would 

likely cross several wetlands, which could 

include Palustrine (Scrub-Shrub, Emergent, 

Aquatic Bed, and Unconsolidated Bottom), 

Lacustrine (Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated 

Bottom), and Riverine (Unconsolidated 

Bottom) (USFWS 2004). If the bike path 

avoids all wetlands in the area, long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

would be expected because of increased 

impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff 

into adjacent wetlands. However, if the bike 

path is situated within wetlands, long-term, 

minor, and adverse impacts on wetlands 

would be expected because of direct loss or 

permanent alteration of wetlands. 

According to the National Wetlands Inventory, Marine Unconsolidated Shore and 

Marine Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands are 

along the Atlantic side of Playalinda Beach 

(USFWS 2004). Short-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on wetlands would be 

expected from the replacing the restrooms at 

Playalinda Beach with more sustainable 

systems. Because these facilities would be on 

the beach, drainage would most likely flow 

east towards the wetlands along the Atlantic 

side of the beach. Long-term, adverse, 

impacts would only be expected if the 

amount of impervious surfaces increases 

from current conditions. These impacts 

would be negligible to minor. 

No new impacts on wetlands would be 

expected from the implementation of 

alternative B within the Playalinda Beach 

lifeguard operations area. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would also be expected from 

additional improvements at Apollo Beach, 

including the reconfiguration of the national 

seashore entrance, sustainable restrooms, 

and the bike trails. The burial of power and 

telephone lines at Apollo Beach would not 

have impacts on wetlands. All construction 

activities would be expected to temporarily 

increase ground disturbances, resulting in 

potential increases in stormwater runoff and 

siltation to nearby wetlands. Depending on 

the final design for the reconfiguration of the 

national seashore entrance and sustainable 

restrooms, impervious surfaces and surface 

runoff could increase, resulting in long-term, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

242 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts. The 

bike trails, particularly if paved, would also be 

expected to increase impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff. 

Eldora Hammock Area. The burial of power 

and telephone lines at Eldora Hammock 

would have short-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts on wetlands from an 

increase in runoff and siltation during 

construction activities. According to the 

National Wetlands Inventory, Estuarine 

Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands are along 

the Mosquito Lagoon coast of Eldora 

Hammock. Estuarine Scrub-Shrub wetlands 

are also along the coast and somewhat inland 

on Eldora Hammock (USFWS 2004). If 

power and telephone lines cross these 

wetlands, short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on wetlands would be expected from the 

dredge or fill necessary to implement the 

action. 

The extension of the Castle Windy Trail to 

include areas along Mosquito Lagoon would 

have long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on wetlands. According to the 

National Wetlands Inventory, Estuarine 

Unconsolidated Bottom, Scrub-Shrub, 

Emergent, and Aquatic Bed wetlands are 

present on the western edge of the barrier 

island along Mosquito Lagoon (USFWS 

2004). The extension of the trail would have 

impacts because of increased surface runoff 

from the trail and permanent removal of 

vegetation. Minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected if the trail is extended into one of 

these wetland areas because of a direct loss or 

alteration of the wetland. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

continue from the presence of motorized 

watercraft in the slow-speed areas in 

Mosquito Lagoon by Eldora Hammock. 

According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Estuarine Unconsolidated Bottom 

wetlands are throughout this area, and 

Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore and 

Estuarine Scrub-Shrub wetlands are also 

present on islands adjoining the proposed 

slow-speed area (USFWS 2004). Negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts from water quality 

degradation from potential pollutants (e.g., 

leaked gasoline) and increased turbidity 

would be expected. Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would be expected from 

boats entering areas with any emergent 

vegetation or disturb submerged aquatic 

vegetation within wetlands. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. The relocation 

of the entrance area (gate/fee booth) to the 

national seashore boundary would be 

expected to have short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands. Construction activities would 

temporarily increase stormwater runoff and 

potential sediment transport to nearby 

wetlands. New long-term impacts would only 

be expected if impervious surfaces are 

increased. 

Long-term, negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on wetlands would be expected from 

the phase out of the 24-hour ramp access to 

control access at night and enhance security. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would 

result from (1) the establishment of a slowspeed area for boats between Eldora State 

House, parking area 7, and the first island to 

the west, and (2) and from the establishment 

of a pole/troll or nonmotorized area in 

locations containing oyster beds, fish 

spawning, and seagrass in Mosquito Lagoon, 

which would reduce pollution and turbidity. 

Water quality in wetland areas could improve 

because of the potential for fewer pollutants 

from leaked gasoline from motorboats. 

Additionally, the establishment of a pole/ 

troll area would have a beneficial impact by 

reducing the amount of sediment 

disturbance, and the establishment of a slowspeed area would be expected to reduce 

shoreline erosion. 

Oak Hill Area. According to the National 

Wetlands Inventory, Palustrine Emergent 

and a small amount of Palustrine Forested 

wetlands are scattered throughout the Bill’s 

Hill area (USFWS 2004). Short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected if parking areas, access roads, and 

trails are placed outside the wetlands because 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

243 

of increased surface runoff and siltation into 

nearby wetland areas. Development of access 

roads, parking areas, and trails would have 

short-term, minor, adverse impacts if 

construction occurs within the wetlands. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would be expected if these improvements are placed outside the wetlands 

because of increased impervious surfaces, 

removal of vegetation, and increased 

stormwater runoff and siltation into wetland 

areas. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

would be expected if these improvements are 

placed within wetlands due to the placement 

of fill in the wetlands. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impacts on wetlands would be expected from 

the restoration of the Stuckey property to 

natural conditions because of an assumed 

decrease in impervious surfaces and increase 

in native vegetation cover. Long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on wetlands would also be 

expected if wetlands in the Stuckey property 

are restored. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. No 

new impacts on wetlands would be expected 

from the implementation of alternative B. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. If 

NPS administrative headquarters and 

maintenance functions are relocated to 

combined and expanded USFWS/NPS 

facilities near the USFWS visitor center, 

construction of these facilities could have 

short- and long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts from ground disturbances 

from construction activities and a permanent 

increase in impervious surfaces. It is not 

specified where this facility might be located; 

therefore, the extent of impacts on nearby 

wetlands, if any, cannot be determined. 

The relocation of maintenance functions 

from Wilson Corner to a new multiagency 

facility in the USFWS maintenance area 

would have either no impacts or short-term, 

negligible, beneficial impacts on wetlands in 

the Wilson’s Corner maintenance area. It is 

assumed that disturbances associated with 

maintenance equipment in Wilson Corner 

would be reduced in this area; however, it is 

not specified what the future uses of the 

current maintenance area would include. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

from the implementation of alternative B 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (as described alternative A) 

and the impacts of implementing alternative 

B. The cumulative impacts would likely be 

short and long term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse, and long term and beneficial. 

Alternative B is expected to contribute a 

small component to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Short- and long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would 

be expected from implementing alternative B. 

Smaller improvements, such as trailheads, a 

bike path, and parking areas, would create 

additional short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts, depending on 

whether these improvements are placed 

within wetlands. 

Long-term negligible adverse impacts would 

continue because of existing impervious 

surfaces in areas near wetlands. Long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts on wetlands would 

be expected from increased security, 

controlled access, and the establishment of a 

slow-speed area for boats and a pole/troll or 

nonmotorized area in Mosquito Lagoon. 

The actions proposed in alternative B, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate and adverse, and long-term, 

beneficial, cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C would not 

impact wetlands at the Klondike Beach area 

or at the Titusville area. Therefore, these 

geographic areas are not discussed for this 

alternative. For the other geographic areas, 

short- and long-term, negligible to minor, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

244 

adverse impacts on wetlands would be 

expected. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Depending on the 

location of the Playalinda Beach bike path, 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on wetlands could occur. If the bike 

path follows Route 402 and connects to 

Playalinda Beach in a general east-west 

direction, it would likely cross several 

wetlands, which could include Palustrine 

(Scrub-Shrub, Emergent, Aquatic Bed, and 

Unconsolidated Bottom), Lacustrine 

(Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated Bottom), 

and Riverine (Unconsolidated Bottom) 

(USFWS 2004). If the bike path avoids all 

wetlands in the area, long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on wetlands would be 

expected because of increased impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff into adjacent 

wetlands. However, if the bike path is 

situated within wetlands, long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on wetlands would be 

expected because of a direct loss and 

permanent alteration of wetlands. 

According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Marine Unconsolidated Shore 

and Marine Unconsolidated Bottom 

wetlands are along the Atlantic side of 

Playalinda Beach; and Palustrine ScrubShrub, Palustrine Emergent, Lacustrine, and 

Riverine wetlands are on the lagoon side of 

Playalinda Beach (USFWS 2004). Short-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

would be expected from the replacement of 

the restrooms at Playalinda Beach with more 

sustainable systems and from construction 

activities related to relocating the lifeguard 

operations closer to the beach. Because these 

facilities would be on the beach, drainage 

would most likely flow east towards the 

wetlands along the Atlantic side of the beach. 

Long-term, adverse, impacts would only be 

expected if the amount of impervious 

surfaces increases from current conditions. 

These impacts would be negligible to minor. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short- and long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

surrounding Turtle Mound and the Apollo 

Beach area would be expected from the 

construction or expansion of parking areas. 

Negligible adverse impacts on the Estuarine 

Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands in 

Mosquito Lagoon would be expected as a 

result of enlarging the parking area at Turtle 

Mound, because drainage from Turtle 

Mound would most likely enter Mosquito 

Lagoon. Short- and long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts would also be expected from 

the construction of an unpaved parking area 

and trail for equestrians. According to the 

National Wetlands Inventory, no wetlands 

are within or along the boundaries of these 

properties (USFWS 2004); however, 

negligible adverse impacts from increased 

runoff and siltation due to construction and 

vegetation removal would be expected. 

Extension of the water and sewer lines to 

comfort stations and construction of exterior 

showers and a bike path at Apollo Beach 

would be expected to have short-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on the Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore wetlands along the 

Atlantic Coast of the barrier island because of 

increased stormwater runoff and siltation 

during construction (USFWS 2004). 

The expansion of parking area 1 at Apollo 

Beach could have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on the adjoining Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore and Marine 

Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands (USFWS 

2004) because of increased impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff into these 

wetlands. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would be expected from the 

construction of a bike path along Apollo 

Beach because of increased impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff. According to 

the National Wetlands Inventory, (1) Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore and Marine 

Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands border 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

245 

most of the eastern shoreline of Apollo Beach 

along the Atlantic coastline, and (2) Estuarine 

Unconsolidated Bottom and islands of 

Estuarine Scrub-Shrub and Estuarine 

Emergent wetlands are west of the Apollo 

Beach barrier island in Mosquito Lagoon 

(USFWS 2004). Depending on where the bike 

path is placed, drainage from the bike path 

would either flow towards the Atlantic or the 

Mosquito Lagoon wetlands. 

Eldora Hammock Area. According to the 

National Wetlands Inventory, Estuarine 

Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands (the open 

water in Mosquito Lagoon) and Estuarine 

Scrub-Shrub wetlands border the Eldora 

Hammock area on the lagoon side (USFWS 

2004). Alternative C would include external 

repairs of the marine science educational 

station, and demolition of the garage and 

construction of new facilities at the former 

Hebner property. Short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would be expected as a result of 

these improvements from increased 

stormwater runoff and siltation during 

construction activities (short term) and 

increased impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff (long term). 

The extension of water and sewerlines to 

Eldora Hammock would have short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands from an increase in runoff and 

siltation during construction. According to 

the National Wetlands Inventory, there are 

Estuarine Scrub-Shrub wetlands along the 

coast and somewhat inland on Eldora 

Hammock (USFWS 2004). If water and sewer 

lines cross these wetlands, minor adverse 

impacts would be expected as a result of 

dredging or potential placement of fill in 

wetlands. Impacts would be expected to be 

minimized as a result of permitting and 

mitigation requirements. 

According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Estuarine Scrub-Shrub, Estuarine 

Emergent and Estuarine Unconsolidated 

Bottom wetlands are in the Castle Windy area 

along the western edge of the barrier island in 

Mosquito Lagoon (USFWS 2004). Shortterm, negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

surrounding Castle Windy would be 

expected from the construction of a parking 

area near or in area wetlands. Short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected from construction depending on 

the location of the parking area. Impacts, 

such as increased stormwater runoff and 

siltation, would be minimized by permitting 

and mitigation requirements. Long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected after construction depending on 

the exact siting of the parking area. Longterm impacts could include increased 

stormwater runoff and siltation or permanent 

loss or alteration of wetlands. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would also be expected from the 

extension of Castle Windy Trail to include 

areas along the lagoon due to increased 

stormwater runoff into adjoining wetland 

areas and permanent removal of vegetation. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would be 

expected if the trail is constructed within a 

wetland because of a direct loss or alteration 

of the wetlands at Castle Windy. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would be 

expected from implementing alternative C in 

the northern Mosquito Lagoon. According to 

the National Wetlands Inventory, the open 

water in northern Mosquito Lagoon is 

classified as Estuarine Unconsolidated 

Bottom wetlands, and the islands contain 

Estuarine Emergent, Estuarine Scrub-Shrub, 

Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore, and 

Estuarine Aquatic Bed wetlands (USFWS 

2004). Paving the parking area at the boat 

launch across from parking area 5 would 

result in increased impervious surfaces and 

the potential for polluted surface runoff. 

Additionally, the commercial shuttle service 

from Apollo Beach could negatively affect 

water quality because pollutants such as 

gasoline could leak; however, if the pontoon 

boat is properly maintained, as anticipated, 

there should be minimal gas leakage into 

Mosquito Lagoon. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

246 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on 

wetlands would be expected from the 

establishment of a slow-speed area between 

Eldora State House, parking area 7, and the 

first island to the west. The slow-speed area 

would reduce turbidity and shoreline 

erosion—a beneficial effect. 

Oak Hill Area. According to the National 

Wetlands Inventory, Palustrine Emergent 

and a small amount of Palustrine Forested 

wetlands are scattered throughout the Bill’s 

Hill and Stuckey property area (USFWS 

2004). Short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts would be expected if 

the new centralized visitor center/ 

administrative headquarters/ maintenance 

facilities, parking area, access road, and trails 

are placed outside the wetlands from 

increased surface runoff and siltation into 

these wetland areas. There would be shortterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts if 

construction occurs within wetlands. 

There would be long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts if these facilities were 

placed outside wetlands because of increased 

impervious surfaces and runoff into nearby 

wetland areas. There would be long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts if these improvements are placed within the wetlands because 

of a direct loss and permanent alteration of 

wetlands. 

Development of a marsh trail at Seminole 

Rest could have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on wetlands if the trail is 

constructed outside these wetlands because 

of increased surface runoff into adjoining 

wetlands from permanent vegetation 

removal. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

would be expected if the trail is constructed 

within the wetland because of direct loss and 

alteration of wetland habitat. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on wetlands 

in this area from implementing alternative B. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The implementation of alternative C (moving 

maintenance functions from Wilson’s Creek 

to the Stuckey property, if acquired, or Bill’s 

Hill) would be expected to have no new 

impacts on wetlands in the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. It is assumed that 

disturbances associated with maintenance 

equipment in Wilson Corner would be 

reduced in this area; however, it is not 

specified what the future uses of the current 

maintenance area would include. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

wetlands for alternative C were determined 

by combining the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as 

described under alternative A) and the 

impacts of implementing alternative C. 

Cumulative impacts would likely be short and 

long term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse, and long-term, moderate, and 

beneficial. This alternative’s contribution to 

these cumulative impacts would be slight. 

Conclusion. Short- and long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would 

be expected from implementing alternative 

C. The greatest potential short- and longterm adverse impacts would be from the 

construction of the visitor center/administrative headquarters and maintenance facilities 

at the Stuckey property (if acquired) or Bill’s 

Hill area. 

Additional short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts would also be 

expected from construction of parking areas, 

trails, and smaller structures. Negligible 

adverse impacts would also continue because 

of existing impervious surfaces within or 

adjacent to wetland areas. 

The actions proposed in alternative C, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D would have 

no impacts on wetlands in the Klondike 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

247 

Beach area or at the Titusville area. For the 

other geographical areas, short- and longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands would be expected. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. 

Playalinda Beach Area. According to the 

National Wetlands Inventory, Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore and Marine Unconsolidated Bottom wetlands are along the 

Atlantic side of Playalinda Beach (USFWS 

2004). Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts 

on wetlands would be expected from 

replacing the existing restrooms at Playalinda 

Beach with more sustainable systems. 

Because these facilities would be on the 

beach, drainage would most likely flow 

towards the wetlands along the Atlantic side 

of the beach. Long-term adverse impacts 

would only be expected if the amount of 

impervious surfaces increases from current 

conditions. These impacts would be 

negligible to minor. 

No new impacts would be expected from the 

implementation of alternative D in the 

Playalinda Beach entrance station and 

lifeguard operations area. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts would also be expected from 

the construction of an unpaved parking area 

and trail for equestrians. Impacts might 

include increased siltation and runoff 

because of vegetation removal during 

construction. According to the National 

Wetlands Inventory, no wetlands are within 

or along the boundaries of this area (USFWS 

2004). After construction, long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts from increased 

impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff 

would be expected. 

Extension of the water and sewer lines to 

parking areas 1 and 2 at Apollo Beach and 

construction of exterior shower at parking 

area 2 would be expected to have short-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on the Marine 

Unconsolidated Shore wetlands along the 

Atlantic Coast of the Apollo Beach barrier 

island because of increased stormwater 

runoff and siltation during construction. 

Construction of exterior showers at parking 

area 2 would be expected to have long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on wetlands 

because of increased impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff into wetland areas. 

Eldora Hammock Area. The extension of 

water and sewer lines to Eldora Hammock 

would have short-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts on wetlands from an 

increase in runoff and siltation during 

construction. According to the National 

Wetlands Inventory, there are Estuarine 

Scrub-Shrub wetlands along the coast and 

somewhat inland on Eldora Hammock 

(USFWS 2004). If water and sewer lines cross 

these wetlands, minor adverse impacts would 

be expected as a result of dredging or 

potential placement of fill in wetlands. 

Impacts would be expected to be minimized 

as a result of permitting and mitigation 

requirements. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. The relocation 

of the entrance area (gate-fee booth) to the 

national seashore boundary would be 

expected to have short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wetlands. Construction activities would 

temporarily increase stormwater runoff and 

potential sediment transport to nearby 

wetlands. New long-term adverse impacts 

would only be expected if impervious 

surfaces are increased. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

impacts on wetlands would be expected from 

the phase out of the 24-hour ramp access to 

control access at night and enhance security. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would 

result from the establishment of (1) a slowspeed area for boats between Eldora State 

House, parking area 7, and the first island to 

the west, and (2) from the establishment of a 

pole/troll or nonmotorized area in locations 

containing oyster beds, fish spawning, and 

seagrass in Mosquito Lagoon from a 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

248 

reduction in pollution and turbidity. Water 

quality in wetland areas could improve with a 

decrease in potential pollutants from leaked 

gasoline from motorboats. Also, the 

establishment of a pole/troll area would have 

a long-term, beneficial impact by reducing 

the amount of sediment disturbance, and the 

establishment of a slow-speed area would be 

expected to reduce shoreline erosion. 

Oak Hill Area. According to the National 

Wetlands Inventory, Palustrine Emergent 

and a small amount of Palustrine Forested 

wetlands are scattered throughout the Bill’s 

Hill and Stuckey property area (USFWS 

2004). Short-term impacts would be 

negligible and adverse if the parking areas, 

trails, and access roads are placed outside of 

the wetlands. Impacts could be from 

increased surface runoff and siltation into 

these wetland areas or from the placement of 

necessary fill. There would be short-term 

minor adverse impacts if construction occurs 

within the wetlands as a result of placement 

of fill necessary to accommodate project 

development. Also depending on location of 

parking areas access roads, and trails, longterm, negligible to minor adverse impacts 

would be expected from increased 

impervious surfaces, permanent removal of 

vegetation, and increased stormwater runoff 

into these wetland areas or from a direct loss 

and permanent alteration of wetlands. 

According to the National Wetlands 

Inventory, Seminole Rest contains Estuarine 

Emergent wetlands (USFWS 2004). 

Development of a marsh trail at Seminole 

Rest could have long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on wetlands 

depending on the trail location. Impacts 

could range from increased surface runoff 

into adjoining wetlands due to vegetation 

removal to a direct loss and alteration of 

wetland habitat. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on wetlands 

in this area resulting from implementation of 

alternative D. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The construction of a new multiagency 

maintenance facility would be expected to 

have short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts because of ground 

disturbances from construction activities and 

a permanent increase in impervious surfaces. 

It is not specified where this new facility 

would be located; therefore, the extent of 

impacts on nearby wetlands, if any, cannot be 

determined. 

The combination of maintenance functions 

with the USFWS maintenance area would 

have either no impacts or short-term, 

negligible, beneficial impacts on wetlands in 

the maintenance area at Wilson Corner. It is 

assumed that disturbances associated with 

maintenance equipment in this area would be 

reduced; however, it is not specified what the 

future uses of the current maintenance area 

would include. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

wetlands for alternative D were determined 

by combining the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as 

described under alternative A) and the 

impacts of implementing alternative D. The 

adverse cumulative impacts would be shortand long-term, and negligible to minor. 

Beneficial cumulative impacts would be long 

term and moderate. This alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative impacts 

would be slight. 

Conclusion. Short- and long-term, negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts on wetlands would 

be expected as a result of alternative D. The 

greatest potential short- and long-term 

adverse impacts would be from the 

construction activities in the Oak Hill area. 

Improvements such as parking areas, 

trailheads, and access, particularly if paved, 

could introduce a relatively large amount of 

new impervious surfaces and permanent loss 

of vegetation to an area. Negligible adverse 

impacts would also continue from existing 

impervious surfaces near wetlands. 

The actions proposed in alternative D, 

together with other past, present, and 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

249 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long-term 

beneficial cumulative impacts. 

WATER RESOURCES 

The impacts on water resources at Canaveral 

National Seashore are analyzed below for 

alternatives A, B, C, and D. A discussion is 

presented for each affected geographic area. 

Methodology 

Evaluation criteria for effects on water 

resources are based on water availability, 

quality, and use; existence of floodplains; and 

associated regulations. A proposed action 

would have substantial effects on water 

resources if it were to do one or more of the 

following: 

 substantially reduce water availability or 

supply to existing users 

 deplete groundwater basins 

 exceed safe annual yield of water supply 

sources 

 substantially adversely affect water 

quality 

 endanger public health by creating or 

worsening health hazard conditions 

 threaten or damage unique hydrologic 

characteristics 

 violate established laws or regulations 

adopted to protect water resources 

In addition to these parameters, the 

thresholds to determine water resource 

impacts are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes to 

wetlands or water quality. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable, 

and would result in small but measurable 

changes in wetlands or water quality; the 

effects would be localized to one area. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would result in easily detectable 

changes to wetlands or water quality; the 

effects would be localized. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and would result 

in appreciable changes to wetlands or 

water quality; the effects would be on a 

regional scale. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

A (No-action Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative A, the noaction alternative, is not expected to impact 

water resources in the Titusville area, 

therefore this geographic area will not be 

discussed. Under the no-action alternative, 

ongoing activities at the national seashore 

would include maintenance of access roads 

and beaches. Maintenance of access roads is 

presumed to include filling potholes, 

resurfacing paved roads, clearing out 

drainage structures, or grading and adding 

gravel to gravel roads. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Implementation of 

alternative A would not result in new impacts 

on water resources. Long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on water resources 

would continue because of water quality 

impacts associated with runoff from the 

Playalinda Beach access roads and parking 

areas. There would continue to be no new 

impacts on water resources from water 

quality monitoring and restriction of public 

access to lands and waters south of State 

Route 402. 

Klondike Beach Area. Long-term beneficial 

impacts would continue from maintaining 

pristine beach conditions and allowing 

limited public access by permit only. These 

activities would continue to help to reduce 

the potential for pollutants associated with 

beach access and use to enter the Atlantic 

Ocean. 

Apollo Beach Area. Long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on water resources would 

continue from nonpoint source pollution 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250 

associated with litter. No new impacts would 

be expected from continued beach 

maintenance and water quality monitoring 

activities. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

continue because of the presence of 

automobiles at the national seashore. During 

rain, stormwater could pick up pollutants, 

such as leaked oil or other vehicle-related 

materials on parking areas, and discharge 

them into nearby water bodies. 

Maintenance of parking areas and trails could 

continue to have long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts associated with removal of 

vegetation or disturbance of soils, which 

could result in potential erosion and 

transport of suspended sediments and 

pollutants into adjacent water bodies during 

storms. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Long-term, minor 

adverse impacts could continue from parking 

areas because vehicles could leak oil or other 

vehicle-related materials that could 

accumulate and then be transported to 

adjacent water bodies during storms. 

Maintenance of parking areas and trails could 

also have long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

associated with removal of vegetation or 

disturbance of soils, which could result in 

potential erosion and transport of suspended 

sediments and pollutants into adjacent water 

bodies during storms. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on lagoon water 

quality could continue from the introduction 

of oil or other fluids from improperly 

maintained watercraft into lagoon waters. 

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

associated with increased turbidity could 

continue from the operation of watercraft in 

shallow waters. 

Oak Hill Area. The potential for nonpoint 

source discharges to water bodies from 

leaked oil or other vehicle-related materials 

on parking areas would continue. During 

rains, stormwater could continue to pick up 

pollutants and discharge them into nearby 

water bodies. This would continue to result 

in long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

continue due to the presence of the parking 

area at central/southern Mosquito Lagoon. 

The potential for nonpoint source discharges 

to water bodies could occur from the 

accumulation of leaked oil or other vehiclerelated materials on parking areas being 

discharged into nearby water bodies during 

rains. 

The potential for long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on lagoon water quality would 

continue from the introduction of oil or 

other fluids from improperly maintained 

watercraft into lagoon waters. The potential 

for short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

associated with increased turbidity from the 

operation of watercraft in shallow waters 

would also continue. 

Construction of a nonmotorized launch area 

for canoes along the south end of Bio Lab 

Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

could result in erosion of exposed soils and 

transport of sediments to the adjacent water 

body. Impacts would be expected to be short 

term and minor with the implementation of 

proper erosion and sediment control and 

stormwater management practices during 

construction and until disturbed soils were 

stabilized. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The potential for nonpoint source discharges 

to water bodies from leaked oil or other 

vehicle- or maintenance-related materials in 

maintenance areas would continue. During 

rains, stormwater could pick up pollutants 

and discharge them into nearby water bodies. 

Impacts would be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

water resources were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives 

proposed in this document with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

251 

foreseeable future actions. Past, present, and 

anticipated future projects that would 

contribute to impacts on water resources 

include the following: 

1. rockets and satellites would continue 

to be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center. No new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time 

2. potential development and operation 

of a commercial vertical launch 

complex at Canaveral Air Force 

Station 

3. construction of launch infrastructure 

at nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport 

as part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments 

(report completed in January 2007; 

construction has not begun) 

4. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(environmental impact statement

completed in April 1998) 

5. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape 

Canaveral Air Station 

6. development of the International 

Space Research Park (ISRP) on the 

Kennedy Space Center 

(environmental impact statement 

completed in 2004; construction has 

not begun) 

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

periodic dredging activities along the 

Intracoastal Waterway (ongoing) 

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna 

Beach (ongoing) 

9. mosquito control activities by St. 

Johns River Water Management 

District, Brevard County, and Volusia 

County (ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Projects that involve launches of space 

vehicles, including projects 1 through 6, use 

large quantities of water for cooling and 

other operational functions. These activities 

would likely continue to have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on water supply. 

Water for these activities would be supplied 

by the city of Cocoa, which draws water from 

the Floridian Aquifer. Deposition of materials 

released during launches would temporarily 

increase acidity in nearby shallow surface 

waters. In addition, ocean splashdown of 

jettisoned launch components would occur, 

and fluid and propellants from these 

components could be released into sea 

waters. It is anticipated that these fluids 

would be quickly diluted and not impact 

water quality, but some soluble products 

would create localized, short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on water quality. The closer 

a splashdown occurs to the coast, the greater 

the impact on turbidity and shoreline 

erosion. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on water quality could be expected on 

Mosquito Lagoon, depending on wind 

direction, from a launch exhaust cloud that 

could cause acid deposition (NASA 2008b). 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on water 

resources would be expected from constructing the International Space Research Park; 

however, a stormwater treatment and 

detention system would minimize impacts 

(NASA 2004). The proposed park would 

primarily disturb previously disturbed citrus 

groves and remnant wetlands. However, 

zones have been established to avoid impacts 

on existing wetlands and stormwater ponds. 

Dredging operations along the Intracoastal 

Waterway would continue to have shortterm, minor, adverse impacts on water quality 

from the increase in turbidity and 

introduction of contaminants into water, 

depending on the method of dredging. 

Hydraulic dredging allows more mixing of 

sediment and water, potentially releasing 

contaminants from sediment into ocean 

waters (Jones-Lee and Lee 2005). 

Short-term, moderate, and long-term, 

negligible, adverse impacts on water 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

252 

resources would continue from beach 

nourishment activities at New Smyrna Beach. 

Short-term, moderate, adverse impacts 

would continue to occur during pipeline 

installation for beach sediment delivery. 

During construction, turbidity levels and the 

potential for leaks from construction 

equipment would continue to increase. Once 

initial construction activities have been 

completed, impacts would be reduced to 

negligible. 

Impacts from mosquito control activities 

would continue to result in short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on water quality. 

Mosquito-control activities involve spraying 

a USEPA-approved insecticide using an ultra 

low-volume spray from trucks (Volusia 

County Government 2009). This insecticide 

is only effective for 24 hours or less, so longterm impacts would not be expected. 

Overall, the actions of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. 

 

The impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse, and long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts on water resources. Alternative A is 

expected to contribute a small component to 

these impacts. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

no changes to current conditions on water 

resources would occur in Canaveral National 

Seashore. Water resources would remain as 

described in “Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” Maintenance activities on roads and 

parking areas would continue to result in 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on water resources from erosion and 

sedimentation (i.e., soil transport to water 

sources and possible fuel leaks) associated 

with maintenance activities. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on lagoon 

water quality could also continue from oil or 

other fluids from improperly maintained 

watercraft being introduced into lagoon 

waters. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

associated with increased turbidity could 

occur as a result of the operation of 

watercraft in shallow waters. Long-term, 

beneficial impacts would be expected to 

continue from restricted public access to 

Turtle Mound and the lands south of the 

Eldora Hammock area. 

The actions proposed in alternative A, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impacts on water 

resources. 

Impact of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, could result in shortterm, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts 

and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse impacts on water resources. 

Beneficial impacts would also be realized 

through revegetation and by the restoration 

of property to natural conditions. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

water resources at Klondike Beach and no 

impacts at Titusville under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would occur from 

constructing restroom facilities and a bike 

path, resulting in increased stormwater 

runoff and sedimentation from increased 

impervious surfaces. 

Apollo Beach Area. Long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on water resources would be 

expected from increased recreational 

activities by increasing turbidity and 

potentially increasing shoreline erosion. 

Adverse impacts would be from temporary 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

253 

removal of vegetation and disturbance of 

soils, which could result in erosion of 

exposed soils and transport of sediments to 

adjacent water bodies in stormwater runoff. 

Once regrowth of vegetation occurs, the 

amount of runoff would be expected to 

return to preconstruction levels. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts would occur from 

replacing restroom facilities resulting in 

increased stormwater runoff and sedimentation from increased impervious surfaces. 

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from 

burial of overhead powerlines would result 

from removal of vegetation and disturbance 

of soils, which could increase erosion and 

associated sedimentation and stormwater 

runoff. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would result 

from planting foliage to screen facilities from 

visitor’s views by reducing impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Extension of the 

Castle Windy Trail would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on water resources by 

increasing impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff. In addition, extension of 

this trail would result in the removal of 

vegetation and disturbance of underlying 

soils along the extended trail alignment. Soils 

exposed and disturbed during trail construction could be eroded and transported to 

adjacent water bodies during storms. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Impacts 

associated with increased turbidity or 

disturbance of bottom sediments resulting 

from watercraft use would be minimized with 

the establishment of a slow-speed area for the 

area between the Eldora State House, Parking 

lot 7, and the first island to the west. 

Implementation of the pole/troll area 

associated with alternative B would have a 

long-term beneficial impact on water 

resources by reducing the amount of 

sediment disturbance associated with 

watercraft use. 

Oak Hill Area. Long-term beneficial impacts 

would occur from restoring the 10-acre 

Stuckey property to natural conditions. 

Vegetation growth would decrease impervious surfaces, allowing slower percolation of 

stormwater into the ground. 

Provision of parking at Bill’s Hill would result 

in short- and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on water quality from increased 

impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. 

Removal of vegetation and disturbance of 

soils associated with restoration of the 

Stuckey property; expansion of backcountry 

hiking trails and marked trails and wayside 

exhibits in the Bill’s Hill area; establishment 

of parking areas at designated trailheads 

could result in erosion of exposed soils and 

transport of sediments to adjacent water 

bodies. Impacts would likely be short term 

and minor with the implementation of proper 

erosion and sediment control and 

stormwater management practices during 

construction and until disturbed soils were 

stabilized. 

Restoration of citrus groves would result in 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts because 

impervious surfaces would be decreased. 

Establishment of a canoe/kayak landing and 

water trail would have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts from increased human use 

and possible siltation and pollution. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on water 

resources in this area from implementing 

alternative B. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Short- and long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts would occur from possible 

construction of a new NPS administrative 

headquarters and maintenance facilities near 

the USFWS visitor center. Construction 

activities could result in increased impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff. Removal of 

vegetation and disturbance of soils associated 

with the action could result in erosion of 

exposed soils and transport of sediments to 

adjacent water bodies in stormwater runoff. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

water resources for alternative B were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative B. 

Adverse cumulative impacts would be short 

and long term and negligible to moderate. 

Long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

would also be realized. Alternative B would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative impacts. 

 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative B 

could result in short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on 

water resources. Beneficial impacts would 

also be realized through revegetation and by 

the restoration of property to its natural 

condition. 

The actions proposed in alternative B, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse, and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on water resources. 

Alternative B would comprise a small portion 

of these overall cumulative impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C would result 

in short-term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse, and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on water resources. Beneficial 

impacts would also be realized by the 

restoration of property to its natural 

condition and through revegetation efforts. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

water resources at Klondike Beach and no 

impacts at Titusville under this alternative. 

 

Playalinda Beach Area. Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would be expected from 

construction of restrooms and a bike path 

because stormwater runoff and impervious 

surfaces would increase. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short- and long-term 

minor adverse impacts on water resources 

would be expected from redesigning parking 

area 1. Extension of water and sewer lines to 

all restroom facilities would provide shortterm, minor, adverse, and long-term, 

negligible impacts. Adverse impacts would be 

from temporary removal of vegetation and 

disturbance of soils, which could result in 

erosion of exposed soils and transport of 

sediments to adjacent water bodies in 

stormwater runoff. Once regrowth of 

vegetation occurs, the amount of runoff 

would be expected to return to 

preconstruction levels. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would result 

from planting foliage to screen facilities from 

visitor’s views by reducing impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

occur from replacing the visitor information 

center with a larger structure, constructing an 

unpaved horse trailer parking area and 

primitive trail, and enlarging the parking area 

at Turtle Mound. Removal of vegetation and 

disturbance of soils associated with these 

actions could result in erosion of exposed 

soils and transport of sediments to adjacent 

water bodies in stormwater runoff. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on lagoon 

waters would occur because recreational 

activities would contribute to an increase in 

turbidity and degradation of lagoon water 

quality resulting from potential leaks from 

watercraft. The commercial shuttle service 

could negatively affect water quality if the 

shuttle vessel was not properly maintained 

and pollutants such as oil or gasoline leaked 

from the vessel. Temporary increases in 

turbidity would also be expected from vessel 

operation in shallow waters. However, water 

quality would be monitored, and a slowspeed area would minimize the potential for 

increased turbidity. Proper maintenance of 

the pontoon boat would be expected to 

minimize potential for oil and gas leakage. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

255 

Eldora Hammock Area. Extension of the 

Castle Windy Trail and construction of a 

small parking area would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on water resources by 

increasing impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff. In addition, extension of 

the trail and construction of the parking area 

would result in the removal of vegetation and 

disturbance of underlying soils. Soils exposed 

and disturbed during trail construction could 

be eroded and transported to adjacent water 

bodies during storms. 

Expansion of the dock in the Eldora 

Hammock area would have short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts during construction 

because of increased turbidity; long-term 

impacts would be negligible. 

There would be long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on water resources from offering the 

Feller house and dock to commercial services 

due to increased use. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Impacts 

associated with increased turbidity or 

disturbance of bottom sediments resulting 

from watercraft use would be minimized with 

the establishment of a slow-speed area for the 

area between the Eldora State House, Parking 

lot 7, and the first island to the west. 

Oak Hill Area. Short- and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would be expected from 

implementing alternative C in the Oak Hill 

Area. Establishing a marsh trail would 

increase stormwater runoff because of the 

hardened trail surfaces. Short-term degradation of water quality could from conducting 

boat tours due to increased turbidity and the 

potential to introduce pollutants associated 

with vessel use. 

Implementation of alternative C would have 

short-term, negligible, adverse impacts from 

centralizing administrative/visitor center, and 

maintenance functions at the headquarters/visitor center and maintenance facilities 

at the Stuckey property. Removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils associated 

with these actions could result in erosion of 

exposed soils and transport of sediments to 

adjacent water bodies in stormwater runoff. 

 

If construction of a parking area and new 

facilities occurs at Bill’s Hill instead of the 

Stuckey area, short-term, moderate, and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

occur from increased impervious surfaces 

and stormwater runoff. 

Establishment of a canoe/kayak landing and 

water trail would have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts from increased human use 

and possible siltation and pollution. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There might be long-term negligible impacts 

from increasing turbidity and pollutants near 

the boat ramp from concession operations 

for boat rentals. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

There would be no new impacts on water 

resources at Wilson Corner from relocating 

maintenance functions to the Stuckey 

property or Bill’s Hill area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

water resources for alternative C were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative C. 

Short- and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

and adverse, and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on water resources would 

be expected. Alternative C’s contribution to 

these cumulative impacts would be slight. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative C 

could result in short-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse, and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts would 

also be realized by the restoration of property 

to its natural condition and through 

revegetation efforts. 

The actions proposed in alternative C, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse, and long-term beneficial 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256 

cumulative impacts. Alternative B would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D would result 

in short-term, negligible to minor, adverse, 

and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse impacts on water resources. 

Beneficial impacts would also be realized by 

the restoration of property to its natural 

condition and through revegetation efforts. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

water resources at Klondike Beach and no 

impacts at Titusville under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. There would be 

long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

water resources from the construction of 

restroom facilities. 

Apollo Beach Area. Alternative D would 

have long-term negligible impacts on water 

resources from increased recreational 

activities by increasing turbidity and 

potentially increasing shoreline erosion. 

Short- and long-term minor adverse impacts 

on water resources would occur from 

establishing permanent restroom facilities by 

increasing impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff potential. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

occur from constructing an unpaved horse 

trailer parking area and primitive trail. 

Removal of vegetation and disturbance of 

soils associated with these actions could 

result in erosion of exposed soils and 

transport of sediments to adjacent water 

bodies in stormwater runoff. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would result 

from planting foliage to screen facilities from 

visitor’s views by reducing impervious 

surfaces and stormwater runoff. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short- and longterm minor adverse impacts would be 

expected from construction of the trailer 

pads, because impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff would be increased. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Impacts 

associated with increased turbidity or 

disturbance of bottom sediments resulting 

from watercraft use would be minimized with 

the establishment of a slow-speed area for the 

area between the Eldora State House, Parking 

lot 7, and the first island to the west. 

Implementation of the pole/troll area 

associated with alternative B would have a 

long-term beneficial impact on water 

resources by reducing the amount of 

sediment disturbance associated with 

watercraft use. 

Oak Hill Area. Long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts would result from establishing a 

marsh trail at Seminole Rest and constructing 

a parking area and trail head at Seminole Rest 

by increasing impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff and by reducing vegetation. Removal of vegetation and disturbance of soils associated with marsh trail 

construction; construction of a trailhead and 

parking area on the Stuckey property, if 

acquired; expansion of marked trails and 

wayside exhibits in the Bill’s Hill area; 

establishment of parking areas at designated 

trailheads could result in erosion of exposed 

soils and transport of sediments to adjacent 

water bodies. Impacts would be expected to 

be short term and minor with the 

implementation of proper erosion and 

sediment control and stormwater 

management practices. 

Establishment of a canoe/kayak landing and 

water trail would have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts from increased human use 

and possible siltation and pollution. 

Restoration of citrus groves to a natural state 

would result in long-term, minor, beneficial 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

257 

impacts because impervious surfaces would 

be decreased. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on water 

resources in this area from implementing 

alternative D. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Short- and long-term, moderate, adverse 

impacts would occur from moving maintenance operations at Wilson’s Corner to a 

new multiagency maintenance facility in the 

USFWS maintenance area adjacent to the 

visitor center. Construction activities would 

result in increased impervious surfaces and 

stormwater runoff. Removal of vegetation 

and disturbance of soils associated with the 

action could result in erosion of exposed soils 

and transport of sediments to adjacent water 

bodies in stormwater runoff. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

water resources for alternative D were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under water resources, 

alternative A) and the impacts of implementing alternative D. Cumulative impacts would 

be short and long term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse, and long term and 

beneficial. Alternative D’s contribution to 

these cumulative impacts is not expected to 

be large. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative D 

could result in short-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and long-term, negligible to 

moderate, adverse impacts. Beneficial 

impacts would also be realized by the 

restoration of property to its natural condition and through revegetation efforts. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative D, 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse, 

and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

on water resources. Alternative B would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative impacts. 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Because a discussion of potential impacts on 

wildlife necessarily involves discussion of 

wildlife habitat, which is primarily the 

vegetation communities within the national 

seashore, vegetation and wildlife are 

addressed together in this section. Preliminary analysis of potential impacts on the 

vegetation and wildlife resources of the 

Canaveral National Seashore indicated that 

impacts could be associated with two primary 

activities—visitor use and further 

development of infrastructure. 

NPS management policies dictate that, to the 

greatest extent possible, parks would 

inventory, monitor, and manage state- and 

locally listed species. In addition, the parks 

are to inventory other native species that are 

of special management concern to parks 

(such as rare, declining, sensitive, or unique 

species and their habitats) and manage them 

to maintain their natural distribution and 

abundance. The National Park Service 

considers how to protect and perpetuate 

federally, state-, or locally listed species 

during national seashore management, 

planning, and consultation with lead Federal 

and state agencies, as appropriate. 

Methodology 

The analysis of environmental consequences 

to vegetation and wildlife includes a 

discussion of the intensity, duration, and type 

of impact. Intensity of impact describes the 

degree, level, or strength of an impact as 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Duration of impact considers whether the 

impact would occur over the short term or 

long term. Unless otherwise noted, shortterm impacts are those that, within a short 

period of time—generally less than five 

years—would no longer be detectable as the 

resource or value returns to its pre-disturbance condition or appearance. Long-term

impacts refer to a change in a resources or 

value that is expected to persist for five or 

more years. The type of impact refers to 

whether the impact on the resource or value 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258 

would be beneficial (positive) or adverse

(negative). 

The thresholds to determine impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife are defined as follows: 

Negligible: Impacts are barely detectable and 

would affect a minimal area of vegetation. 

Impacts on the plant and wildlife 

communities are not detectable. 

Minor: Impacts are slight, but detectable, 

and would affect a small area of vegetation 

or few members of the wildlife 

community. The severity and timing of 

changes are not expected to be outside 

natural variability spatially or temporally. 

Key ecosystem processes and community 

structure are retained at the local level. 

Moderate: Impacts are readily apparent and 

would affect a large area of vegetation and 

a large portion of the wildlife community. 

The severity and timing of changes are 

expected to be outside natural variability 

spatially and temporally; however, key 

ecosystem processes and community 

structure are retained at the landscape 

(regional) level. 

Major: Impacts are severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and would affect a 

substantial area of vegetation and the 

majority of the inhabiting wildlife 

community. The severity and timing of 

changes are expected to be outside natural 

variability both spatially and temporally. 

Key ecosystem processes and community 

structure might be disrupted. Habitat for 

wildlife species might be rendered 

nonfunctional at the landscape level. 

Visitor use can impact vegetation and wildlife 

through a number of mechanisms. Obvious 

and direct impacts include trampling of 

vegetation when hiking off the trail or 

camping in nondesignated areas (i.e., 

dispersed camping, which is allowed by 

backcountry permit only). A single trampling

event might impact one or more individuals 

of a species. Repeated trampling of the 

vegetation along a path or in a campsite, as 

well as removal of down and dead wood for 

campfires, can lead to changes in the 

vegetation at the population level, which 

results in habitat alteration. Habitat alteration

can, in turn, further impact remaining 

populations by making the habitat less 

suitable for the species. Introduction or 

spread of invasive species can also result from 

visitor activities. Establishment of invasive 

species often results in change in both the 

plant and wildlife composition of the infested 

area. Visitors often unwittingly introduce or 

spread propagules (e.g., seeds or larvae) of 

invasive species during recreational activities. 

Although the potential to disturb wildlife 

when hiking off the trail is apparent to most, 

even when hiking or bicycling on established 

trails or roads, visitors can disturb wildlife 

with loud or unusual noises, or even just the 

sight or scent of visitors. Disturbance of 

wildlife due to noises, sights, or scents 

associated with visitor use is referred to as 

sensory-based disturbance and applies 

primarily to the individual response level but 

can lead to population-level response if the 

disturbance is intense or prolonged. An 

example would be individual abandonment 

of a nest in response to a disturbance. If such 

a disturbance were to occur over a large area, 

or for a long period of time, individual nest 

abandonment could translate to populationlevel impacts. The impacts could be directly 

(i.e., nest abandonment) or indirectly (i.e., 

genetic bottlenecks) related to population 

declines. The “bottleneck effect” occurs 

when population numbers are insufficient to 

generate enough genetic variability to sustain 

future generations of viable offspring. 

Development of infrastructure can also 

impact vegetation and wildlife. The most 

obvious impact is the direct removal or loss 

of vegetation that serves as wildlife habitat 

(i.e., habitat loss). As an example, consider 

the development of a new road through an 

area of relatively native forest. The swath of 

vegetation removed to construct the road 

would represent habitat loss. That would not, 

however, be the only impact on the wildlife 

habitat. Opening the forest canopy where the 

road is constructed now creates an edge 

effect, with greater insolation of the forest 

edge and consequent changes in plant species 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

259 

composition. In some cases, this can cascade 

into changes in wildlife species utilization. 

Further, new use of this road would increase 

sensory-based disturbance to wildlife along 

the new road corridor. Obviously, the larger 

the corridor required for the road, the greater 

these impacts can be. Therefore, a trail would 

have far less impact than a road. The placement of a road or trail within the area of 

forest is also important. Roads or trails 

established through the middle of a habitat 

tend to fragment the habitat, making it less 

usable for some wildlife species. Alternatively, placing the road or trail close to 

another road or a natural habitat boundary 

(e.g., the shoreline) could lessen this impact. 

The more indirect impacts of infrastructure 

development described above are referred to 

as habitat degradation. Habitat loss and 

habitat degradation can impact a species at 

the individual or population level depending 

upon their extent. 

To reduce repetitiveness, the discussions 

presented later in this chapter of impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife anticipated for each 

alternative would only briefly allude to the 

impacts detailed in the above paragraphs. Key 

words such as trampling, habitat alteration, 

invasive species, sensory-based disturbance, 

habitat loss, and habitat degradation refer the 

reader back to the cause and effect 

descriptions provided above. 

Available information describing vegetation 

communities and distribution, and the 

wildlife species that inhabit them, including 

published scientific papers, NPS, and USGS 

research reports, planning documents, state 

programs, national databases, and mapping 

efforts, and consultation with NPS specialists, 

was gathered, reviewed, and summarized. 

Impacts on vegetation and wildlife were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives (B, C, 

D) to the no-action alternative (A). The 

impacts of potential visitation increases have 

been factored into the analysis. 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species. NPS staff evaluated impacts on 

federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and provided an Endangered Species 

Act determination (see appendix C) as 

defined in 50 CFR section 402 and the 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook 

(1998) for the preferred alternative. Based on 

this analysis, anticipated impacts on the 

federally listed species that have the potential 

to occur within the national seashore are 

discussed in this chapter. 

The impacts associated with visitor use and 

infrastructure development described above 

for vegetation and wildlife would also apply 

to federally listed species at Canaveral. 

Therefore, the reader is encouraged to refer 

to the above descriptions of activities leading 

to trampling, habitat alteration, sensorybased disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation. These key words will be used in 

the alternative-specific impact analyses to 

remind the reader of, or refer the reader back 

to, the cause and effect descriptions of the 

nature of impacts and species responses to 

those impacts provided above. 

Impacts on the addressed federally listed or 

candidate species were evaluated by comparing projected changes resulting from the 

action alternative to existing conditions. 

These evaluations were based on documented occurrences of the species within the 

national seashore, the distribution of their 

preferred habitats within the national 

seashore, and the distribution of designated 

critical habitat. The impacts of potential 

visitation increases have been factored into 

the analysis. 

Florida State-Listed Species. Plant and 

animal species listed by Florida as threatened, 

endangered, or species of concern that have 

the potential to occur within the national 

seashore were analyzed relative to the 

anticipated impacts of, and differences of 

those impacts among, the four alternatives. 

Impacts associated with visitor use and 

infrastructure development described above 

for vegetation and wildlife would also apply 

to state-listed species. Therefore, the reader 

is encouraged to refer to the above descriptions of activities leading to trampling, habitat 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260 

alteration, sensory-based disturbances, 

habitat loss, and habitat degradation. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Under alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, Canaveral National Seashore 

would continue under current management 

to preserve and enhance the natural and 

historic landscape features of the Florida’s 

natural coastal barrier island system, with few 

modern facilities. Alternative A would have 

short- and long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts, and short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Implementation of 

alternative A would result in long-term minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

due to maintenance of the access road, 

parking areas, and chemical toilets. 

Impacts on the vegetation and wildlife at the 

Playalinda Beach entrance station administrative complex and Playalinda Beach 

lifeguard operations area would also remain 

long term, minor, and adverse due to continued maintenance. By restricting public 

access in and around NASA tracking 

facilities, impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

would remain long-term negligible in these 

areas. 

Klondike Beach Area. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat would remain long 

term and negligible due to limited visitor 

access and dune restoration activities. 

Implementation of alternative A would 

continue to have long-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts on wildlife due to some 

interaction between humans and wildlife 

during current recreational opportunities. 

Boardwalk crossovers would continue to 

minimize long-term impact on wildlife 

habitat, including that of several federally 

listed species. The beach would continue to 

be closed at night, eliminating human 

disturbance of nesting turtles. Monitoring 

and protection would continue for terrestrial 

species of concern. 

Apollo Beach Area. Implementation of 

alternative A would continue to have longterm negligible adverse impacts on vegetation 

from boardwalk crossovers and would 

minimize long-term loss of plant habitat in 

surrounding areas. Long-term minor adverse 

impacts on wildlife would occur due to some 

interaction between humans and wildlife 

during current recreational opportunities. 

Monitoring and protection would continue 

for special status species, which could reduce 

impacts on these species. 

Continued use of the access road and five 

beach parking areas, the exterior shower 

facility at beach parking area 1, and chemical 

toilet facilities would have long-term, 

negligible adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to continued visitor use. Impacts 

would remain long-term, minor, and adverse 

due to continued horseback riding and 

general maintenance on unpaved parking 

areas. 

Under the no-action alternative, impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife at Turtle Mound 

would remain long-term, negligible, and 

adverse due to continued maintenance and 

protection of the mound from the public. 

Maintenance of the boardwalk trail and 

protection of the mound would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts as vegetation 

would be protected from trampling. 

North District maintenance operations 

would continue to have long-term, negligible 

to minor adverse impacts due to continued 

maintenance and equipment repair shop 

activities. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Continued visitor 

use of the Eldora Hammock area and the 

interpretive trails would result in short- and 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

261 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on vegetation due to continued 

visitor use and trail maintenance, and shortand long-term minor adverse impacts on 

wildlife due to sensory-based disturbances at 

these locations. 

 

The southern portion of the Eldora 

Hammock (Schultz house to the Gomez 

Grant Line) would continue to be protected 

and preserved. Impacts on vegetation would 

remain long term and negligible due to some 

traffic from shoreline boat access. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Public access 

to the launch ramp would remain available 24 

hours per day. It is expected that long-term 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife would continue due to continued 

maintenance and unsupervised use after NPS 

public operating hours. 

Impacts on wildlife from continued use of the 

paved boat access ramp, gravel parking area, 

and the canoe and kayak landing area would 

remain long term, minor, and adverse due to 

continued maintenance and visitor use of the 

gravel parking area and boat ramp into 

Mosquito Lagoon. Motorized boat traffic 

also could harm aquatic wildlife, such as 

manatee, and submerged vegetation due to 

contact by propellers. These impacts would 

be short and long term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse. 

The continued use of lagoon waters for 

water-based recreational opportunities 

would result in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on wildlife and vegetation from 

camping activities, shoreline access to 

boaters, unmonitored commercial harvesting, 

and maintenance, which could cause habitat 

destruction and alteration. 

Oak Hill Area. Management of Seminole 

Rest would continue to have long-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation and long-term negligible impacts 

on wildlife from maintenance and 

operational activities. 

The Bill’s Hill Area currently has very limited 

staff monitoring and no services at the site. 

The area would remain undeveloped in 

character. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

would remain long term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse due to continued unsupervised 

visitor access and maintenance of the site. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

would remain long-term, negligible to minor 

because of the continuation of current 

recreational activities, including boating, 

waterfowl hunting, and fishing. 

Continued visitor use of the boat access 

areas, parking areas, and the pavilion would 

result in long-term, minor, and adverse 

impacts on wildlife in the area due to 

sensory-based disturbances in these areas. A 

nonmotorized launch area for canoes, which 

is proposed along the south end of Bio Lab 

Road by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

would cause some short-term moderate 

adverse impacts during construction, but 

only negligible impacts afterwards due to 

increased human interaction with wildlife 

within the area. 

Impacts from the use of boat access areas and 

the Eddy Creek boat launch area would 

remain long-term, minor and adverse due to 

continuation of current activities. 

The addition of new pole/troll areas by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have 

long-term beneficial impacts on aquatic 

vegetation and wildlife by protecting sensitive 

seagrass beds, which provide food and 

shelter to manatees, sea turtles, and many fish 

species. 

Adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife in 

the central/southern Mosquito Lagoon areas 

would remain long-term and minor to 

moderate due to continuation of boating, 

fishing, and waterfowl hunting activities. 

Addition of new pole/troll areas by USFWS 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

aquatic vegetation and wildlife by protecting 

sensitive seagrass beds. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

262 

Continued visitor use and national seashore 

maintenance at the Manatee viewing area and 

the Scrub Ridge interpretive trail would have 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on wildlife habitats and vegetation 

due to visitor use and interaction, but 

beneficial impacts could accrue by the 

increase in positive environmental education. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The implementation of alternative A does not 

entail changes of any maintenance activities 

and thus impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

would remain long term and negligible due to 

continuation of current maintenance and 

operational activities. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of the alternatives proposed in this document 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. To do 

this, it was necessary to identify other such 

projects or actions at Canaveral National 

Seashore and in the surrounding areas 

(Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and 

NASA). 

Past, present, and anticipated future projects 

near Canaveral National Seashore that would 

contribute to impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife include the following: 

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

periodic dredging activities along the 

Intracoastal Waterway (ongoing) 

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna 

Beach (ongoing) 

3. rockets and satellites would continue 

to be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center. No new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time 

4. potential development and operation 

of a commercial vertical launch 

complex at Canaveral Air Force 

Station 

5. construction of launch infrastructure 

at nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport 

as part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments 

(report completed in January 2007; 

construction has not begun) 

6. development of the International 

Space Research Park (ISRP) on the 

Kennedy Space Center 

(Environmental Impact Statement 

completed in 2004; construction has 

not begun) 

7. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(Environmental Impact Statement 

completed in April 1998) 

8. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape 

Canaveral Air Station 

9. mosquito control activities by St. 

John’s River Water Management 

District, Brevard County, and Volusia 

County (ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

The ongoing projects of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers periodic dredging would likely 

have short-term, negligible to moderate 

adverse impacts on the vegetation and 

wildlife because of habitat loss and individual 

death. Beach nourishment activities would 

have long-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife by means of habitat 

and plant loss, and increased nutrients (e.g., 

invasive species outcompeting native 

species). 

Approximately 70% of the national 

seashore’s acreage is under the jurisdiction of 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. Satellite, and other space 

exploration vertical launch activities are 

scheduled throughout the year, though 

shuttle launches will end in 2010. NASA and 

KSC actions would have long- and shortterm, negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife at Canaveral 

National Seashore. Projects that involve 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

263 

launches of space vehicles and other activities 

at the Kennedy Space Center, including 

projects 3through 8, would likely have 

adverse impacts on wildlife and vegetation by 

means of noise and water pollution. During a 

launch, wildlife in the vicinity of launch site 

would be temporarily disturbed due to noise, 

generally amounting to a startle effect. 

Launches would temporarily increase acidity 

(i.e., ocean splashdown of jettisoned launch 

components,) in nearby shallow surface 

waters and could damage or kill biota within 

the immediate vicinity of the launch pad 

(NASA 2006, 2008a). 

Mosquito control activities would result in 

short-term minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife. Mosquito control 

would involve applying approved larvicides 

on select marsh sites among the lagoon 

islands, so long-term cumulative impacts 

(e.g., toxicity), would not be expected. 

The impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative A, would likely result in short- and 

long-term, negligible to moderate adverse, 

and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative A is expected to contribute a 

small component to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have shortand long-term, negligible to minor adverse 

impacts, and short- and long-term, negligible 

to moderate beneficial impacts. 

 

The actions proposed in alternative A, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse, and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Under alternative B, the preferred alternative, 

Canaveral National Seashore would be 

managed to preserve and enhance the natural 

and historic landscape features of the 

Florida’s natural coastal barrier island 

system, with little modern facilities. Alternative B would have short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts and 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate 

beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife in the Klondike Beach 

area and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. The development of 

the bicycle path would have short-term 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to vegetation clearing and 

sensory-based disturbances during construction activities. Replacing the highmaintenance chemical toilet facilities with a 

more efficient and sustainable system would 

decrease impacts due to diminished chances 

of chemical spills, thus providing long-term 

beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

The construction of new restrooms would 

use a previously disturbed area, and impacts 

on existing vegetation and wildlife habitat 

would be short term, minor, and adverse due 

to trampling and habitat destruction. 

Relocation of the administrative boardwalk 

dune crossover to accommodate ATV 

emergency access would result in short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts during installation, 

but long-term negligible impacts because the 

boardwalk would reduce trampling of 

vegetation and wildlife habitats. 

Apollo Beach Area. The burying of power 

and telephone lines would have short-term 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to some habitat destruction 

during construction. After construction, 

some long-term, minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation could continue due to maintenance and upkeep of facilities. The replacement of high-maintenance chemical toilet 

facilities with more efficient and sustainable 

system would have short-term minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife during 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264 

construction and long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts by reducing the risk of chemical 

spills. 

The establishment of a bike path along 

seashore road would entail some permanent 

destruction of vegetation; however, adequate 

buffer area next to the road would provide 

most if not all of the space necessary for the 

bike path. Loss of vegetation (native grasses 

and possibly some palmetto) would be 

limited with minor loss or no loss to wildlife 

habitat. 

Relocation of the fee booth and entrance gate 

towards the north boundary would have 

negligible impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

since these activities would not involve 

addition of new roads or parking areas. 

Implementation of alternative B would result 

in short- and long-term minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation from replacement of 

the visitor information center, provided the 

new structure uses the same site. Construction activities could cause short-term, minor 

adverse effects on vegetation and short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

wildlife due to habitat loss. Some minor 

beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

would be realized in the long-term from 

adding vegetation screening around the new 

facilities. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Under alternative 

B, short- and long-term minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife would be 

expected from the burial of overhead power 

and telephone lines due to some habitat 

destruction during construction. After construction, long-term minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation (e.g., trampling) could continue 

due to maintenance and upkeep of facilities. 

Some habitat alteration would be expected 

with extending the Castle Windy Trail, but 

long-term adverse effects would be minor 

and impacts would be concentrated only 

along the trail. 

The expansion of historic preservation and 

interpretation activities in the Eldora historic 

area would not affect vegetation and wildlife, 

because these activities would be confined to 

the Eldora State House building. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Under alternative B, phasing out 24-hour public access 

and transitioning to controlled entry would 

eventually reduce adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife from long-term and minor 

to long term and negligible by diminishing 

trampling and sensory-based disturbances. 

The entrance area (gate/fee booth) would be 

relocated north to the national seashore 

boundary to control public access to the 

launch area. Moving the entrance would have 

short-term minor adverse impacts on wildlife 

populations due to loss of habitat. However, 

the long-term adverse impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife are expected to decrease since 

the proposed controlled access to the boat 

ramp and relocation of the gate to the 

national seashore boundary would reduce 

unsupervised use. 

The establishment of a nonmotorized or 

pole/troll area to protect resources in the 

Shipyard Island area of the lagoon would 

have long-term beneficial impacts on aquatic 

vegetation and wildlife by protecting sensitive 

seagrass beds, which provide food and 

shelter to manatees, sea turtles, and many fish 

species. In addition, a slow-speed area would 

be established for boats between the Eldora 

State House, parking area 7, and the first 

island to the west. This would help to protect 

the shoreline, decrease turbidity, and reduce 

adverse impacts on shore vegetation and 

wildlife habitats from long-term minor to 

long-term negligible. 

Oak Hill Area. Management of Seminole 

Rest would continue to focus on protection 

and preservation of the archeological 

resources and the rehabilitated historic main 

house and caretaker’s house. The impacts of 

alternative B would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. 

The Stuckey property of approximately 10 

acres would be purchased and restored to 

natural conditions, resulting in a net 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

265 

beneficial effect on wildlife and vegetation. 

Restoration of sites such as abandoned citrus 

groves to pre-disturbed conditions would 

have short-term minor adverse impacts on 

wildlife and vegetation due to habitat 

disturbance, but long-term beneficial impacts 

once restoration is complete. 

Increased opportunities for dispersed 

backcountry hiking at the Bill’s Hill area 

would cause some long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on wildlife habitats 

through human disturbance. Although 

expanded interpretive opportunities via 

marked trails and wayside exhibits would be 

developed, this disturbance would be minor. 

Vegetation impacts would be concentrated 

along trails and there would be only a shortterm moderate adverse impact during trail 

construction. Otherwise impacts would be 

long-term negligible to minor as a result of 

centralized anthropogenic activities. 

Creating a canoe/kayak landing and water 

trail connection with the proposed USFWS 

canoe/kayak trail and developing additional 

routes through the mangrove islands would 

produce short-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

during the establishment of the trail system 

through sensitive environments (e.g., from 

cutting of limbs, removal of deadfalls). 

However, once trail systems are established, 

long-term adverse impacts would be 

negligible to minor due to human presence 

within wildlife habitats. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. As in 

alternative A, addition of new pole/troll areas 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

have long-term beneficial impacts on aquatic 

vegetation and wildlife by protecting sensitive 

seagrass beds, which provide food and 

shelter to manatees, sea turtles, and many fish 

species. 

As in alternative A, impacts from the use of 

boat access areas and the Eddy Creek boat 

launch area would remain long-term, minor 

and adverse due to continuation of current 

activities. 

The management of lands north of Haulover 

Canal would continue to support USFWS 

lead management direction and recreational 

activities for this area. The removal of feral 

hogs and maintenance of a healthy deer 

population north of Haulover Canal would 

have long-term beneficial impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife by reducing habitat 

destruction for other species. 

The impacts of alternative B would be the 

same as those described under alternative A 

for the manatee viewing area, the Scrub Ridge 

and Pine Flatwoods interpretive trails, and 

lands south of Haulover Canal. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Construction of a possible new multiagency 

facility near the USFWS visitor center could 

have short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to disturbances from construction and on-going maintenance 

activities. Impacts from the relocation of the 

NPS South District maintenance base of 

operations at Wilson Corner into a new 

multiagency facility in the USFWS 

maintenance area would be short-term, 

negligible to minor due to sensory-based 

disturbances. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife for alternative B were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative B. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate. 

Long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

would also be realized. Alternative B is 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate 

adverse impacts, and short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts. 

The actions proposed in alternative B, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Under alternative C, Canaveral National 

Seashore would be managed as a place where 

visitors would explore and experience a wide 

range of opportunities designed to provide an 

in-depth understanding of the natural and 

cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. 

When visitors enter the national seashore, 

they would be presented with a menu of 

choices for alternative modes of access to 

land- and water-based natural and cultural 

features, recreational opportunities, and 

educational pursuits. Alternative C would 

have short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse, and long-term beneficial 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife in the Klondike Beach 

area and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. The development of 

the bicycle path would have short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to trampling and habitat 

alteration during construction activities. 

Replacing the high-maintenance chemical 

toilet facilities with a more efficient and 

sustainable system would have long-term 

beneficial impacts due to diminished chances 

of chemical spills. The construction of new 

restrooms would use a previously disturbed 

area, and impacts on existing vegetation and 

wildlife habitat would be short-term, minor, 

and adverse. 

Relocating lifeguard operations closer to the 

beach and conversion of existing structures 

to a small satellite maintenance staging area 

would result in long-term negligible adverse 

impacts on existing vegetation and wildlife 

due to some habitat alteration, trampling, and 

sensory-based disturbances. 

Apollo Beach Area. Short-term minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat would be expected from reconfiguring and expanding the parking area, 

establishing permanent restroom facilities, 

and providing unpaved parking for horse 

trailers, resulting in some habitat destruction 

during construction. After construction, 

long-term minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation would continue due to 

maintenance and upkeep of facilities. 

The establishment of a bike path along the 

seashore road would entail some permanent 

destruction of vegetation; however, adequate 

buffer area next to the road would provide 

most, if not all, of the space necessary for the 

bike path. Loss of vegetation (native grasses 

and possibly some palmetto) would be minor 

with no loss to wildlife habitat. 

Expansion of the parking area and construction of shade structures at Turtle Mound 

would involve some permanent habitat 

destruction during construction; short-term, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

wildlife would be expected. After construction some long-term minor adverse impacts 

on wildlife could continue due to maintenance and upkeep and increased public use. 

Expanded environmental education 

opportunities would potentially decrease 

adverse impacts on wildlife through 

increased public environmental awareness. 

North District maintenance operations 

would, with the exception of a small satellite 

maintenance staging area, be relocated from 

Apollo Beach and consolidated in a 

centralized maintenance facility at Bill’s Hill 

area or the Stuckey Property, if acquired. 

Reduction or elimination of the Apollo Beach 

maintenance facility would provide on-site 

benefit to wildlife and vegetation. 

Eldora Hammock Area. In the Eldora 

historic area, improvements to the existing 

interpretive trails, the addition of interconnecting foot trails, and the extension of sewer 

and water service would result in short-term 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

267 

minor adverse impacts on wildlife and 

vegetation during construction and longterm negligible adverse impacts after 

construction is completed due to habitat 

alteration, trampling, and sensory-based 

disturbances. The expansion of historic 

preservation and interpretation activities in 

the Eldora historic area would not affect 

vegetation and wildlife because these 

activities would be confined to the Eldora 

State House building. 

Construction of a small parking area at the 

Castle Windy interpretive trail and extension 

of the trail along the shoreline of the lagoon 

would involve some habitat destruction, but 

long-term adverse effects would be minor 

and impacts would be concentrated only 

along the trail. Connecting lands south of 

Eldora Hammock with the Joint Management Area allowing limited access via 

designated foot trails would have negligible 

to minor impacts due to reduced vegetation 

trampling. 

The expansion and repair of the Marine 

Science Educational Station and the former 

Hebner property would result in short- and 

long-term minor adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife during and after construction. The effects produced include habitat 

loss, trampling, and sensory-based 

disturbances from construction, 

maintenance, and continued visitor use. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife would occur at the 

former Feller and Schultz properties because 

of ongoing activities and the possible addition of new visitor services in these areas. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. The NPS staff 

would continue to maintain 24-hour public 

access to the boat launch ramp resulting in 

long-term minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife due to continued 

maintenance and unsupervised use after NPS 

public operating hours. Impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife from implementation 

of alternative C would be the same as those 

described under alternative A. 

The paved, boat access ramp and kayak 

launching area across from Apollo Beach 

parking area 5, the undelineated gravel 

parking area, and the canoe and kayak 

landing area accessing Mosquito Lagoon 

from the Eldora Hammock area would 

continue to be maintained. In addition, the 

parking area would be paved and slightly 

enlarged, which would cause short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife from minimal habitat 

loss. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

would remain long-term, minor, and adverse 

due to continued maintenance and visitor use 

of the parking area and boat ramp. Motorized 

boat traffic could harm aquatic wildlife (e.g., 

manatee). 

Under alternative C, impacts on wildlife and 

vegetation in lagoon waters would remain 

long-term, minor adverse due to camping 

activities, shoreline access by boaters, 

unmonitored commercial harvesting, and 

maintenance. 

Establishment of a slow-speed area would 

reduce adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife by reducing noise disturbances for 

terrestrial wildlife and improving shoreline 

habitat. Also, slower propeller speeds would 

reduce turbidity and improve aquatic wildlife 

habitat. 

Oak Hill Area. Management of Seminole 

Rest would continue to focus on protection 

and preservation of the archeological 

resources and the rehabilitated historic main 

house and caretaker’s house. 

Interpretive and educational programs would 

be expanded and key features would be 

rehabilitated to reflect historic conditions 

associated with their period of significance. 

This would impact some existing vegetation, 

but no long-term impacts are expected. A 

marsh trail would be added to the site, and 

educational programs would be initiated. 

There would be some moderate habitat 

destruction during the construction of the 

trail, but once complete the impacts on 

wildlife would be long-term, minor, and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268 

adverse due to increased human-wildlife 

interaction. 

The concrete parking area and gravel 

overflow area accommodating 10 vehicles 

might be expanded. If so, there would be 

moderate short-term impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife, and negligible to minor, longterm impacts on wildlife. 

The Stuckey Property of approximately 10 

acres would be purchased and a centralized 

visitor center, administrative headquarters, 

and maintenance facility would be constructed on this site. The construction of the new 

facility could entail some destruction of 

vegetation and wildlife habitats in areas of the 

property that remain undisturbed, resulting 

in short-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts, depending on the number and type 

of recreational functions added in future 

years. 

If funding is not available to purchase the 

Stuckey Property, construction of the new 

facilities would proceed at another previously 

disturbed location in the Bill’s Hill area. The 

construction of the new facility at Bill’s Hill 

would have similar short- and long-term 

impacts depending on the amount of 

disturbed and undisturbed land. 

For the Bill’s Hill area that would not be used 

for a new facility, increased opportunities for 

dispersed backcountry hiking and equestrian 

use would cause long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on wildlife habitat due 

to human disturbance and sensory-based 

disruption of wildlife behaviors. Although 

expanded interpretive opportunities would 

be developed with the addition of trail 

markers and wayside exhibits, the short- and 

long-term impacts would be negligible to 

minor. 

 

The addition of a canoe/kayak landing and 

water trail connection along the west side of 

the Intracoastal Waterway along with 

creation of routes through sensitive 

mangrove areas would produce short-term 

minor adverse impacts during the establishment of these systems and long-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts due to 

human presence within wildlife habitats. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Under alternative C, the potential addition of 

new pole/troll areas by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in the central/southern 

Mosquito Lagoon areas would have longterm beneficial impacts on aquatic vegetation 

and wildlife by protecting sensitive seagrass 

beds, which provide food and shelter to 

manatees, sea turtles, and many fish species. 

If concession facilities are established at the 

Eddy Creek boat launch ramp for rental of 

canoes and kayaks, increased use of the 

shoreline in that area would result in shortand long-term minor impacts on terrestrial 

and aquatic vegetation. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The NPS South District maintenance base of 

operations at Wilson Corner would be 

relocated and consolidated into a new 

multiagency facility at the Stuckey property, 

if acquired, or in the Bill’s Hill area. This 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife at Wilson Corner due 

to reduced human traffic. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife for alternative C were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative C. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate. 

Long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

would also be realized. Alternative C’s 

contribution to cumulative impacts would 

not likely be large. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed in alternative C would have short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and 

long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife. 

The actions proposed in alternative C, 

together with other past, present, and 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

269 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Under alternative D, Canaveral National 

Seashore management would focus on 

enhancing the existing investment in lands, 

resources, and facilities. The national 

seashore would be managed to promote 

outdoor recreational and interpretive 

educational opportunities that are consistent 

with preservation of the natural and cultural 

resources. A limited level of facility development would improve efficiencies in NPS 

administration and operations and enhance 

visitor amenities. Coordination with landmanaging partners would be increased to 

provide additional educational opportunities 

and programs for visitors and enhanced 

monitoring of the Mosquito Lagoon 

resources. Alternative D would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate 

adverse and short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

The following site-specific impacts do not 

repeat the continuing impacts that are 

described in alternative A; however, all 

relevant impacts are considered in the final 

analysis. There would be no new impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife in the Klondike Beach 

area and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Operations at

Playalinda Beach, the entrance station, and 

areas of restricted public use due to NASA 

activities would remain unchanged from 

previous management practices. Impacts for 

alternative D would be the same as those 

described under alternative A in these areas. 

Replacing the high-maintenance chemical 

toilet facilities with a more efficient and 

sustainable system would decrease impacts 

due to diminished chances for chemical 

spills, thus providing long-term beneficial 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

The possible removal of the existing structures at the lifeguard operations area would 

cause short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on existing vegetation 

and wildlife habitat due to habitat alteration 

and degradation. Relocating the boardwalk 

dune crossover for emergency access for 

ATV vehicles would result in short-term 

minor adverse impacts during installation, 

but long-term negligible impacts because the 

boardwalk would reduce trampling of 

vegetation and wildlife habitats. 

Apollo Beach Area. Impacts for alternative 

D would be remain the same as those 

described under alternative A for operations 

at Apollo Beach, the entrance station, Turtle 

Mound, and the beach operations area. 

Access to Apollo Beach would be modified to 

accommodate horse trailers by constructing 

an unpaved parking area and trail connection 

resulting in some habitat destruction during 

construction. After construction, long-term 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation would 

continue due to maintenance and upkeep of 

facilities. Provision for convenient visitor 

access to beach areas via designated dune 

crossovers would continue. 

Short-term minor adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat would be expected 

during construction of permanent restroom 

facilities causing some habitat destruction 

and sensory-based disturbances. After 

construction, some long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation (e.g., 

trampling) would be expected due to 

maintenance and upkeep of facilities. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Access to the 

Eldora Hammock area, operations at the 

Eldora Hammock and Castle Windy interpretive trails, the former Schultz property, 

and lands south of Eldora Hammock would 

remain unchanged from previous management practices. Impacts for alternative D 

would be the same as those described under 

alternative A for these areas.

In the Eldora historic area, the possible 

extension of sewer and water service would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270 

result in short-term minor adverse impacts 

on wildlife and vegetation during construction and long-term negligible adverse impacts 

after construction due to habitat alteration, 

trampling, and sensory-based disturbances. 

The expansion of historic preservation and 

interpretation activities in the Eldora historic 

area would not affect vegetation and wildlife, 

as these activities would be confined to the 

Eldora State House building. 

The construction of additional trailer pads at 

the former Hebner Property and the extension of utility lines would cause short-term 

moderate adverse impacts on vegetation 

during construction due to habitat alteration 

and trampling and long-term negligible 

adverse impacts after construction from 

maintenance activities and use by NPS 

personnel and visitors. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Under 

alternative D, phasing out 24-hour public 

access and transitioning to controlled entry 

would eventually reduce adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife from long-term minor 

to long-term negligible by diminishing 

trampling and sensory-based disturbances. 

Controlled entry would benefit wildlife and 

vegetation by reducing unmonitored public 

use of the area. 

Relocation of the entrance area (gate/fee 

booth) north to the national seashore 

boundary would have short-term minor 

adverse impacts on wildlife populations due 

to loss of habitat. However, the long-term 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

are expected to decrease since the proposed 

controlled access to the boat ramp and 

relocation of the gate to the national seashore 

boundary would reduce unsupervised use. 

The establishment of a nonmotorized or 

pole/troll area to protect resources in the 

lagoon would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on aquatic vegetation and wildlife by 

protecting sensitive seagrass beds, which 

provide food and shelter to manatees, sea 

turtles, and many fish species. 

In addition, a slow-speed area would be 

established for boats between the Eldora 

State House, parking area 7, and the first 

island to the west. This would help to protect 

the shoreline, decrease turbidity, and reduce 

adverse impacts on shore vegetation and 

wildlife habitats from long-term minor to 

long-term negligible. 

Oak Hill Area. Management of Seminole 

Rest would continue to focus on protection 

and preservation of the archeological 

resources and the rehabilitated historic main 

house and caretaker’s house. 

A marsh trail would be added to the site and 

educational programs would be initiated. 

There would be short-term minor to 

moderate impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

due to habitat destruction during the 

construction of the trail, but once completed 

impacts would be long-term minor adverse 

due to habitat alteration and sensory-based 

disruption of wildlife behaviors. 

Under alternative D, the Stuckey property 

would be purchased, and a trailhead and 

parking area would be constructed, resulting 

in short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife due to 

habitat destruction and sensory-based 

disturbance. Long-term adverse impacts 

would be negligible to minor due to visitor 

use and NPS maintenance activities. 

Increased opportunities for dispersed 

backcountry hiking and horseback riding at 

the Bill’s Hill area would cause some longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

wildlife habitats through human disturbance. 

Although expanded interpretive 

opportunities via marked trails and wayside 

exhibits would be developed, this 

disturbance would be minor. Vegetation 

impacts would be concentrated along trails 

and there would be only a short-term 

moderate adverse impact during trail 

construction. However, restoration of sites 

such as abandoned citrus groves to predisturbed conditions would have short-term 

minor adverse impacts on wildlife and 

vegetation due to habitat disturbance, but 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

271 

long-term beneficial impacts once completed. 

Otherwise impacts would be long-term 

negligible to minor as a result of centralized 

anthropogenic activities. 

Creating a canoe/kayak landing and water 

trail connection with the proposed USFWS 

canoe/kayak trail and developing additional 

routes through the mangrove islands would 

produce short-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

during the establishment of the trail system 

through sensitive environments (e.g., from 

cutting of limbs, removal of deadfalls). 

However, once trail systems are established, 

long-term adverse impacts would be 

negligible to minor due to human presence 

within wildlife habitats. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife in 

the central/southern Mosquito Lagoon areas 

would remain long-term, negligible to minor 

due to continuation of boating, fishing, and 

waterfowl hunting activities. Addition of new 

pole/troll areas by USFWS would have longterm beneficial impacts on aquatic vegetation 

and wildlife by protecting sensitive seagrass 

beds. 

The impacts on vegetation and wildlife for 

alternative D would be the same as those 

described under alternative A for all other 

locations in the NPS/USFWS Joint 

Management Area. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

NPS South District maintenance base of 

operations at Wilson Corner would be 

relocated and consolidated into a new 

multiagency facility in the USFWS 

maintenance area. This would have shortterm, negligible to minor impacts due to 

sensory-based disturbances and long-term 

beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

due to reduced human traffic. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife for alternative D were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative D. 

Adverse cumulative impacts would be shortand long-term, negligible to moderate. The 

beneficial cumulative impacts would be 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate. 

Alternative D is expected to contribute a 

small component to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative D would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate 

adverse impacts, and short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts. 

The actions proposed in alternative D, 

together with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse, and short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Alternative D would not be expected 

to contribute an appreciable amount to these 

cumulative impacts. 

SOUNDSCAPES AND NOISE 

Potential impacts on the soundscape at 

Canaveral National Seashore are presented 

for alternatives A, B, C, and D. A discussion 

of the impacts of noise from proposed 

activities, as they affect the visitor experience, 

is provided for the affected geographical 

areas. 

Methodology 

Evaluation criteria for effects on the 

soundscape are based on context, time, and 

intensity. Together, these determine the level 

of impact for an action or activity. 

Negligible: Natural sounds exist but might 

be affected by human-caused sources, but 

the effects would be at or below the level 

of detection, or changes would be so 

miniscule they would not be of any 

perceptible consequence to wildlife or the 

visitor experience. 

Minor: There would be detectable noise (i.e., 

from human-caused sources) in the 

natural sound environment, but the effects 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272 

would be small, local, and of little 

consequence to wildlife or the visitor 

experience. 

Moderate: Although natural sounds would 

predominate, human-caused noise would 

be readily detectable, affecting the 

behavior of wildlife or visitors in a large 

area. 

Major: Natural sounds would be impacted 

by human-caused noise frequently and for 

extended periods of time. The change in 

the natural sound environment would be 

obvious and would affect the health of 

wildlife or visitors and cause a 

considerable, highly noticeable change in 

the behavior of wildlife or visitors. 

Clearing, grading, excavation, building 

activities, and demolition from construction 

activities can cause an increase in noise that is 

well above the ambient level. A variety of 

sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, 

welders, and other work processes. 

Construction equipment usually exceeds the 

ambient sound levels by 20 to 25 A-weighted 

decibels (dBA) in an urban environment and 

up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, a short-term 

increase in noise levels could originate from 

construction equipment and vehicular traffic. 

Noise from construction activities would 

vary depending on the type of construction 

being done, the area of national seashore the 

construction would occur in, and the 

distance from the source of the noise. 

Construction activities would include 

demolition, grading, paving, and building. 

Populations that could be impacted by 

construction noise include adjacent 

residents, NPS personnel, national seashore 

visitors, and visitors to one of the nearby 

wildlife refuges or recreation areas. 

To predict how these activities would affect 

people, noise from the proposed 

construction was estimated. For example, 

building construction usually involves several 

pieces of equipment (e.g., saws and haul 

trucks) that can be used simultaneously. 

Cumulative noise from the construction 

equipment was estimated to determine the 

total effect of noise from building activities at 

a given distance. Examples of expected 

construction noise during daytime hours 

could include the following: 

 It is anticipated that people who are 50 

feet from construction activities would 

experience noise levels of approximately 

88 dBA. 

 It is anticipated that people who are 250 

feet from construction activities would 

experience noise levels of approximately 

75 dBA. 

 It is anticipated that people who are 500 

feet from construction activities would 

experience noise levels of approximately 

69 dBA. 

 It is anticipated that people who are 

1,000 feet from construction activities 

would experience noise levels of 

approximately 63 dBA. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, no changes 

would occur within the national seashore. 

Conditions would remain as described in 

“Chapter 3, Affected Environment.” Some 

beach areas would continue to have highdensity use and overcrowding at times. Noise 

related to increasing visitation—such as 

motor vehicles on roads, motorboats in 

Mosquito Lagoon, and noise created by the 

visitors themselves—would be expected to 

increase in these beach areas. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on the natural sounds 

from recreational activities, increasing 

visitation, and maintenance activities (such as 

paving and grading) would be expected to 

continue under alternative A. 

No changes to the existing conditions (i.e., no 

new impacts) at the Playalinda, Klondike, and 

Apollo Beach areas; Eldora Hammock area; 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon; NPS/ USFWS 

Joint Management Area; or Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge are proposed under 

alternative A. There would be no impacts at 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

273 

the Titusville area under alternative A. Longterm, minor, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from recreational activities, 

increasing visitation, and maintenance (such 

as paving and grading) would be expected to 

continue under alternative A in these areas. 

The soundscapes in these areas would 

continue to be monitored. 

Oak Hill Area. Long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape from increasing 

visitation, maintenance activities (such as 

building maintenance/ repairs, paving, and 

grading) would be expected to continue 

under alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of the alternatives proposed in this document 

with the impacts of other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, 

present, and anticipated projects that would 

contribute to impacts on the soundscape 

include the following: 

1. rockets and satellites would continue to 

be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center. No new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time 

2. potential development and operation of 

a commercial vertical launch complex at 

Canaveral Air Force Station 

3. construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as 

part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments (report 

completed in January 2007; construction 

has not begun) 

4. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(Environmental Impact Statement 

completed in April 1998) 

5. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape Canaveral 

Air Station 

6. development of the International Space 

Research Park (ISRP) on the Kennedy 

Space Center (Environmental Impact 

Statement completed in 2004; 

construction has not begun) 

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers periodic 

dredging activities along the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ongoing) 

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna Beach 

(ongoing) 

9. mosquito control activities by St. John’s 

River Water Management District, 

Brevard County, and Volusia County 

(ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Approximately 70% of the national 

seashore’s acreage is under NASA jurisdiction. Satellite, and other space vertical launch 

activities are scheduled throughout the year. 

Between 1990 and 2001, there were 

approximately 16 satellite launches per year, 

and about 7 space shuttle launches (NASA 

2008a). Launches are therefore infrequent, 

and the noise produced by the launch, while 

higher than the ambient noise level, is 

localized and short term. These disruptions 

would have less impact on the soundscape 

once space shuttles are no longer launched at 

Kennedy Space Center because noise from 

rocket and satellite launches is much less than 

that of space shuttle launches. Temporary 

closure of multiple areas of the seashore in 

advance of a launch would continue to occur 

under all alternatives. Therefore, long-term, 

intermittent, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on the Canaveral National Seashore 

soundscape from NASA launch activities are 

expected to continue under all four 

alternatives. 

Short-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape would be 

expected if projects 2 through 6 were 

constructed. Long-term impacts from 

proposed launches under these projects 

would be expected to be similar to those 

discussed above, depending on the number 

of launches proposed. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274 

Long-term intermittent negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the soundscape would be 

expected for projects 7through 9. 

Overall, the impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions by others 

would be negligible to moderate and shortterm. 

The impacts of the actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of implementing alternative A, would result in shortand long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts. Alternative A is expected to 

contribute a small component to these 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape from recreational 

activities, increasing visitation, and 

maintenance activities (such as paving and 

grading) would be expected to continue 

under alternative A. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative A 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

actions discussed above are expected to be 

short- and long-term, minor, and adverse. 

The cumulative impacts of implementing 

alternative A are not expected to substantially 

increase negative effects on the soundscape. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, could result in shortterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts, 

and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape. 

Impacts on the soundscape for each 

individual area analyzed under alternative B 

are provided below. The following sitespecific impacts do not repeat the continuing 

impacts that are described in alternative A; 

however, all relevant impacts are considered 

in the final analysis. There would be no 

additional impacts on soundscapes at 

Klondike Beach and no impacts at Titusville 

under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative B 

would include the creating a bicycle path, 

replacing the chemical toilets, possibly 

removing lifeguard structures in the lifeguard 

operations area, relocating the lifeguard 

operations, and relocating the administrative 

boardwalk dune crossover in the lifeguard 

operations area. Although the bicycle path 

would be constructed in the right-of-way/ 

buffer along the side of the road, some 

construction activities (such as grading and 

paving) could be required. Short-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts on the soundscape from construction activities and 

increased construction vehicle traffic would 

be expected under alternative B. 

Apollo Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative B 

include creating bicycle trails, replacing the 

chemical toilets, removing the overhead 

power and telephone lines and placing them 

underground, relocating the entrance station, 

and reconfiguring or redesigning the North 

District maintenance complex. Although the 

bicycle trails would be constructed in the 

right-of-way/buffer along the side of the 

road, some construction activities (such as 

grading and paving) could be required. Shortterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

the soundscape from construction activities 

and increased construction traffic would be 

expected under alternative B. 

Expanding pontoon boat tours would have 

minor, long-term, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape due to increased boat noise and 

human activities. 

 

Eldora Hammock Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative B 

include removing overhead power and 

telephone lines and placing them underground and extending the Castle Windy 

interpretive trail. Short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on the soundscape from construction activities and 

increased traffic from construction vehicles 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

275 

would be expected under alternative B in this 

area. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Proposed 

noise-producing activities under alternative B 

include relocating the boat access entrance 

area (gate and fee booth) and establishing a 

slow-speed area for boats. Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from 

relocating the boat access entrance area 

would be expected under alternative B. 

Long-term, minor beneficial impacts on the 

soundscape would be expected from 

establishing a slow-speed area or pole/troll 

area for boats under alternative B. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be expected under 

alternative D from phasing out 24-hour 

public access to provide for controlled access 

at night and establishing a slow-speed area 

for boats. 

Oak Hill Area. Proposed noise-producing 

activities under alternative B include 

restoring the Stuckey property, if acquired; 

expanding interpretive and hiking opportunities; establishing a canoe/kayak landing 

and water trail connection; and providing 

access and parking for designated trailheads 

for hiking in the Bill’s Hill area. Short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

increased traffic from construction vehicles 

would be expected under alternative B. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape in the Bill’s Hill area from 

increasing visitation and boat noise from the 

administrative and limited shuttle/ 

interpretive boat tours would be expected 

under alternative B. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts for alternative B would be the same 

as those described under alternative A. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. If 

a new multiagency facility were to be built, 

the relocation of the NPS South District 

maintenance operations at Wilson’s Corner 

to that facility would result in no changes to 

the soundscape in this location because it is 

likely that the buildings at Wilson’s Corner 

would continue to be used as a satellite 

maintenance facility. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

the soundscape for alternative B were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative B. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short and long term, and minor, while 

beneficial cumulative impacts would be longterm and minor. Alternative B would be 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative B 

could have short-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts, and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape. Longterm, minor, beneficial impacts on the 

soundscape would also be expected from 

establishing a slow-speed area for boats in 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative B 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above would be short and 

long term, minor, and adverse, and long term, 

minor, and beneficial. Implementation of 

alternative B is not expected to substantially 

increase any negative effects on the 

soundscape. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C would likely 

result in short-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts, and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

Impacts on the soundscape for each 

individual area analyzed under alternative C 

are provided below. The following sitespecific impacts do not repeat the continuing 

impacts that are described in alternative A; 

however, all relevant impacts are considered 

in the final analysis. There would be no 

additional impacts on soundscapes at 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

276 

Klondike Beach and no impacts at Titusville 

under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative C 

include creating a bicycle path, replacing the 

chemical toilets, relocating the lifeguard 

operations area, and converting the lifeguard 

structures to a small satellite maintenance 

staging area. The impacts of constructing the 

bicycle path would be the same as described 

under alternative B. Short-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from the 

other construction activities described above 

and increased traffic from construction 

vehicles would be expected under alternative 

C. 

Apollo Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative C 

include redesigning parking area 1, creating 

unpaved parking for horse trailers and a 

primitive trail to boardwalk access for horses, 

creating a bicycle path, replacing the 

chemical toilets, adding showers, connecting 

water and sewer lines, reconfiguring the 

Apollo Beach entrance station, relocating 

maintenance facilities, expanding the public 

pontoon boat tours, and constructing a 

pavilion and parking for larger vehicles at 

Turtle Mound. Constructing the bicycle path 

would have the same impacts as described for 

alternative B. Short-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from 

activities listed above and increased 

construction vehicle traffic would be 

expected under alternative C. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative C 

include the creation and expansion of trails, 

the expansion of the dock, and the extension 

of sewer and water service in the Eldora 

historic area; creation of a small parking area, 

expansion of interpretive programs, and 

extension of the Castle Windy interpretive 

trail; repair of facilities and expansion of the 

types of uses at the marine science educational station; removal of the garage and 

replacement of facilities at the former Hebner 

property; provision of new water-based 

recreational opportunities at the former 

Feller property; and creation of trails in the 

lands south of Eldora Hammock. Short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

increased construction vehicle traffic would 

be expected under alternative C. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Proposed 

noise-producing activities under alternative 

C include the paving and minimal expansion 

of the parking area at the boat access area, 

expanding interpretive water tours from 

Apollo Beach, and the possibly adding a 

water-based commercial shuttle service. 

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

increased construction vehicle traffic would 

be expected under alternative C. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape 

would occur from the expansion of 

interpretive water tours. Additional impacts 

would be expected if the shuttle service was 

added. Long-term minor beneficial impacts 

would be expected from establishing a slowspeed area for boats under alternative C. 

Oak Hill Area. Proposed noise-producing 

activities under alternative C include creating 

a marsh trail, providing enhanced 

recreational opportunities (hiking trails, 

camping, canoe/kayak launching, equestrian 

use), creating access and parking at 

designated trailheads for hiking and 

horseback riding, expanding interpretive 

opportunities via marked trails and wayside 

exhibits, connecting the area with the 

USFWS canoe/kayak trail in the Bill’s Hill 

area, and constructing a centralized visitor 

center/administrative headquarters and 

maintenance facility at the Stuckey property, 

if acquired, or the Bill’s Hill area. 

The preferred location of this centralized 

complex is the Stuckey property, which is a 

small segment next to Bill’s Hill. If funding is 

not available to purchase the Stuckey site, the 

complex would be constructed at Bill’s Hill. 

Short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on 

the soundscape from construction activities 

and increased construction vehicle traffic 

would be expected under alternative C. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

277 

soundscape would be expected from limited 

boat tours, recreational activities, increasing 

visitation, and scheduled maintenance 

activities (such as paving and grading). 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Impacts for alternative C would be the same 

as those described under alternative A with 

the additional potential for increased noise 

impacts from educational programs and the 

addition of concession rental activities. Longterm impacts for the other proposed projects 

would be the same as those described under 

alternative A. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alternative C would result in reduced longterm impacts on the soundscape at the South 

District maintenance area from relocating the 

maintenance functions and short-term, 

minor impacts during relocation of the 

maintenance functions to the Stuckey 

property, if acquired, or Bills’ Hill area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

the soundscape for alternative C were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative C. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short and long term, and minor, while 

beneficial cumulative impacts would be long 

term and minor. Impacts of alternative C 

would comprise a relatively small portion of 

the overall cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative C 

could result in short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative C, 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

actions discussed above, would be short and 

long term, minor, and adverse, and long term, 

minor, and beneficial. Implementation of 

alternative C would not be expected to 

substantially increase any negative effects on 

the soundscape. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D would likely 

result in short-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts, and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

Impacts on the soundscape for each 

individual area analyzed under alternative D 

are provided below. The following sitespecific impacts do not repeat the continuing 

impacts that are described in alternative A; 

however, all relevant impacts are considered 

in the final analysis. There would be no 

additional impacts on soundscapes at 

Klondike Beach and no impacts at Titusville 

under this alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative D 

include replacing the chemical toilets, 

relocating the lifeguard operations functions, 

relocating the administrative boardwalk dune 

crossover, and possibly demolishing lifeguard 

structures. These activities would have 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction and increased 

construction vehicle traffic. 

Apollo Beach Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative D 

include creating unpaved parking for horse 

trailers and a primitive trail to boardwalk 

access, replacing the chemical toilets, 

extending water and sewer connections, and 

reconfiguring or redesigning the North 

District maintenance complex. Short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

increased construction vehicle traffic would 

be expected under alternative D. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Proposed noiseproducing activities under alternative D 

include possible extension of sewer and 

water service in the Eldora historic area and 

construction of trailer pads and possible 

extension of utility lines at the former 

Hebner property. Short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape from construction activities and increased construction 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278 

vehicle traffic would be expected under 

alternative D. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Proposed 

noise-producing activities under alternative 

D include the relocation of the entrance area 

(gate/fee booth) and enhanced opportunities 

for canoeing and kayaking. Short-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

increased construction vehicle traffic would 

be expected under alternative D. Long-term, 

minor, beneficial adverse impacts on the 

soundscape would be expected under 

alternative D from phasing out 24-hour 

public access to provide for controlled access 

at night and establishing a slow-speed or 

pole/troll area for boats. 

Oak Hill Area. Proposed noise-producing 

activities under alternative D include creating 

a self-guided interpretive marsh trail at 

Seminole Rest, purchasing the Stuckey 

property and constructing a trailhead and 

parking area there, enhancing opportunities 

for dispersed recreation (including canoe/ 

kayaking, hiking, and horseback riding trails), 

and establishing a canoe/kayak landing and 

water trail connection with the proposed 

USFWS canoe/kayak trail in the Bill’s Hill 

area. Short-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape from construction activities and increased construction 

vehicle traffic would be expected under 

alternative D. Long-term impacts would be 

the same as those described under alternative 

A. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

Proposed noise-producing activities under 

alternative D include expansion of environmental education and public programs in the 

boat access areas. Impacts for alternative D 

would be the same as those described under 

alternative A, with the additional potential for 

increased noise impacts from educational 

programs in the area. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

The relocation of the NPS South District 

maintenance operations at Wilson’s Corner 

to a new multiagency facility in the USFWS 

maintenance area adjacent to the visitor 

center would result in no changes to the 

soundscape in this location because it is likely 

that the buildings at Wilson’s Corner would 

continue to be used as a satellite maintenance 

facility. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

the soundscape for alternative D were 

determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative D. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short and long term and minor. Beneficial 

cumulative impacts would be long term and 

minor. Alternative D is expected to 

contribute a small component to these 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative D 

could result in short-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would 

be expected from phasing out of 24-hour 

public access to provide for controlled access 

at night and establishing a slow-speed area 

for boats in northern Mosquito Lagoon. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative D, 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above, would be short and 

long term, minor, and adverse, and long term, 

minor, and beneficial. Implementation of 

alternative D would not be expected to 

substantially increase any negative effects on 

the soundscape. 

AIR QUALITY 

Potential impacts on air quality at Canaveral 

National Seashore are presented for alternatives A, B, C, and D. A discussion of the air 

quality impacts from proposed activities is 

provided for the affected geographical areas. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

279 

Methodology 

Evaluation criteria for impacts on air quality 

are based on federal and state regulations that 

establish and maintain air quality parameters. 

As described in the “Chapter 3: Affected 

Environment,” these include the Clean Air 

Act amendments and state (FDEP) 

regulations. A proposed action would have a 

substantial impact on air quality if it were to 

do one or more of the following: 

 violate established laws or regulations 

adopted to protect air quality 

 exceed the de minimis thresholds 

established by the Clean Air Act or state 

(FDEP) regulations 

The thresholds to determine the severity of 

impacts are defied as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would result in no 

measureable or perceptible changes in air 

emissions, air quality, or visibility. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable, 

and would result in small but measurable 

changes in air emissions, air quality, or 

visibility. The impacts would be localized 

to a small area. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would result in easily detectable 

changes in air emissions, air quality, or 

visibility. The impacts would be localized. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and would result 

in exceeding the significant impact 

thresholds established in federal and state 

regulations on prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. The impacts 

would be regionally important. 

To predict how the proposed activities would 

affect populations, criteria pollutants were 

estimated for the long-term increases in 

vehicular traffic that would result from 

implementing alternatives B, C, and D. 

Activities, such as demolition of existing 

structures, grading, excavation, soil 

recontouring, building construction, and 

parking area construction, can result in the 

release of particulate matter into the air. In 

addition, construction equipment (e.g., 

scrapers, graders, backhoes) powered by 

internal combustion engines contribute 

directly to air emissions of criteria pollutants 

including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and particulate matter equal to 10 

microns or 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 or 

PM2.5, respectively). The largest structure 

proposed for construction is the new multiagency facility at the Playalinda Beach 

maintenance area. This structure would be 

approximately 3,500 square feet, with 

additional outbuildings. Construction of this 

size would be consistent with general 

construction provisions of the state 

implementation plan and would not be 

considered substantial. 

Construction of additional access roads and 

parking areas proposed under alternatives B, 

C, and D would not generate substantial 

levels of emissions. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency has developed regulations 

limiting the emissions of off-road construction equipment, and the construction 

activities would be reviewed to ensure they 

do not exceed de minimis emission limits. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, no major 

construction projects would be undertaken 

that would generate vehicle and equipment 

exhaust as well as particulate (dust) emissions 

from excavation and construction activities. 

Conditions would remain as described in 

“Chapter 3, Affected Environment.” Some 

beach areas could be expected to continue to 

have high-density use and overcrowding at 

times. Subsequently, increasing visitation and 

use of motor vehicles on roads and motor 

boats on waterways continue to affect air 

quality. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on the air quality from recreational activities, 

increasing visitation, and maintenance 

activities would be expected to continue 

under alternative A. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of the alternatives proposed in this document 

with the impacts of other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, 

present, and anticipated projects that would 

contribute to impacts on air quality include 

the following: 

1. rockets and satellites would continue to 

be launched from Kennedy Space 

Center. No new construction is 

expected for rocket and satellite 

launches at this time 

2. potential development and operation of 

a commercial vertical launch complex at 

Canaveral Air Force Station 

3. construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as 

part of U.S. Commercial Space 

Transportation Developments (report 

completed in January 2007; construction 

has not begun) 

4. deployment and operation of evolved 

expendable launch vehicle systems at 

Cape Canaveral Air Station 

(Environmental Impact Statement 

completed in April 1998) 

5. continued preparations for and 

implementation of the Mars Science 

Laboratory mission at Cape Canaveral 

Air Station. 

6. development of the International Space 

Research Park (ISRP) on the Kennedy 

Space Center (Environmental Impact

Statement completed in 2004; 

construction has not begun) 

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers periodic 

dredging activities along the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ongoing) 

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment along New Smyrna Beach 

(ongoing) 

9. mosquito control activities by St. John’s 

River Water Management District, 

Brevard and Volusia County (ongoing) 

Refer to the “Cumulative Impacts” discussion 

at the beginning of this chapter for more 

information on all the cumulative actions 

impacting Canaveral National Seashore. 

Continued and future launch activities, 

operation of the vertical launch complex, 

deployment of the evolved expendable 

launch vehicle systems, and implementation 

of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, 

would result in short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on air quality. Launch activities 

would result in long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on air quality. 

Construction of launch infrastructure at 

nearby Cape Canaveral Spaceport as part of 

U.S. commercial space transportation 

developments and construction of the 

International Space Research Park would 

result in temporary, short-term, impacts on 

air quality during construction. These 

construction activities, in conjunction with 

implementation of alternative A, would not 

result in substantial, long-term, cumulative 

impacts. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach 

nourishment activities along New Smyrna 

Beach and periodic dredging activities along 

the Intercoastal Waterway, and USFWS/ 

county mosquito control activities would 

continue to have short-term increases in air 

emissions, but, in conjunction with implementation of alternative A, would not result 

in substantial, long-term, air quality impacts. 

Overall, the impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions by others 

would be short-term, negligible, and adverse. 

The impacts of actions described above, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

A, would likely result in short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts on air quality. Alternative A is 

expected to contribute a small component to 

these impacts. 

Conclusion. Long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the air quality from recreational 

activities, increasing visitation, and maintenance activities would be expected to continue 

under alternative A. 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

281 

Impacts from the actions under alternative A, 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above, are expected to be 

short- and long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts. Impacts from the actions 

under alternative A would contribute slightly 

to these cumulative effects. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Implementation of alternative B, the preferred alternative, could result in short- and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on air 

quality at Canaveral National Seashore. Some 

localized beneficial impacts would be 

expected because of the availability of 

alternative transportation. 

Impacts on the air quality for each 

geographical area analyzed under alternative 

B are provided below. There would be no 

additional impacts on air quality at Klondike 

Beach and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term 

emissions would be expected from the 

construction of the bike path, installation of 

new chemical toilets, potential removal of 

lifeguard structures in the lifeguard 

operations area, and the relocation of the 

boardwalk dune crossover in the lifeguard 

operations area due to increased vehicular 

activity and emissions from grounddisturbing activities during construction. 

Emissions would also be expected to increase 

because of increasing visitation, maintenance 

activities, and recreational activities. 

However, this short- and long-term increase 

in emissions would not be expected to result 

in an exceedance of the national NAAQS 

standards. 

Apollo Beach Area. Emissions would 

increase during replacement of the 

restrooms, burial of the powerlines, and 

reconfiguration of the North District 

maintenance complex. The construction 

projects would generate total suspended 

particulate and PM10 emissions as fugitive 

dust from ground-disturbing activities, in 

addition to the emissions of all criteria 

pollutants from the combustion of fuels in 

construction equipment resulting in shortterm, minor, adverse impacts on air quality. 

However, this short-term increase in 

emissions would not be expected to result in 

an exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

Long-term emissions in the area would likely 

result in long-term, beneficial impacts on air 

quality because of the availability of alternative transportation shuttle services and 

establishment of a bike path. Minor, longterm, adverse impacts on air quality could 

also result from an increase in pontoon boat 

traffic. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short-term 

emissions would increase from the removal 

of existing overhead power and telephone 

lines and burying them underground, and the 

extension of the Castle Windy interpretive 

trail because of increased construction 

vehicle traffic and construction activities. 

Construction of the Castle Windy Trail 

extension would result in short-term 

increases in fugitive dust emissions. Longterm emissions would be expected to 

increase because of increasing visitation, 

maintenance activities, and recreational 

activities. However, these short- and longterm adverse impacts on air quality would not 

be expected to result in an exceedance of the 

national (NAAQS) standards. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Short-term 

emissions would increase from the relocation 

of the entrance area. Establishing a slowspeed area for boats would result in an 

increase in short-term emissions, because 

motorboats would remain longer in the area 

between the Eldora State House, parking lot 

7, and the first island to the west. Long-term 

emissions would be expected to increase 

because of greater visitation, maintenance 

activities, and recreational activities. These 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on air 

quality would not be expected to result in an 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282 

exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

Oak Hill Area. Short-term emissions due to 

fugitive dust and diesel exhaust would 

increase from restoration of the Stuckey 

property, if acquired, expansion of interpretive opportunities, establishment of a 

canoe/kayak landing and water trail 

connection, and construction of access and 

parking for designated trailheads for hiking 

in the Bill’s Hill area. Long-term emissions 

would be expected to increase from 

increasing visitation, maintenance activities, 

and recreational activities. However, this 

short- and long-term increase in emissions 

would not be expected to result in an 

exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on air quality 

in this area. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Short-term emissions from release of fugitive 

dust and diesel exhaust emissions would be 

expected from the construction of new 

multiagency facility, if it were to be 

constructed. Long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on air quality would be expected 

from increasing visitation, maintenance 

activities, and recreational activities. 

However, this short- and long-term increase 

in emissions would not be expected to result 

in an exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

air quality for alternative B were determined 

by combining the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (as 

described in alternative A) and the impacts of 

implementing alternative B. Cumulative 

impacts would be short and long term, minor, 

and adverse, and long term and beneficial. 

Impacts of alternative B would comprise a 

relatively small portion of the overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative B 

could result in an increase in short- and longterm emissions. Short-term emissions would 

result from construction activities, including 

demolition, as well as the vehicle emissions 

associated with those activities. Long-term 

emissions would be expected as a result of 

additional recreational activities proposed 

under alternative B, increasing visitation, and 

maintenance activities. However, these shortand long-term increases in emissions would 

not be expected to result in an exceedance of 

the national (NAAQS) standards. Therefore, 

implementation of alternative B would result 

in minor adverse impacts on air quality. Some 

localized beneficial impacts are also expected 

because of the availability of alternative 

transportation, such as shuttle buses and 

bicycles. 

The actions proposed under alternative B 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above, are expected to 

result in short- and long-term, minor, 

adverse, and long-term, negligible, beneficial 

impacts on air quality. Impacts from the 

actions under alternative B would contribute 

slightly to these cumulative effects 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Implementation of alternative C could result 

in short-term, minor to moderate, and longterm, minor, adverse impacts on air quality. 

Long-term beneficial impacts would likely 

occur, as well. 

Impacts on the air quality for each geographical area analyzed under alternative C are 

provided below. There would be no additional impacts on air quality at Klondike 

Beach and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term emissions would be expected from the construction of the bike path, installation of new 

chemical toilets, relocating the operations in 

the lifeguard operations area closer to the 

beach, and converting existing structure to a 

small satellite maintenance staging area from 

increased vehicular activity and emissions 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

283 

from ground-disturbing activities during 

construction. Long-term emissions would be 

expected to increase because of increasing 

visitation, maintenance activities, and 

recreational activities. However, this shortand long-term increase in emissions would 

not be expected to result in an exceedance of 

the national (NAAQS) standards. 

Apollo Beach Area. Constructions activities 

associated with redesigning parking area 1, 

providing unpaved parking for horse trailers 

and a primitive trail access for horses, 

creating a bicycle path, replacing the restrooms, installing water and sewer connections, and the addition of a pavilion and 

parking for larger vehicles at Turtle Mound 

would result in short-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on air quality. 

However, the short-term increase in emissions from diesel exhaust and fugitive dust 

would not be expected to result in an exceedance of the national (NAAQS) standards. 

Some long-term reduction in emissions 

would be anticipated if alternative transportation is established; therefore, long-term 

beneficial impacts are expected. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Short-term 

increases in emissions due to construction 

would be expected from the expansion of the 

trail system, and extension of sewer and 

water service in the Eldora historic area; 

addition of a small parking area and expansion of the Castle Windy trail; removal of the 

garage and replacement with facilities for 

expanded research or dorm facilities at the 

former Hebner property; and creation of 

trails in the lands south of Eldora Hammock. 

These activities would likely result in shortterm, minor, impacts on air quality due to 

diesel exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

Expansion of the dock in the historic area 

would result in a negligible increase in 

emissions from the addition of the interpretive boat tour stop. Long-term emissions 

would be expected to increase with more 

visitation, maintenance activities, and 

recreational activities. However, this shortand long-term increase in emissions would 

not be expected to result in an exceedance of 

the national (NAAQS) standards. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. An increase in 

short-term emissions would result from the 

paving and expansion of the parking area at 

the boat access area, establishment of a slowspeed area for boats, expansion of interpretive water tours from Apollo Beach, and the 

possible addition of a water-based 

commercial shuttle service. Paving the 

parking area would result in a temporary 

increase in emissions from off-gassing of 

paving materials and diesel exhaust from 

construction equipment. Establishing a slowspeed area for boats would result in an 

increase in short-term emissions, because 

motorboats would remain longer in the area 

between the Eldora State House, parking lot 

7, and the first island to the west. Additional 

impacts would be expected if the shuttle 

service was added. Long-term emissions 

would be expected to increase because of 

greater visitation, maintenance activities, and 

recreational activities. However, these shortand long-term adverse impacts on air quality 

would not be expected to result in an 

exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

Oak Hill Area. An increase in short-term 

emissions would result from the creation of a 

marsh trail, possible expansion of the gravel 

overflow parking area in Seminole Rest, 

provision of enhanced recreational 

opportunities (hiking trails, camping, 

canoe/kayak launching, equestrian use), the 

creation of access and parking at designated 

trailheads for hiking and horseback riding, 

expanded interpretive opportunities via 

marked trails and wayside exhibits, and the 

connection of the area with the USFWS 

canoe/kayak trail in the Bill’s Hill area. 

Some emissions would be expected from 

construction of new visitor center/ headquarters/maintenance facilities at the Stuckey 

property or at the Bill’s Hill area, leading to 

short-term, moderate, impacts on air quality 

from the ground disturbance and heavy 

equipment activities during construction. 

The construction projects would generate 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

284 

total suspended particulate and fugitive dust 

from ground-disturbing activities, in addition 

to the emissions from the combustion of fuels 

in construction equipment. Long-term 

emissions would be expected to increase 

because of increasing visitation, maintenance, 

and recreational activities. However, these 

short- and long-term increases in emissions 

would not be expected to result in an 

exceedance of the national (NAAQS) 

standards. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on air quality 

in this area. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

There would be no new impacts on air quality 

in this area after maintenance functions move 

to the Stuckey property (or Bill’s Hill) 

because the structures would likely continue 

to be used by USFWS staff. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

from the implementation of alternative C 

were determined by combining the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (as described under alternative 

A) and the impacts of implementing 

alternative C. The adverse cumulative 

impacts would be short and long term and 

minor to moderate. Some long-term 

beneficial cumulative impacts would also be 

realized. Impacts from the actions under 

alternative C would contribute slightly to 

these cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative C 

could result in short- and long-term 

emissions; however, this short- and longterm increase in emissions would not be 

expected to result in an exceedance of the 

national (NAAQS) standards. Implementation of alternative C would be expected to 

result in short-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on air quality. Some 

localized beneficial impacts are also expected 

because of the availability of alternative 

transportation, such as shuttle buses and 

bicycles. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative C, 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above, would be short and 

long term and minor to moderate. Some 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

would also be realized. Impacts from the 

actions under alternative C would contribute 

slightly to these cumulative effects. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Implementation of alternative D could result 

in short- and long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on air quality. 

Impacts on the air quality for each 

geographical area analyzed under alternative 

D are provided below. There would be no 

additional impacts on air quality at Klondike 

Beach and no impacts at Titusville under this 

alternative. 

Playalinda Beach Area. Short-term emissions would be expected from relocation of 

the lifeguard operations functions, the 

possible demolition of existing lifeguard 

structures, and relocating the boardwalk 

dune crossover. These emissions would 

result in short-term, minor impacts on air 

quality because of diesel exhaust from 

construction vehicles and fugitive dust 

emissions from ground-disturbing activities. 

Long-term emissions would be expected to 

increase from increasing visitation, 

maintenance activities, and recreational 

activities. However, this short- and long-term 

increase in emissions would not be expected 

to result in an exceedance of the NAAQS 

standards. 

Apollo Beach Area. Construction activities 

associated with providing unpaved parking 

for horse trailers and a primitive trail 

connection to the administrative boardwalk, 

installing water and sewer connections, and 

reconfiguring or redesigning the North 

District maintenance complex would likely 

result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on air quality. Long-term emissions would be 

expected to increase because of increasing 
Impacts on Natural Resources 

285 

visitation, maintenance activities, and 

recreational activities. However, short- and 

long-term increases in emissions would not 

be expected to result in an exceedance of the 

national (NAAQS) standards. 

Eldora Hammock Area. Under alternative 

D, short-term, minor adverse air quality 

impacts would occur because of diesel 

exhaust and fugitive dust emissions generated 

during extension of sewer and water service, 

and construction of additional trailer pads, as 

well as improvement of the garage and 

extension of utility lines at the former 

Hebner Property. 

Northern Mosquito Lagoon. Short-term 

emissions would result from relocation of the 

entrance area (gate/fee booth) and establishment of a slow-speed area for boats. 

Establishing a slow-speed area for boats 

would result in an increase in short-term 

emissions because motorboats would remain 

longer in the area between Eldora State 

House, parking lot 7, and the first island to 

the west. Long-term emissions would be 

expected to increase due to increasing 

visitation, maintenance and recreation 

activities. However, these short- and longterm minor adverse impacts on air quality 

would not be expected to result in an 

exceedance of the NAAQS standards. 

Oak Hill Area. Short-term emissions would 

result from the creation of a self-guided 

interpretive trail at Seminole Rest; construction of a trailhead and parking area at the 

Stuckey property; and providing parking for 

designated trailheads and active restoration 

in the Bill’s Hill area. These construction 

activities would result in short-term minor 

adverse impacts on air quality due to fugitive 

dust and diesel exhaust emissions. Long-term 

emissions would be expected to increase due 

to increasing visitation, maintenance 

activities, and recreation activities. However, 

these short- and long-term impacts on air 

quality would be minor and would not be 

expected to result in an exceedance of the 

NAAQS standards. 

NPS/USFWS Joint Management Area. 

There would be no new impacts on air 

quality. 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Construction of a new multiagency maintenance facility would result in short-term 

emissions of fugitive dust and diesel exhaust. 

Long-term emissions would be expected to 

increase due to increasing maintenance 

activities. This short- and long-term increase 

in emissions would not be expected to result 

in an exceedance of NAAQS standards. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

from implementing alternative D were determined by combining the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (as described under alternative A) and 

the impacts of implementing alternative D. 

The adverse cumulative impacts would be 

short and long term and minor. Alternative D 

is expected to contribute a small component 

to these impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative D 

could result in short- and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the air quality at the 

national seashore. 

Impacts from the actions under alternative D 

combined with the impacts from the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions discussed above, would be short and 

long term and minor. Alternative D is 

expected to contribute a small component to 

these impacts. 
286 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

METHODOLOGY 

In this document, impacts on cultural 

resources are described in terms that are 

consistent with the regulations of the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are 

intended, however, to also comply with the 

requirements of section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In 

accordance with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800, 

Protection of Historic Properties), impacts on 

cultural resources were also identified and 

evaluated by (1) determining the area of 

potential effects; (2) identifying cultural 

resources present in the area of potential 

effects that are either listed in or eligible to be 

listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse 

effect to affected national register eligible or 

listed cultural resources; and (4) considering 

ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects. 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact 

alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristic 

of a cultural resource that qualifies it for 

inclusion in the national register, e.g., 

diminishing the integrity (or the extent to 

which a resource retains its historic 

appearance) of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

alternatives that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance, or be cumulative 

(36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). 

A determination of no adverse effect means 

that there is an effect, but the effect would not 

diminish the characteristics of the cultural 

resource that qualify it for inclusion in the 

national register. 

CEQ regulations and the National Park 

Service’s Conservation Planning,

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision 

Making (Director’s Order 12) also call for a 

discussion of mitigation, as well as an analysis 

of how effective the mitigation would be in 

reducing the intensity of a potential impact, 

e.g., reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act only. It does not 

suggest that the level of effect as defined by 

section 106 is similarly reduced. Cultural 

resources are nonrenewable resources, and 

adverse effects generally consume, diminish, or 

destroy the original historic materials or form, 

resulting in a loss in the integrity of the 

resource that can never be recovered. 

Therefore, although actions determined to 

have an adverse effect under section 106 may 

be mitigated, the effect remains adverse. 

Potential impacts are described in terms of 

type, context (are the effects site-specific, local, 

or even regional), duration (are the effects 

short-term (less than one year), long-term (one 

to five years), or permanent), and intensity 

(negligible, minor, moderate, or major). 

A section 106 summary is included in the impact 

analysis sections for the action alternatives. The 

section 106 summary is an assessment of the 

effect of the undertaking (implementation of the 

alternative) based upon the criterion of effect 

and criteria of adverse effect found in the 

advisory council’s regulations. 

IMPACTS ON ARCHEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

Negligible: Impact is at the lowest level of 

detection. Impacts would be measurable but 

with no perceptible consequences. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

287 

Minor: Disturbance of a site(s) results in little 

loss of integrity. The determination of effect 

for section 106 would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Site(s) is disturbed but not 

obliterated. The determination of effect for 

section 106 would be adverse effect. 

Major: Site(s) is obliterated. The 

determination of effect for section 106 

would be adverse effect.

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A 

(No-action Alternative) 

Analysis. Under alternative A, known 

archeological resources in Canaveral National 

Seashore would continue to be protected and 

preserved. Archeological resources would 

continue to be surveyed, inventoried, and 

evaluated to determine their national register 

eligibility—subject to funding and staffing 

limitations. Continued inventory and 

monitoring would provide long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts. All 

ground-disturbing activities would be 

preceded by site-specific archeological surveys 

and, where appropriate, subsurface testing to 

determine the existence of archeological 

resources and how best to preserve them. 

Known archeological resources would be 

avoided whenever possible, and few, if any, 

impacts would be anticipated. If, however, 

national register listed or eligible archeological 

resources could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the Florida state historic 

preservation officer. If previously 

undiscovered archeological resources were 

uncovered during construction, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would be 

stopped until the resources could be identified 

and documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy was developed in 

consultation with the Florida state historic 

preservation officer. 

 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from trails, roads, and developed 

areas could be vulnerable to surface 

disturbance, inadvertent damage, and 

vandalism. A loss of surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact distribution, 

and a reduction of contextual evidence could 

result. This would provide for long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. However, continued 

ranger patrols and emphasis on visitor 

education would help discourage vandalism 

and inadvertent destruction of cultural 

features, and any impacts, although long term 

or permanent, would be expected to be minor 

and minimal if any. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, human 

activities (e.g., vandalism, looting, foot and 

vehicular traffic, and backcountry camping) 

and natural processes (e.g., animal burrowing, 

vegetation growth, weathering, erosion, and 

fire) have resulted in the loss or disturbance of 

archeological resources. Some of these activities and processes have continued to the present and would likely continue if alternative A 

were implemented. Digging mosquito ditches 

and creating impoundments have severely 

damaged many sites along the Mosquito 

Lagoon shoreline. Storms and high water are 

eroding many lagoon sites; feral hogs and 

armadillos have dug into middens and 

mounds, causing changes to its stratigraphy. 

Several of the island middens, located on high 

ground, have been traditionally used by local 

residents as backcountry campsites. Shipwreck 

sites are extremely vulnerable to vandalism and 

the forces of nature. The above actions would 

constitute long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on archeological resources. Despite a number 

of these impacts, which can be severe, recent 

archeological investigations have found the 

vast majority of sites to be in stable condition. 

Water levels in the vicinity of the national 

seashore have varied greatly over the past 

several thousand years. Some prehistoric 

archeological sites may be submerged or occur 

in the swampy and marshy environs of the 

national seashore, particularly older Archaic 

sites that were occupied when the sea level was 

lower than it is today. 

One of the greatest impacts on the national 

seashore’s archeological resources to date 

appears to have been the work of antiquarians 

and early “avocational” archeologists who 

carried out extensive “explorations” but left 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

288 

little data. Many of the artifact collections 

resulting from these early efforts were divided 

among repositories across the United States, 

further complicating the situation. Even postWorld War II investigators have relied heavily 

on surface collections and trenching of shell 

middens and burial mounds. These methods 

have often resulted in highly biased samples. 

Much of the national seashore has not been 

comprehensively surveyed and inventoried for 

archeological resources, and resource 

monitoring and protection programs have 

been sporadic and insufficient because of 

limited staffing and funding levels. Thus, 

decisions about site development and 

permitted activities have sometimes been made 

that, in hindsight, may have resulted in the loss 

or disturbance to an unknown number of 

archeological sites in the national seashore. 

This lack of survey and inventory has led to 

some long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. 

Ongoing and expanded archeological site 

monitoring programs would be initiated, and 

efforts would be undertaken to minimize or 

mitigate potential impacts from human 

activities and natural causes providing for 

some long term negligible to moderate 

beneficial impacts. However, an unknown 

number of archeological sites in the national 

seashore would continue to be adversely 

impacted by human activities and natural 

processes. 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in the national 

seashore and its surrounding area would 

generally be expected to contribute to minor 

long-term, adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. When combined with the actions 

proposed in this alternative, these other 

actions would be expected to have minor 

adverse cumulative impacts. However, the 

impacts on such resources associated with 

alternative A would constitute a relatively small 

component of any overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Overall there would be longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. Cumulative impacts 

on archeological resources under this 

alternative would be expected to be adverse, 

minor, and long term; however, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would 

constitute a relatively small component of any 

overall cumulative impact. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 

B (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative B 

would have the same general impacts on 

archeological resources as those listed under 

alternative A. 

In addition, although actions under this 

alternative, such as development of bike trails 

and marked trails and wayside exhibits in the 

Bill’s Hill area, could impact archeological 

resources, strategies as outlined under alternative A would be implemented to avoid, preserve, or mitigate such impacts. Thus few, if 

any, additional adverse impacts on archeological resources would be anticipated under 

alternative B. Similar to alternative A, the 

adverse impacts would be minor and long 

term; however, there would be long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts from 

continued inventory and monitoring. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative B would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts of alternative B 

on archeological resources in the national 

seashore would be long term, minor, and 

adverse, and long term, negligible to minor, 

and beneficial. Cumulative impacts on 

archeological resources under alternative B 

would be expected to be adverse, long term, 

and minor; however, this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would constitute a 

relatively small component of any overall 

cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative B there 

would be no adverse effects on archeological 

resources in the national seashore. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

289 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative C 

would have the same general impacts on 

archeological resources as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Additional actions under alternative C could 

potentially impact an unknown number of 

archeological resources in the national 

seashore. These actions include development 

of (1) bike paths, (2) new or larger parking 

areas at some locations, (3) trails throughout 

the Eldora State House landscape, lands south 

of the boat launch to the Gomez Grant line, 

and the Bill’s Hill area as well as a marsh trail at 

Seminole Rest, and (4) construction of a visitor 

center, headquarters, and maintenance facility 

on the Stuckey property. However, strategies 

as outlined under alternative A would be 

implemented to avoid, preserve, or mitigate 

impacts on archeological resources from such 

development to the extent possible, and few, if 

any, additional impacts would be anticipated. 

Few additional adverse impacts on archeological resources would be anticipated under 

alternative C. Similar to alternative A, the 

adverse impacts would be minor and long 

term; however, there would be negligible to 

minor beneficial impacts from continued 

inventory and monitoring. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative C would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative A 

 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts of alternative C 

on archeological resources in the national 

seashore would be long term, minor, and 

adverse, and long term, negligible to minor, 

and beneficial. Cumulative impacts under 

alternative C on archeological resources would 

be expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative C there 

would be no adverse effects on archeological 

resources in the national seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative D 

would have the same general impacts on 

archeological resources as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Additional actions under alternative D could 

potentially impact an unknown number of 

archeological resources in the national 

seashore. These actions include construction 

of (1) a speed lane for fee collection at the 

Playalinda Beach entrance station, (2) new or 

larger parking areas at some locations, (3) trails 

and wayside exhibits in the Bill’s Hill area as 

well as a marsh trail at Seminole Rest, and (4) 

development of trailhead and parking at the 

Stuckey property. However, strategies as 

outlined under alternative A would be 

implemented to avoid, preserve, or mitigate 

impacts on archeological resources from such 

development to the extent possible. The few 

anticipated adverse impacts, if any, would be 

adverse, long term, and minor. There would be 

beneficial, long-term, negligible to minor 

impacts from continued inventory and 

monitoring. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative D would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative A. 

 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts of alternative D 

on archeological resources in the national 

seashore would be long term, minor, and 

adverse, and long term, negligible to minor, 

and beneficial. Cumulative impacts under this 

alternative would also be expected to be 

adverse, minor, and long term; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative D there 

would be no adverse effects on archeological 

resources in the national seashore. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

290 

IMPACTS ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection—barely perceptible and 

measurable. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Impacts would affect characterdefining features but would not diminish 

the overall integrity of the building or 

structure. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would alter a characterdefining feature(s), diminishing the overall 

integrity of the building or structure to the 

extent that its national register eligibility 

could be jeopardized. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter character-defining 

features, diminishing the integrity of the 

building or structure to the extent that it 

would no longer be eligible to be listed in 

the national register. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A 

(No-action Alternative) 

Analysis. Under alternative A historic 

structures in the national seashore that are 

listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places would continue to 

be protected and preserved. Additionally, 

subject to staffing and funding limitations, 

prehistoric/ historic structures would continue 

to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. Continued survey and 

inventory would provide for a long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impact. To 

appropriately preserve and protect national 

register-listed or -eligible historic structures 

(i.e., Eldora State House, Schultz house, and 

the Seminole Rest main and caretaker’s 

houses), all stabilization, preservation, and 

rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, 

and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

national seashore’s museum collections and/ or 

for their comparative use in future preservation work at the sites. Stabilization, preservation, and rehabilitation would have no 

adverse effect on historic structures. These 

actions would result in minor, long term, and 

beneficial impacts. 

Nevertheless, some adverse impacts on historic 

fabric in historic structures could result from 

climatic conditions and other natural processes 

as well as anticipated increases in visitation 

levels and continuing use for residential, 

administrative, and interpretive activities. 

However, these impacts would be minimized 

to the extent possible by continued law 

enforcement activities and public education 

efforts as well as preservation treatment and 

regular cyclic maintenance as NPS funding and 

personnel permit. These impacts would not 

affect the integrity of the structure. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, historic 

structures in the national seashore have been 

adversely affected by a variety of human 

activities such as modern development, routine 

wear and tear, lack of systematic cyclic 

maintenance and preservation treatment, and 

vandalism, and by natural processes such as 

weathering and pest infestations. Some of these 

activities and processes have continued to the 

present and would likely continue if alternative 

A were implemented. 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future undertakings in the seashore 

and its surrounding area would generally be 

expected to contribute long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on historic structures. When 

combined with the actions proposed in this 

alternative, these other actions would be 

expected to have adverse cumulative impacts. 

The impacts on such resources associated with 

alternative A, however, would constitute a 

relatively small component of any overall 

cumulative impact. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

291 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on historic 

structures under alternative A would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts on historic 

structures; under this alternative would be 

expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative B 

would have the same general impacts on 

historic structures as those listed under 

alternative A.

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative B would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on historic 

structures as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on historic 

structures under alternative B would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts on historic 

structures under alternative B would be 

expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative B there 

would be no adverse effects on historic 

structures in the national seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative C 

would have the same general impacts on 

historic structures as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative C would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on historic 

structures as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on historic 

structures under alternative C would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts under 

alternative C on historic structures would be 

expected to be minor and adverse; however, 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative C there 

would be no adverse effects on historic 

structures in the national seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative D 

would generally have the same impacts on 

historic structures as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative D would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on historic 

structures as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on archeological 

resources under alternative D would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts under this 

alternative on historic structures would be 

expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative D there 

would be no adverse effects on historic 

structures in the national seashore. 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL 

LANDSCAPES 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection — barely perceptible and 

measurable. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: Impacts would affect characterdefining features or patterns but would not 

diminish the overall integrity of the 

landscape. For purposes of section 106, the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

292 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would alter characterdefining features or patterns, diminishing 

the overall integrity of the landscape to the 

extent that its national register eligibility 

would be jeopardized. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter character-defining 

features or patterns, diminishing the overall 

integrity of the landscape to the extent that 

it would no longer be eligible to be listed in 

the national register. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (NoAction Alternative) 

Analysis. Although comprehensive cultural 

landscape studies have not been conducted for 

Canaveral National Seashore and the national 

seashore’s cultural landscape inventory has not 

been completed, a preliminary assessment 

identified four cultural landscapes: Eldora 

Historic District, Haulover Canal, Indian River 

Citrus Landscape, and Seminole Rest—which 

may have potential for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Currently, the 

national seashore plans to conduct a cultural 

landscape survey of Seminole Rest and the 

Eldora historic area. 

Under alternative A, as funding and staffing 

permit, cultural landscapes would continue to 

be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. This would provide for a long 

term minor to moderate beneficial impact. To 

appropriately preserve and protect cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization, preservation, and 

rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, 

and seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have a 

minor long term beneficial impact on cultural 

landscapes. 

Careful design would ensure that new or 

expanded facilities in the national seashore 

would minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among landscape features. In 

addition, the topography, vegetation, circulation features, and land use patterns of cultural 

landscapes would remain largely unaltered. 

Few, if any, adverse impacts would be 

anticipated. 

Nevertheless, some long term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on elements of identified cultural landscapes, such as vegetation, 

land use, building and settlement patterns, and 

views and vistas, could result from climatic 

changes and other natural processes as well as 

anticipated increases in visitation levels and 

encroaching residential and commercial 

development. However, as funding and staffing 

permit, these impacts would be minimized to 

the extent possible by continued law 

enforcement activities and public education 

efforts as well as preservation treatment and 

regular cyclic maintenance. The impacts would 

not affect the integrity of the cultural 

landscape. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, cultural 

landscapes in the national seashore have been 

subjected to minor adverse affects because of a 

variety of human activities, including modern 

development, inadvertent disturbance, 

vandalism, and lack of systematic preservation 

treatment, and also by natural processes such 

as erosion, weathering, and pest infestations. 

Some of these activities and processes have 

continued to the present and would likely 

continue if alternative A were implemented. 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in the national 

seashore and its surrounding area, would 

generally be expected to contribute long term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes. When combined with the 

actions proposed in this alternative, these 

other actions would be expected to have 

adverse cumulative impacts. However, the 

impacts on such resources associated with 

alternative A would constitute a relatively small 

component of any overall cumulative impact. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

293 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on cultural 

landscapes under alternative A would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts on cultural 

landscapes under this alternative would be 

expected to be minor to moderately adverse; 

however, this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would constitute a relatively small 

component of any overall cumulative impact. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (NPS 

Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative B 

would have the same general impacts on 

cultural landscapes as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Some additional actions under alternative B, 

however, such as (1) removal and burial of 

overhead power and telephone lines along the 

Apollo Beach and Eldora Hammock access 

roads and parking areas and (2) protection and 

preservation of key elements of the Eldora 

State House cultural landscape would have 

some long term minor beneficial impacts on 

the national seashore’s cultural landscapes in 

addition to those impacts described in 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of alternative B would have the same general adverse 

cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes as 

those listed under alternative A. However, 

actions under alternative B would have some 

additional long term minor beneficial impacts 

on the national seashore’s cultural landscapes 

compared to alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on cultural 

landscapes under alternative B would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts on cultural 

landscapes under this alternative would be 

expected to be long term, minor, and adverse; 

however, this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would constitute a relatively small 

beneficial offset of any overall cumulative 

impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative B there 

would be no adverse effects on cultural 

landscapes in the national seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative C 

would have the same general impacts on 

cultural landscapes in the national seashore as 

those listed under alternative A. 

In addition, actions under alternative C, such 

as (1) incorporation/improvement of interpretive/access trails throughout the Eldora 

State House landscape and (2) extension of a 

foot trail to connect the Eldora State House 

with the Schultz house, could potentially be a 

minor, long-term, adverse, impact on 

identified cultural landscapes in the national 

seashore. However, careful design would 

ensure that new or expanded developments 

would minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among landscape features. Also, 

the topography, vegetation, circulation 

features, and land use patterns of cultural 

landscapes would remain largely unaltered. 

Few, if any, additional adverse impacts would 

be anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative C would have the same general 

cumulative, long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on cultural landscapes as those listed under 

alternative B. However, actions under 

alternative C would have few, if any, additional 

adverse impacts on the cultural landscapes 

compared to alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on cultural 

landscapes under alternative C would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts under alternative C on cultural landscapes would be 

expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would constitute a relatively small component 

of any overall cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative C there 

would be no adverse effects on cultural 

landscapes in the national seashore. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

294 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative D 

would have the same general impacts on 

cultural landscapes in the national seashore as 

those listed under alternative A. 

Additional actions under alternative D would 

result in greater protection and preservation of 

key elements of the Eldora State House 

cultural landscape. This would provide for 

additional minor, beneficial, long-term impacts 

on cultural landscapes in the national seashore. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative D would have the same general 

cumulative minor long term adverse impacts 

on cultural landscapes as those listed under 

alternative A. Also, actions under alternative D 

would have long term minor beneficial impacts 

on the Eldora State House cultural landscape. 

Conclusion. Overall, impacts on cultural 

landscapes under alternative D would be 

beneficial or adverse, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts under this 

alternative on cultural landscapes would be 

expected to be minor, long term, and adverse; 

however, this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would constitute a relatively small 

beneficial offset of any overall cumulative 

impact. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative D there 

would be no adverse effects on cultural 

landscapes in the national seashore. 

IMPACTS ON ETHNOGRAPHIC 

RESOURCES 

Ethnographic Resources 

Potential impacts on ethnographic resources 

are described in terms of context (are the 

effects site-specific, local, or even regional?); 

duration (are the effects short-term—lasting 

less than five years; long-term—lasting 5 to 20 

years; or permanent?); and intensity (is the 

degree or severity of effect negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major?). 

The thresholds to determine impacts on 

ethnographic resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection and barely perceptible. 

Impacts would neither alter resource 

conditions, such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the associated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Impacts would be slight but noticeable 

and would neither appreciably alter 

conditions, such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the associated 

group’s body of beliefs and practices. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination 

of effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would be apparent and 

would alter resource conditions or interfere 

with traditional access, site preservation, or 

the relationship between the resource and 

the associated group’s beliefs and practices, 

even though the group’s practices and 

beliefs would survive. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter resource conditions. Proposed actions would block or 

greatly affect traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the associated group’s 

body of beliefs and practices to the extent 

that the survival of a group’s beliefs and/or 

practices would be jeopardized. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination 

of effect would be adverse effect. 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

A traditional cultural property is “eligible for 

inclusion in the national register because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of 

a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of 

the community (National Register Bulletin, 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

295 

Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties). 

To date, no traditional cultural properties 

(ethnographic resources eligible for inclusion 

in the national register because of their 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of 

a living community) have been identified for 

Canaveral National Seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Analysis. Comprehensive ethnographic 

studies, such as an ethnographic overview and 

assessment, have not been conducted but 

should be done for the national seashore area. 

However, various studies have identified 

cultural resources in the vicinity with 

ethnographic importance, including the late 

19th and early 20th century African American 

communities of Clifton and Allenhurst that 

thrived to the north and south of the New 

Haulover Canal, respectively. Shiloh, a white 

ethnic enclave north of the Haulover area, was 

also settled during the post-Civil War era. The 

continued study and evaluation of these 

potential ethnographic resources would be a 

long term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Under alternative A, the National Park Service 

would continue to consult with affiliated 

Indian tribes and groups to identify, learn 

about, and develop strategies for preserving 

and providing access to ethnographic 

resources and sites of cultural significance to 

affiliated tribes. This would provide for a long 

term beneficial, negligible to minor impact to 

any potential ethnographic resources. The 

National Park Service would also continue to 

encourage archeologists, anthropologists, and 

researchers to consult with the tribes and 

groups regarding areas of interest that could be 

included in research efforts and promote 

ethnographic involvement in excavations and 

anthropological research. 

Overall, impacts from implementing alternative 

A would be beneficial, negligible to minor, and 

long term. 

Cumulative Effects. In the past, cultural 

ethnographic resources and sites of cultural 

importance in the national seashore were likely 

subjected to minor to moderate adverse 

impacts by a variety of human activities, such 

as modern development, exploration, inadvertent disturbance, and vandalism, and by 

natural processes such as erosion and 

weathering. Some of these activities and 

processes have continued to the present and 

would likely continue for the long term if 

alternative A were implemented. 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in the national 

seashore and its surrounding area would 

generally be expected to contribute adverse 

impacts on potential ethnographic resources. 

When combined with the actions proposed in 

this alternative, these other actions would be 

expected to have long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts. The 

beneficial and adverse impacts on such 

resources associated with alternative A, 

however, would constitute a relatively small 

component of any overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Overall, the impacts of alternative 

A on ethnographic resources and sites of 

cultural importance in the national seashore 

would be beneficial, negligible to minor and 

long term. Cumulative effects on ethnographic 

resources under this alternative would be 

expected to be adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be a relatively small beneficial offset of 

any overall cumulative effect. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative A there 

would be no adverse effects on potential 

ethnographic resources in the national 

seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative B 

would have the same general impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those described 

under alternative A. Overall, impacts from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

296 

implementing alternative B would be 

beneficial, minor, and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative B would have the same general 

cumulative adverse and beneficial impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed under 

alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, the impacts of alternative 

B on ethnographic resources and sites of 

cultural importance in the national seashore 

would be beneficial, minor, and long term. 

Cumulative effects impacts on ethnographic 

resources would be expected to be long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse; however, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be a relatively small beneficial offset of 

any overall cumulative effect. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative B there 

would be no adverse effects on potential 

ethnographic resources in the national 

seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative C 

would have the same general impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed under 

alternative A. They would be beneficial, minor, 

and long term. 

In addition, actions under this alternative, such 

as the development of additional trails, could 

negatively impact ethnographic resources or 

access to them, strategies as outlined under 

alternative A would be implemented to avoid, 

preserve, or mitigate such impacts. Thus, few, 

if any, additional adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources would be anticipated 

under alternative C. 

Overall, impacts on ethnographic resources 

from implementing alternative C would be 

beneficial, negligible to minor, and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative C would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on ethnographic 

resources as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Overall, the impacts of alternative 

C on ethnographic resources and sites of 

cultural importance in the national seashore 

would be beneficial, negligible to minor, and 

long term. Cumulative impacts on ethnographic resources under this alternative would be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse; 

however, this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would be a relatively small 

beneficial offset of any overall cumulative 

effect. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative C there 

would be no adverse effects on potential 

ethnographic resources in the national 

seashore. 

Impacts of Implementing Alternative D 

Analysis. Implementation of alternative D 

would have the same general impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed under 

alternative A. They would be beneficial, 

negligible to minor, and long term. 

Although additional actions (compared to 

alternative A) under this alternative, such as 

the development of additional trails in the Bill’s 

Hill area and a marsh trail at Seminole Rest, 

could impact ethnographic resources or access 

to them, strategies as outlined under 

alternative A would be implemented to avoid, 

preserve or mitigate such impacts. Thus, few, if 

any, additional adverse impacts on ethnographic resources would be anticipated under 

alternative D. 

Overall, impacts on ethnographic resources 

from implementing alternative D would be 

beneficial, negligible to minor, and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementation of 

alternative D would have the same general 

cumulative adverse effects on ethnographic 

resources as those listed under alternative A. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

297 

Conclusion. Overall, the impacts of alternative 

D on any potential ethnographic resources and 

sites of cultural importance in the national 

seashore would be beneficial, negligible to 

minor, and long term. Cumulative impacts in 

this alternative on ethnographic resources 

would be e long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse; however, this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be a 

relatively small beneficial offset of any overall 

cumulative effect. 

Section 106 Summary. For alternative D there 

would be no adverse effects on potential 

ethnographic resources in the national 

seashore. 
298 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

METHODOLOGY 

This impact topic includes various aspects of 

visitor use at Canaveral National Seashore, 

including the effects on visitor opportunities 

to experience the national seashore’s 

fundamental resources and values within 

their natural and cultural settings; 

opportunities for recreational activities; and 

opportunities for orientation, interpretation, 

and education. The analysis is based on how 

visitor experiences would change with the 

way management zones were applied in the 

alternatives and what contributes or detracts 

from desirable visitor opportunities. The 

analysis is primarily qualitative rather than 

quantitative due to the conceptual nature of 

the alternatives. 

The thresholds to determine impacts on the 

visitor experience are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware 

of any effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. There 

would be no noticeable change in visitor 

use and experience or in any defined 

indicators of visitor satisfaction or 

behavior. 

Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be detectable, although 

the changes would be small. Visitors 

would be aware of the effects associated 

with the alternative, but the changes 

would not appreciably alter critical 

characteristics of the visitor experience or 

levels of use. 

Moderate: Changes in critical characteristics 

of the visitor experience would be readily 

apparent, or the number of visitors 

engaging in an activity or in the use of the 

national seashore, would be substantially 

altered. Visitor satisfaction would change 

as a result of the alternative. 

Major: Changes in multiple critical 

characteristics of the desired experience 

would be readily apparent. Participation 

in desired experiences or in visitation 

would be considerably changed, and 

would result in substantial changes in the 

defined indicators of visitor satisfaction or 

behavior.

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Visitor opportunities under alternative A, the 

no-action alternative, would remain 

essentially unchanged. Many visitors come to 

Canaveral National Seashore because of the 

wide range of outdoor recreational 

opportunities available, including lagoon and 

surf fishing, boating, canoeing, surfing, 

sunbathing, swimming, hiking, and backcountry camping. Visitors are also attracted 

to the wide variety of wildlife viewing opportunities and interpretive and educational 

programs highlighting the natural and 

cultural features of the national seashore. 

Visitors would continue to access these 

resources by personal vehicle, as a pedestrian, 

or by boat. There would be no effect on the 

variety of available visitor opportunities. 

During the past 10 years, the trend in annual 

visitation is slightly down, perhaps due to the 

economy, terrorism threats, or gas prices. 

However, as the population grows in the 

local and Orlando metropolitan area, it is 

anticipated that visitation would likely 

increase slightly. Visitation would continue to 

fluctuate seasonally, rising in the spring and 

summer and peaking on summer holiday 

weekends. Visitation would continue to be 

primarily local and regional. 

As visitation increases, there would be 

corresponding inconveniences for visitors 

wishing to access certain areas of the national 

seashore, especially the more remote beaches 

found in the north end where here are a 

limited number of parking spaces. National 

seashore areas would continue to be closed 
Impacts on the Visitor Experience 

299 

when parking areas are filled. High-density 

use and overcrowding might occur in other 

areas of the national seashore where access is 

not limited by the capacity of the 

infrastructure. 

Some visitors might be disappointed with the 

continued lack of conveniences provided at 

beach access areas, such as fresh water for 

showers or to simply rinse off, changing 

stations, and shaded picnic areas. 

Projected visitor use levels would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse effects on the 

visitor experience. 

Cumulative Effects 

The context for potential cumulative effects 

under this impact topic includes the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge, John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, the Intracoastal 

Waterway, and Canaveral National Seashore. 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions that would affect visitor 

experience include the following: 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge.

Various visitor opportunities are available 

within the Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (the refuge). The refuge includes the 

southern third of the Canaveral National 

Seashore as well as areas adjacent to the 

national seashore’s western boundary. 

Visitors have outstanding wildlife viewing, 

waterfowl hunting, fishing, and boating 

opportunities. The refuge’s visitor information center and the Sendler Education 

Pavilion at Dummit Cove also provide 

opportunities for orientation to area 

resources as well as interpretive and 

educational programs. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is also considering 

implementing a number of visitor use 

enhancements, such as additional interpretive trails, canoe/kayak trails and launch 

sites, wildlife observation towers, a bike trail 

connection between Titusville and the refuge, 

and interpretive tram service using existing 

roadways or a portion of the Kennedy Space 

Center railway. These past, present, and 

potentially future activities provide a longterm, major, beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

The recently designated pole/troll areas 

within portions of Mosquito Lagoon are 

intended to protect seagrass beds and nursery 

habitat, which in turn would improve the 

fishery within the lagoon. This would provide 

a long-term moderate to major benefit for 

fisherman, although some visitors may 

perceive these restrictions as an adverse 

effect on their lagoon boating activities. 

These nonmotorized areas would also 

provide visitors with opportunities to 

experience tranquil settings and the sights, 

smells, and sounds of nature. This would 

provide long-term, localized, minor to 

moderate benefits to visitors. 

Kennedy Space Center. Occasionally, the 

southern portion of the national seashore 

including Playalinda Beach, Klondike Beach, 

and the southern end of Apollo Beach, are 

closed to the public during the countdown 

period before space shuttle launches/ 

landings at the Kennedy Space Center. 

Generally, these are short lived, although 

some closures continue for several days or 

longer and can have a profound impact on 

the visitation and public use programs. 

Therefore these activities generate 

intermittent minor to moderate adverse 

effects on the visitor experience. 

There would always be the potential for 

future temporary and possibly permanent 

closures of national seashore areas between 

the north NASA boundary and the southern 

boundary of the national seashore depending 

on the changing needs of the space program. 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration is considering the addition of 

commercially built and operated vertical 

launch facility. At this time, the location has 

not been finalized. 

Intracoastal Waterway. Maintenance 

dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway by the 

Army Corp of Engineers within Mosquito 

Lagoon would continue to improve boating 

access to and from national seashore waters. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

300 

Spoil islands, created from dredged material, 

parallel the route and support water bird 

colonies during nesting season, providing 

wildlife viewing opportunities and visitor use 

other than during the nesting season. Thus, 

ongoing dredging operations would continue 

to provide long-term, localized, visitor 

benefits of minor intensity. 

Canaveral National Seashore. During the 

past 30 years, the national seashore has 

developed a number of enhancements to 

improve visitor access and enjoyment of 

national seashore features. These include 

improving beach access; establishing boat 

ramps; establishing backcountry campsites; 

providing orientation panels, interpretive 

trails, waysides, and a visitor contact facility; 

providing interpretive and educational 

programs; and rehabilitating and providing 

access into a number of historic structures. 

These efforts represent a major long-term 

beneficial effect on the visitor experience. 

The impact of all of these above actions by others 

in combination with the actions under this 

alternative on the visitor experience would result 

in long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect 

from the efforts of a number of agencies to 

provide many different visitor opportunities in 

the area as well as intermittent minor to major 

adverse cumulative effect from space centermandated closures. The contribution of alternative A relative to these cumulative impacts is 

expected to be a small increment. 

Conclusion 

Visitors seem satisfied overall with most 

current opportunities in the national 

seashore. Maintaining the current level of 

access and range of visitor opportunities 

would have no effect on the existing visitor 

experience. For visitors who would prefer 

additional improvements in recreationoriented facilities and boundary markers, or 

greater access to the Apollo Beach area, 

continuing the current range of visitor 

opportunities would result in a long-term, 

minor adverse impact. Projected increases in 

visitor use levels would result in a long-term, 

minor adverse effect on the visitor experience resulting from inconvenience and 

crowding. Cumulative impacts on the visitor 

experience under alternative A would be long 

term, major, and beneficial, as well as 

intermittently minor to major and adverse. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Visitor opportunities under alternative B 

would be greatly expanded over those 

offered under alternative A. This includes 

enhanced interpretive and educational 

programs, new and improved land- and 

water-based trail systems, and the possibility 

of concession-operated weekend shuttle bus 

service to Apollo Beach. These changes 

would have a positive impact on visitors 

wanting to participate in a greater variety of 

activities and/or wanting greater access to 

national seashore’s features. These improvements would also provide visitors with more 

opportunities to come into contact with 

national seashore resources and staff, which 

would likely increase their knowledge of and 

appreciation for the area. 

Establishing a new visitor contact area within 

the Playalinda Beach ranger station in the 

southern portion of the national seashore 

would allow a greater number of visitors to 

interact with NPS staff, to learn about 

national seashore resources, to participate in 

interpretive and education programs, and to 

discover the many different recreational 

opportunities available in the area. 

Expanding interpretive and educational 

programs at Castle Windy, the Eldora historic 

area, and Seminole Rest would provide a 

greater variety of learning opportunities for 

visitors. 

Developing bike trail connections between 

the national seashore and the communities of 

New Smyrna Beach and Titusville would 

introduce a new recreational opportunity, 
Impacts on the Visitor Experience 

301 

enhance visitor access to national seashore 

features, and potentially reduce traffic levels 

on local and national seashore roads. 

Providing a concession-operated peakseason weekend shuttle service in to the 

Apollo Beach area and encouraging the 

Volusia County’s Public Transit System 

(Votran) to extend bus service into the area 

could reduce traffic volumes on state route 

A1A in New Smyrna Beach and on the Apollo 

Beach Road while also enhancing visitor 

access to national seashore features. 

Developing trailhead parking and interpretive hiking trails in the Bill’s Hill area, 

expanding hiking trail opportunities at Castle 

Windy, and developing canoe/kayak trails in 

Mosquito Lagoon would expand the range of 

recreational opportunities available to 

visitors. 

Development of pole/troll and nonmotorized 

areas within the lagoon would increase visitor 

opportunities to experience tranquil settings 

and the sights, smells, and sounds of nature. 

These areas would also improve the fishery 

within the lagoon, although some visitors 

may perceive these restrictions as an adverse 

effect on their lagoon boating activities. 

Redesigning the Apollo Beach entrance 

station to provide for a vehicle turnaround 

would enhance visitor safety. Replacing the 

restroom facilities with more sustainable 

facilities would enhance visitor convenience. 

Removing overhead utility lines and placing 

them underground would enhance scenic 

views. 

The sum effect of the enhancements 

described above would be substantial, readily 

apparent, and would likely increase visitor 

enjoyment of and appreciation for national 

seashore resources. 

Overall visitation is assumed to increase more 

than under alternative A because of the 

greater variety of visitor opportunities 

provided under alternative B. The average 

length of stay might increase if there is more 

to do at Canaveral National Seashore. The 

likelihood of crowding during peak 

weekends would be high, and the national 

seashore might be at this peak visitation for 

longer periods or more weekends during the 

summer. Visitation, while still primarily local 

and regional, might attract visitors from 

farther away. 

Increased crowding during the peak weekends could lead to resource degradation and 

decreased quality of visitor experiences. 

Noise levels and conflicts in visitor use might 

increase as the variety of visitor uses increases. These conflicts would likely reduce 

the quality of some visitors’ experiences. 

Projected visitor use levels would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse effects on the 

visitor experience. 

Under adaptive management, if monitoring 

revealed desired conditions for carrying 

capacity were not being achieved under 

alternative B, corrective management actions 

such as education, dispersing use, or limiting 

the total number of visitors in certain areas of 

the national seashore would be implemented. 

The potential beneficial effects of these 

actions on visitor use and experience, from 

reducing overcrowded conditions, could 

range from negligible to minor and be short 

term. However, other visitors could view 

these restrictions as a negative, resulting in up 

to minor adverse effects on visitor use and 

experience that could be short term. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions that would cumulatively 

affect visitor opportunities are presented 

under alternative A—including those at the 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

closures of Kennedy Space Center areas 

before and after launches, maintaining the 

dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, and 

past additions to the national seashore to 

enhance visitor experiences. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

302 

The impact of the refuge-, NPS-, and 

Intracoastal Waterway-related actions, in 

combination with the actions under this 

alternative, would result in long-term, major 

beneficial cumulative effects; space centerrelated activities, combined with actions 

under this alternative, would have 

intermittent, minor to major, adverse 

cumulative effects on visitor experience in 

the region. The contribution of alternative B 

relative to both these cumulative impacts is 

expected to be substantial. 

Conclusion 

The impacts of alternative B would be long

term and moderately beneficial for visitors 

looking for additional recreational opportunities in Canaveral National Seashore. 

However, there would be some long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts related to crowding 

and noise as a result of increased visitation. 

Depending on future adaptive management 

direction, additional short-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts could be expected. 

Cumulative impacts on the visitor experience 

under alternative B would be long term, 

major, and beneficial as well as intermittent, 

minor to major, and adverse. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Visitor opportunities under alternative C 

would be greatly expanded over those 

offered under alternative A. This includes 

enhanced interpretive and educational 

programs, new and improved land- and 

water-based trail systems, and the possibility 

of concession-operated activities (shuttle 

boat tours and recreational equipment 

rentals). These changes would have a positive 

impact on visitors wanting to participate in a 

greater variety of activities or wanting greater 

access to the national seashore’s more remote 

areas. This would also provide visitors with 

increased opportunities to come into contact 

with national seashore resources and staff, 

which would likely increase their knowledge 

of and appreciation for the area. 

Providing a new centralized visitor center in 

the Bill’s Hill area and establishing a new 

visitor contact area in the Playalinda Beach 

ranger station in the southern portion of the 

national seashore would allow more visitors 

to interact with NPS staff, to learn about 

seashore resources, to participate in interpretive and education programs, and to 

discover the many different recreational 

opportunities available in the area. 

Expanding interpretive and educational 

programs at Turtle Mound, Castle Windy, 

the Eldora historic area, Seminole Rest, Eddy 

Creek, Haulover Canal (manatee viewing 

area), and various historic properties in the 

Joint Management area would provide a 

greater variety of learning opportunities for 

visitors. 

Providing a water-based shuttle service in 

Mosquito Lagoon would enhance visitor 

access to national seashore features and 

provide an alternative means of experiencing 

a broader range of resources. 

Developing bike trail connections between 

the national seashore and the communities of 

New Smyrna Beach and Titusville would 

introduce a new recreational opportunity, 

enhance visitor access to national seashore 

features, and potentially reduce traffic levels 

on local and national seashore roads. 

The range of recreational opportunities 

available to national seashore visitors would 

expand with the development of trailhead 

parking and interpretive, hiking, and 

horseback riding trails in the Bill’s Hill area; 

expanded hiking trail opportunities into the 

Eldora Hammock area, Castle Windy, 

Seminole Rest, and the Joint Management 

Area; and canoe/kayak trails in Mosquito 

Lagoon. 

Development of pole/troll and nonmotorized 

areas within Mosquito Lagoon would 

increase visitor opportunities to experience 

tranquil settings and the sights, smells, and 
Impacts on the Visitor Experience 

303 

sounds of nature. These areas would also 

improve the fishery within the lagoon, 

although some visitors may perceive these 

restrictions as an adverse effect on their 

lagoon boating activities. 

Recreational equipment (canoe, kayaks, etc.) 

rental services provided at the Apollo Beach 

visitor information center, the Eldora 

Hammock area, Seminole Rest, Eddy Creek, 

and the new visitor center at Bill’s Hill would 

provide additional opportunities for visitors 

to experience national seashore resources. 

Expanding some parking areas and redesigning others to accommodate oversized 

vehicles and redesigning the Apollo Beach 

entrance station to provide for a safe vehicle 

turnaround would allow more visitors to 

safely experience national seashore features. 

Replacing the restroom facilities with more 

sustainable facilities, providing shade 

shelters, and adding exterior showers at the 

visitor center would enhance visitor 

convenience. 

The sum effect of the enhancements 

described above would provide multiple 

changes, be readily apparent, and would 

substantially increase visitor enjoyment of 

and appreciation for national seashore 

resources. 

Overall visitation is assumed to increase more 

than under alternative A because of the 

greater variety of visitor opportunities 

provided under alternative C. The average 

length of stay might increase if there is more 

to do at Canaveral National Seashore. The 

likelihood of crowding during peak weekends would be high, and the national 

seashore might be at this peak visitation for 

longer periods or more weekends during the 

summer. Visitation, while still primarily local 

and regional, might attract visitors from 

farther away. 

Increased crowding during the peak weekends could lead to resource degradation and 

decreased quality of visitor experiences. 

Noise levels and conflicts in visitor use might 

increase as the variety of visitor uses 

increases. These conflicts would likely reduce 

the quality of some visitors’ experiences. 

Projected visitor use levels would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse effects on the 

visitor experience. 

Under adaptive management, if monitoring 

revealed desired conditions for carrying 

capacity were not being achieved under 

Alternative C, corrective management actions 

such as education, dispersing use, or limiting 

the total number of visitors in certain areas of 

the seashore would be implemented. The 

potential beneficial effects of these actions on 

visitor use and experience, from reducing 

overcrowded conditions, could range from

negligible to minor and be short term. 

However, other visitors could view these 

restrictions as a negative, resulting in up to 

minor adverse effects on visitor use and 

experience that could be short term. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions that would cumulatively 

affect visitor opportunities are presented 

under alternative A — including activities at 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

closures of Kennedy Space Center areas 

before and after launches, maintaining the 

dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, and 

past additions to the national seashore to 

enhance visitor experiences. 

The impact of these other refuge-, NPS- and 

Intracoastal Waterway-related actions, in 

combination with the actions under this 

alternative, would result in long-term, major, 

beneficial cumulative effects; space centerrelated activities, in combination with actions 

in this alternative, could result in intermittent, minor to major, adverse cumulative 

effects on visitor experience in the region. 

The contribution of alternative C relative to 

both these cumulative impacts is expected to 

be substantial. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

304 

Conclusion 

The impacts of alternative C would be long 

term, major, and beneficial for visitors 

looking for additional recreational opportunities in Canaveral National Seashore. 

However, there would be some long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts related to crowding 

and noise as a result of increased visitation. 

Depending on future adaptive management 

direction, additional short-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts could be expected. 

Cumulative impacts on the visitor experience 

under alternative C would be long term, 

major, and beneficial as well as intermittent, 

minor to major, and adverse. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Analysis 

Visitor opportunities under alternative D 

would be greatly expanded over those 

offered under alternative A. This includes 

enhanced interpretive and educational 

programs, new and improved land- and 

water-based trail systems, and the possibility 

of concession-operated recreational 

equipment rental service at Apollo Beach. 

These changes would have a positive impact 

on visitors wanting to participate in a greater 

variety of activities or wanting greater access 

to the national seashore’s more remote areas. 

This would also provide visitors with 

increased opportunities to come into contact 

with national seashore resources and staff, 

which would likely increase their knowledge 

of and appreciation for the area. 

Establishing a new visitor contact area in the 

Playalinda Beach ranger station in the 

southern portion of the national seashore, 

would allow more visitors to interact with 

NPS staff, to learn about national seashore 

resources, to participate in interpretive and 

education programs, and to discover the 

many different recreational opportunities 

available in the area. 

Expanding interpretive and educational 

programs in the Eldora historic area, 

Seminole Rest, Eddy Creek, Haulover Canal 

(manatee viewing area), and various historic 

properties in the Joint Management Area 

would provide a greater variety of learning 

opportunities for visitors. 

Developing trailhead parking and interpretive, hiking, and horseback riding trails in 

the Bill’s Hill area, as well as canoe/kayak 

trails in Mosquito Lagoon, would expand the 

range of recreational opportunities available 

to national seashore visitors. 

Development of pole/troll and nonmotorized 

areas within Mosquito Lagoon would 

increase visitor opportunities to experience 

tranquil settings and the sights, smells, and 

sounds of nature. These areas would also 

improve the fishery within the lagoon, 

although some visitors may perceive these 

restrictions as an adverse effect on their 

lagoon boating activities. 

Recreational equipment (canoe, kayaks, etc.) 

rental services provided at the Apollo Beach 

visitor information center would provide 

additional opportunities for visitors to 

experience national seashore resources. 

Redesigning the Apollo Beach entrance 

station to provide for a vehicle turnaround 

would enhance visitor safety. Providing an 

unpaved parking area for horse trailers at 

Apollo Beach would enhance access. 

Replacing the restroom facilities with more 

sustainable facilities and providing exterior 

showers at a number of locations would 

enhance visitor convenience. 

The sum effect of all the enhancements 

described above would be substantial and 

readily apparent, and would likely increase 

visitor enjoyment of and appreciation for 

national seashore resources. 

Overall visitation is assumed to increase more 

than under alternative A because of the 

greater variety of visitor opportunities provided under this alternative. The average 

length of stay might increase if there is more 
Impacts on the Visitor Experience 

305 

to do at Canaveral National Seashore. The 

likelihood of crowding during peak weekends would be high, and the national 

seashore might be at this peak visitation for 

longer periods or more weekends during the 

summer. Visitation, while still primarily local 

and regional, might attract new visitors from 

farther away. 

Increased crowding during the peak weekends could lead to resource degradation and 

decreased quality of visitor experiences. 

Noise levels and conflicts in visitor use might 

increase as the variety of visitor uses 

increases. These conflicts would likely reduce 

the quality of some visitors’ experiences. 

Projected visitor use levels would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse effects on the 

visitor experience. 

Under adaptive management, if monitoring 

revealed desired conditions for carrying 

capacity were not being achieved under 

alternative D, corrective management actions 

such as education, dispersing use, or limiting 

the total number of visitors in certain areas of 

the seashore would be implemented. The 

potential beneficial effects of these actions on 

visitor use and experience, from reducing 

overcrowded conditions, could range from

negligible to minor and be short term. 

However, some visitors could view these 

restrictions as a negative, resulting in up to 

minor adverse effects on visitor use and 

experience that could be short term. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that would cumulatively affect 

visitor opportunities are presented under 

alternative A — including activities at the 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 

closures of Kennedy Space Center areas 

before and after launches, maintaining the 

dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, and 

past additions to the national seashore to 

enhance visitor experiences. 

The impact of the refuge-, NPS-, and 

Intracoastal Waterway-related activities, in 

combination with the actions under this 

alternative, would result in long-term, major, 

beneficial cumulative effects; space centerrelated activities, in combination with actions 

in this alternative, would result in 

intermittent, minor to major, adverse cumulative effects on visitor experience in the 

region. The contribution of alternative D 

relative to both these cumulative impacts is 

expected to be substantial. 

Conclusion 

The impacts of alternative D would be long 

term and moderately beneficial for visitors 

looking for additional opportunities in 

Canaveral National Seashore. However, there 

would be some long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts related to crowding and noise as a 

result of increased visitation. Depending on 

future adaptive management direction, 

additional short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts could be expected. 

Cumulative impacts on the visitor experience 

under alternative D would be long term, 

major, and beneficial as well as intermittent, 

minor to major, and adverse. 
306 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL SEASHORE OPERATIONS 

METHODOLOGY 

This impact topic refers to the ability of NPS 

staff to protect and preserve national seashore resources and to provide opportunities 

for effective and enjoyable visitor experiences. It also addresses the effectiveness and 

efficiency with which NPS staff is able to 

perform such tasks. Information about 

national seashore operations was compiled 

from various sources, especially Canaveral 

National Seashore managers and other NPS 

staff. The analysis is qualitative rather than 

quantitative because of the conceptual nature 

of the alternatives. Consequently, 

professional judgment was used to reach 

reasonable conclusions as to the intensity, 

duration, and type of potential impact. 

The thresholds to determine impacts on 

national seashore operations are defined as 

follows. 

Negligible: Effects on national seashore 

operations would be at or below the level 

of detection. 

Minor: Effects on national seashore 

operations would be small but detectable. 

The change would be noticeable to staff 

but probably not to the public. 

Moderate: Effects on national seashore 

operations would be readily apparent to 

staff and possibly to the public. 

Major: Effects on national seashore 

operations would be substantial, 

widespread, and apparent to staff and the 

public. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Under alternative A, national seashore 

operations would be conducted much as they 

are now. The main NPS administrative space 

would continue to be in a leased structure in 

Titusville, with district operational support 

located in structures at Apollo Beach, 

Playalinda Beach, and Seminole Rest. 

National seashore operations would continue 

to address (1) resource protection and 

management demands (e.g., inventory and 

monitoring of resources conditions, applied 

research, and prescribed fire programs); (2) 

visitor-related operational demands (e.g., 

interpretive services and patrols); and (3) 

facility management demands (e.g., visitor 

information centers, historic and modern 

structures, docks, ramps, roads, trails, 

parking areas, and utilities). 

Additional staffing needs (four FTE) have 

been identified and authorized to fully 

support the national seashore’s operations, 

although current funding levels do not 

support this level of staffing. Until funding 

levels allow a fully staffed operation, the 

national seashore would be unable to fully 

achieve desired conditions in program areas 

such as resource protection, visitor services, 

and cyclic maintenance. Therefore, the noaction alternative would have continuing 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on national seashore operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The national seashore preserves and manages 

the natural setting and recreational 

opportunities surrounded by and/or in 

coordination with the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, and the Saint Johns 

Water Management District. Also, the 

communities of Titusville, Oak Hill, and New 

Smyrna Beach continue to grow. The policies 

and decisions of these communities in 

relationship to transportation, economic, 

recreational, and growth management can 

influence and/or impact the management of 

the national seashore. 
Impacts on National Seashore Operations 

307 

Interacting and coordinating with all these 

entities/organizations require NPS managers 

to participate in civic engagement, 

community problem-solving, and 

monitoring, and in providing input and 

technical assistance. All these efforts require 

NPS staff time and funds. 

Overall, the impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions just 

described would continue to be long term, 

minor, and adverse on national seashore 

operations. 

The impacts of proposed actions of this 

alternative on national seashore operations, 

combined with the actions of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

of others, would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the national 

seashore operations and staff. The 

contribution this alternative to these 

cumulative impacts would be negligible. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would likely continue to have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impact on national seashore operations. 

There would continue to be a long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impact on 

operations resulting from increased demands 

on national seashore resources and the need 

for NPS managers to focus on local and 

regional issues. The contribution of 

alternative A to these cumulative impacts 

would be negligible. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Under alternative B, the following actions 

would impact NPS operational responsibilities: (1) increasing the monitoring of 

resource conditions within Mosquito Lagoon 

and the Bill’s Hill area would require an 

increase in resource management and law 

enforcement efforts/staff; (2) expanding 

interpretive and educational programs at 

Apollo Beach, the Eldora historic area, 

Seminole Rest, and the Bill’s Hill area would 

require an increase in interpretive staff; (3) 

establishing additional hiking and canoe/ 

kayak trails would require an increase in the 

level of maintenance and resource monitoring staff; (4) establishing a new visitor contact 

center in the Playalinda Beach ranger station 

would require an increase in interpretive 

staff; (5) acquiring the 10-acre Stuckey 

property would require an increase in 

resource management and law enforcement 

staff; and (6) establishing shuttle service 

through either Volusia County Transit or a 

commercial vendor would require additional 

administrative staff. 

An additional 10.5 NPS FTE employees 

would be required to support this increase in 

management activities. The increased staffing 

would have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on the NPS operating budget. 

However, increased staffing for the actions 

listed above would have a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on the operations and 

management needed to effectively support 

the protection of natural and cultural 

resources and visitor enjoyment. 

NPS operational efficiencies would be 

enhanced by the following actions: (1) 

increasing the coordination effort with other 

land-managing partners would enhance the 

efficiency of the resource management 

program efforts; (2) reconfiguring the 

entrance area to Apollo Beach would 

enhance management of the area; (3) 

reconfiguring the Apollo Beach maintenance 

complex would improve operational 

efficiency; (4) replacing the existing chemical 

restroom facilities with a more sustainable 

system would reduce cyclic maintenance 

needs; (5) possibly relocating the lifeguard 

operations to the Eddy Creek area would 

improve response time for tending to 

emergency situations on Playalinda Beach; 

and (6) possibly consolidating the NPS 

administrative and South District 

maintenance functions with the USFWS 

maintenance operations would improve 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

308 

interagency communication and management of the area. Moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on national seashore 

operations would result from the implementation of these enhanced efficiencies. 

Cumulative Effects 

The national seashore preserves and manages 

the natural setting and recreational 

opportunities surrounded by and/or in coordination with the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, the John F. Kennedy Space 

Center, and the Saint Johns Water Management District. Also, the communities of 

Titusville, Oak Hill, and New Smyrna Beach 

continue to grow. The policies and decisions 

of these communities in relationship to 

transportation, economic, recreational, and 

growth management can influence and/or 

impact the management of the national 

seashore. 

Interacting and coordinating with all these 

entities/organizations require NPS managers 

to participate in civic engagement, community problem-solving, and monitoring, and in 

providing input and technical assistance. All 

these efforts require NPS staff time and 

funds. 

Overall, the impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions just 

described would continue to be long term, 

minor, and adverse on national seashore 

operations. 

The impacts of proposed actions of this 

alternative on national seashore operations, 

combined with the actions of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

of others, would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the national 

seashore operations and staff. The 

contribution of this alternative to these 

cumulative impacts would be noticeable 

beneficial offset. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative B impacts on national 

seashore operations would be long term, 

moderate, and both adverse and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would result from an 

increasing management and operational 

responsibilities and increases in capital and 

operating costs. Beneficial impacts would 

result from operational efficiencies and 

resulting enhanced visitor services and 

programs. An increase of staff would ensure 

smooth and effective programs and services 

for visitors, which would be beneficial. 

Cumulative impacts on national seashore 

operations under alternative B would be long 

term, minor and adverse. Alternative B’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be a noticeable beneficial offset. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Under alternative C, the following actions 

would impact NPS operational responsibilities: (1) increasing the monitoring of 

resource conditions within Mosquito Lagoon 

and the Bill’s Hill area would require an 

increase in resource management and law 

enforcement efforts/staff; (2) establishing a 

centralized visitor center/administrative 

headquarters and maintenance complex in 

the Bill’s Hill area would increase facility 

maintenance responsibilities; (3) consolidating the maintenance operation in the Bill’s 

Hill area would increase the travel time 

needed for maintenance staff to attend to 

maintenance needs at major beach use areas; 

(4) expanding interpretive and educational 

programs at Apollo Beach, Turtle Mound, 

Castle Windy, the Eldora historic area, 

Seminole Rest, Bill’s Hill, Eddy Creek, 

Haulover Canal (manatee viewing area), and 

various historic properties in the Joint 

Management area would require an increase 

in interpretive staff; (5) establishing a new 

visitor contact center at the Playalinda Beach 

ranger station would require an increase in 

interpretive staff; (6) establishing additional 
Impacts on National Seashore Operations 

309 

biking, hiking, horseback riding, and 

canoe/kayak trails would require an increase 

in the level of maintenance and resource 

monitoring; (7) establishing commercial 

shuttle/interpretive boat tours, sundry sales, 

and recreational equipment rental services 

would require additional administrative 

support; and (8) acquiring the 10-acre 

Stuckey property would require an increase 

in resource management and law 

enforcement efforts. 

An additional 15.5 NPS FTE employees 

would be required to support this increase in 

management activities. The increased staffing 

would have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on the NPS operating budget. 

However, increased staffing for the actions 

listed above would have a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on the operations and 

management needed to effectively support 

the protection of natural and cultural 

resources and visitor enjoyment. 

NPS operational efficiency would be 

enhanced by the following actions: (1) 

increasing the coordination effort with other 

land-managing partners would enhance the 

efficiency of the resource management program efforts; (2) reconfiguring the entrance 

area to Apollo Beach would enhance 

management of the area; (3) replacing the 

existing chemical restroom facilities with a 

more sustainable system would reduce cyclic 

maintenance needs; (4) relocating the 

lifeguard operations to the Eddy Creek area 

would improve response time for emergency 

situations on Playalinda Beach; and (5) 

consolidating NPS North and South district 

maintenance support functions in the Bill’s 

Hill area would improve communication and 

coordination with staff and reduce 

duplication of supplies, materials, and 

equipment. Moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on national seashore 

operations would result from the implementation of these enhanced efficiencies. 

Cumulative Effects 

The national seashore preserves and manages 

the natural setting and recreational 

opportunities surrounded by and/or in 

coordination with the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, and the Saint Johns 

Water Management District. Also, the 

communities of Titusville, Oak Hill, and New 

Smyrna Beach continue to grow. The policies 

and decisions of these communities in 

relationship to transportation, economic, 

recreational, and growth management can 

influence and/or impact the management of 

the national seashore. 

Interacting and coordinating with all these 

entities/organizations require NPS managers 

to participate in civic engagement, community problem-solving, and monitoring, 

and in providing input and technical 

assistance. All these efforts require NPS staff 

time and funds. 

Overall, the impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions just 

described would continue to be long term, 

minor, and adverse on national seashore 

operations. 

The impacts of proposed actions of this 

alternative on national seashore operations, 

combined with the actions of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

of others, would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the national 

seashore operations and staff. The contribution of this alternative to these cumulative 

impacts would be noticeable beneficial offset. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative C impacts on national 

seashore operations would be long term, 

moderate, and both adverse and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would result from an 

increasing management and operational 

responsibilities and increases in capital and 

operating costs. Beneficial impacts would 

result from operational efficiencies and 

resulting enhanced visitor services and 

programs. An increase of staff would ensure 

smooth and effective programs and services 

for visitors, which would be beneficial. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

310 

Cumulative impacts on national seashore 

operations under alternative C would be long 

term, minor and adverse. Alternative C’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be a noticeable beneficial offset. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Analysis 

Under alternative D, the following actions 

would impact NPS operational 

responsibilities: (1) increasing the monitoring 

of resource conditions within Mosquito 

Lagoon and the Bill’s Hill area would require 

an increase in resource management and law 

enforcement efforts/staff; (2) expanding 

interpretive and educational programs at 

Apollo Beach, Eldora historic area, Seminole 

Rest, Bill’s Hill, Eddy Creek, Haulover Canal 

(manatee viewing area), and various historic 

properties in the Joint Management Area 

would require an increase in interpretive 

staff; (3) establishing additional hiking, 

horseback riding, and canoe/kayak trails 

would require an increase in the level of 

maintenance and resource monitoring; (4) 

establishing a new visitor contact center in 

the Playalinda Beach ranger station would 

require an increase in interpretive staff; and 

(5) acquiring the 10-acre Stuckey property 

would require an increase in resource 

management and law enforcement 

efforts/staff. 

An additional 12.5 NPS FTE employees 

would be required to support this increase in 

management activities. The increased staffing 

would have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on the NPS operating budget. 

However, increased staffing for the actions 

listed above would have a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on the operations and 

management needed to effectively support 

the protection of natural and cultural 

resources and visitor enjoyment. 

NPS operational efficiencies would be 

enhanced by the following actions: (1) 

increasing the coordination effort with other 

land-managing partners would enhance the 

efficiency of the resource management 

program; (2) reconfiguring the entrance area 

to Apollo Beach would enhance management 

of the area; (3) reconfiguring the Apollo 

Beach maintenance complex would improve 

operational efficiency; and (4) replacing the 

chemical restroom facilities with a more 

sustainable system would reduce cyclic 

maintenance needs; (5) relocating the 

lifeguard operations to the Eddy Creek area 

would improve response time for emergency 

situations on Playalinda Beach; and (6) 

consolidating the NPS South District 

maintenance functions with the USFWS 

maintenance complex would improve 

interagency communication and management of the area. Moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on national seashore 

operations would result from the 

implementation of these enhanced 

efficiencies. 

Cumulative Effects 

The national seashore preserves and manages 

the natural setting and recreational 

opportunities surrounded by and/or in 

coordination with the Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, and the Saint Johns 

Water Management District. Also, the 

communities of Titusville, Oak Hill, and New 

Smyrna Beach continue to grow. The policies 

and decisions of these communities in 

relationship to transportation, economic, 

recreational, and growth management can 

influence and/or impact the management of 

the national seashore. 

Interacting and coordinating with all these 

entities/organizations require NPS managers 

to participate in civic engagement, 

community problem-solving, and 

monitoring, and in providing input and 

technical assistance. All these efforts require 

NPS staff time and funds. 

Overall, the impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions just 

described would continue to be long term, 
Impacts on National Seashore Operations 

311 

minor, and adverse on national seashore 

operations. 

The impacts of proposed actions of this 

alternative on national seashore operations, 

combined with the actions of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

of others, would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the national 

seashore operations and staff. The 

contribution of this alternative to these 

cumulative impacts would be a noticeable 

beneficial offset. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative D impacts on national 

seashore operations would be long term, 

moderate, and both adverse and beneficial. 

Adverse impacts would result from an 

increasing management and operational 

responsibilities and increases in capital and 

operating costs. Beneficial impacts would 

result from operational efficiencies and 

resulting enhanced visitor services and 

programs. An increase of staff would ensure 

smooth and effective programs and services 

for visitors, which would be beneficial. 

Cumulative impacts on national seashore 

operations under alternative D would be long 

term, minor and adverse. Alternative D’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be a noticeable beneficial offset. 
312 

IMPACTS ON REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

METHODOLOGY 

Socioeconomic impacts were determined 

based on applied logic, professional expertise, 

and professional judgment. The factors 

considered to identify and discuss potential 

impacts were economic data, historic visitor 

use data, expected future visitor use, and 

proposed developments within the national 

seashore by the National Park Service. A 

mostly qualitative analysis was completed at 

this time given the available data however, this 

is sufficient to compare the impacts of 

alternatives for decision-making purposes. 

Potential impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment are described in terms of context, 

duration, and intensity. The definitions of 

those terms for the local and regional economy 

are described below. 

Context 

Local: These impacts affect businesses or 

individuals that are mostly in towns or 

communities adjacent to or near the 

national seashore’s boundary, such as 

Cocoa, Titusville, Oak Hill, Edgewater, and 

New Smyrna Beach. 

Regional: These impacts affect businesses or 

individuals mostly within Brevard and 

Volusia counties. Local impacts are part of 

the regional impacts. 

Intensity Definitions 

Negligible: The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are below or just barely at the 

level of detection. 

Minor: The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are small but detectable, and 

only affect a small number of firms and/or a 

small portion of the population. The impact 

is slight and not detectable outside the 

affected area. 

Moderate: The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are readily apparent. Any effects 

result in changes to socioeconomic 

conditions on a local scale (e.g., a nearby 

town or community) within the affected 

area. 

Major: The effects on socioeconomic conditions are readily apparent. Measurable 

changes in social or economic conditions at 

the county or two-county level occur. The 

impact is severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial within the affected area. 

Duration of Impact 

Short term refers to a limited lifetime of three 

years (or less) that an impact would occur, 

or the time it takes for a contracted piece of 

work, services, or purchase of goods to be 

completed—e.g., building a visitor center 

has a short-term impact during which funds 

are expended beginning with design and 

construction and ending with opening the 

visitor center to the public. In some 

instances, a short-term impact could last 

longer than three years, but it would have a 

finite lifetime. 

Long term refers to an open-ended or 

unlimited lifetime. Hiring NPS staff and 

providing annual operating funds is an ongoing, long-term, open-ended commitment 

that would occur for the life of the national 

seashore, i.e., indefinitely. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Regional and Local Economy 

Canaveral National Seashore is maintained as a 

unit of the national park system with deferred 

maintenance items corrected over the life of 

this plan. Only a short list of minor capital 

improvements would be completed, for 

example, retrofitting the Eldora State House to 
Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics 

313 

make it universally accessible and rehabilitating impacted primary dune areas where social 

trails are present. These one-time costs would 

amount to $10.3 million. The national seashore 

would continue to be a visitor attraction along 

the Atlantic Coast of Volusia and Brevard 

counties. The national seashore’s emphasis on 

presenting an undeveloped character and 

uncrowded visitor experiences would remain 

unique along the Florida coast. NPS maintenance, operations, procedures, and programs 

would continue as they are now, and NPS staff 

would continue to react to problems as 

situations occur and personnel and funding 

allow. Current conditions and trends would 

continue, which may foretell some deterioration of national seashore resources and/or the 

visitor experience during the next 20 years. 

However, the National Park Service would 

continue to be a powerful draw for visitors, 

and the national seashore would remain open 

for visitors, providing the best visitor 

experience possible with available resources. 

As time passes, the national seashore would 

continue to be important to the local and 

regional tourism industry. Visitation has 

shown a downward trend during the last few 

years, but turned up in 2007. Visitor use is 

likely to increase slightly over the long term. 

Many factors affect visitation (gas prices, state 

of the economy, etc.) and would affect out-ofregion visitors (the ones most likely to stay for 

extended times in the region and spend money 

on food and drink, lodging, souvenirs, etc.) 

Population increases and better economic 

times tend to increase visitation to national 

parks. Local and regional visitor-related 

businesses and their employees would 

continue to benefit from tourism spending as 

visitors travel to and from the national 

seashore. Businesses and their employees in 

the local gateway towns and region who cater 

to national seashore visitors would continue 

experience negligible to minor, beneficial, 

economic impacts during the long term. 

Costs of Implementing Alternative A 

The no-action alternative proposes $115,000 in 

capital improvements along with taking care of 

nearly $6.24 million worth of deferred 

maintenance backlogged items, including 

about $5.2 million for roads. Annual 

operations, maintenance, and leasing costs 

would bring the total annual operating costs to 

$2.6 million. New construction expenditures 

would have a minor, beneficial, short-term 

impact on the regional economy. Operations 

and maintenance expenditures would have a 

minor, beneficial, long-term impact on the 

regional economy. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Kennedy Space Center is planning to 

allow private development of a vertical launch 

facility within its boundaries that would then 

be leased to a third party for commercial 

operation. The extent of the development is 

unknown at this time, but it could be substantial and provide jobs and income for the 

construction industry. The space center is also 

realigning its work program and changing the 

total workforce as it transitions from the space 

shuttle program to other future programs. This 

action would likely have long-term but 

unknown impacts on the local economies of 

Titusville and surrounding areas, including 

Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Construction and development in the national 

seashore and in the space administration’s 

boundaries would have major, short-term, 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts on the 

regional economy. Large workload changes 

would have long-term socioeconomic impacts 

on the region with unknown consequences. 

However, the contribution of alternative A to 

these cumulative impacts would be very small. 

Conclusion 

Over time, expenditures by visitors traveling to 

the national seashore would continue to have 

beneficial effects on the local and regional 

economies. These impacts would be short and 

long term for most visitor-related businesses 

and their employees. The annual NPS 

operational expenditures would have a longterm and negligible to minor beneficial impact 

on the regional economy. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

314 

The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

other new work proposed under this alternative would provide one-time, short-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts on the regional 

economy. The impacts of other actions, 

together with the impacts of alternative A, 

would result in short- and long-term minor 

beneficial cumulative effects. The contribution 

of this alternative to these cumulative impacts 

would be very small. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Regional and Local Economy 

The actions of alternative B would clear up a 

backlog of deferred maintenance, implement a 

series of capital improvements, conduct a 

series of studies, and put Canaveral National 

Seashore into a proactive mode of management for the 21st century. Some of the 

improvements would be burying overhead 

powerlines, possibly relocating maintenance 

functions to the USFWS maintenance area, and 

expanding interpretive opportunities and 

visitor access to national seashore resources. 

The national seashore’s headquarters and 

administrative functions would be moved from 

leased space in Titusville to a multiagency 

facility on the road to Playalinda Beach. 

Additional planning efforts and studies for 

resource stewardship, fisheries management, 

archeological surveys, a user capacity study, 

etc., would also be part of the national 

seashore’s new operations. The National Park 

Service would increase staffing levels by 10.5 

full time positions and fiscal resources 

(including one-time costs of $28.9 million) to 

maintain the national seashore and provide for 

the adequate protection of national seashore 

resources and for safe and high-quality visitor 

experiences. 

Increased capital expenditures and additional 

staff compared to the no-action alternative 

would result in improved facilities, better 

service for the public, improved visitor 

experiences, and better protection for national 

seashore resources. The national seashore 

would continue to be an important visitor 

attraction along the Atlantic Coast of Volusia 

and Brevard counties. Improved facilities and 

opportunities would result in improved visitor 

experiences and likely in repeat visitation, 

especially from people outside the region. The 

tourism industry thrives on repeat visitation, 

which is good for the local and regional 

businesses (sales and income) and their 

employees (jobs and earnings). These 

conditions would result in minor, beneficial, 

and long-term impacts on the local and 

regional economies. 

Costs of Implementing Alternative B 

Alternative B calls for more than $26.9 million 

in capital improvements (including deferred 

maintenance) and an additional $2 million for 

future planning and studies regarding various 

national seashore resources. This represents an 

additional $18.6 million more in expenditures 

than in alternative A. Annual operational costs 

are estimated at $3.3 million, approximately 

$0.8 million more than alternative A. These 

maintenance, improvement, and research 

expenditures would have a minor, beneficial, 

and short-term impact on the regional 

economy. Operational expenditures would 

have a minor, beneficial, long-term impact on 

the regional economy. 

This alternative also calls for increasing the 

NPS staff by 10.5 full time positions more than 

the current level of staffing under alternative A 

(annual increase in cost of approximately 

$785,000) to continue current and proposed 

management programs. Although very 

important to the national seashore and staff 

(especially the new hires), these additions 

would have negligible, beneficial, long-term 

impacts on the regional economy. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Kennedy Space Center is planning to 

allow private development of a vertical launch 

facility within its boundaries that would then 

be leased to a third party for commercial 
Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics 

315 

operation. The extent of the development is 

unknown at this time, but it could be 

substantial and provide jobs and income for 

the construction industry. The space center is 

also realigning its work program and changing 

the total workforce as it transitions from the 

space shuttle program to other future 

programs . This action would likely have longterm but unknown impacts on the local 

economies of Titusville and surrounding areas, 

including Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Construction and development in the national 

seashore and in the space administration’s 

boundaries would have major, short-term, 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts on the 

regional economy. Large workload changes 

would have long-term socioeconomic impacts 

on the region with unknown consequences. 

However, the contribution of alternative B to 

these cumulative impacts would be very small. 

Conclusion 

Expenditures by visitors traveling to the 

national seashore would continue to have 

minor beneficial effects on the local and 

regional economy. These impacts would be 

long term on a local and regional basis for most 

visitor-related businesses and their employees. 

The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

additional new miscellaneous work proposed 

under this alternative would provide one-time, 

short-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the 

regional economy. The national seashore’s 

annual expenditures and employee 

expenditures in the local and two-county 

regional economy would provide long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts. 

The impacts of NASA-related construction 

activity, together with the impacts of actions 

proposed in alternative B, would result in 

short-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative 

effects, mostly for the construction industry. 

Likely changes in the space center workforce 

and the national seashore’s small increase in its 

workforce would result in long-term impacts 

on the regional economy of unknown 

consequences. The contribution of alternative 

B to these cumulative impacts would be 

beneficial but very small. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Regional and Local Economy 

Alternative C includes capital improvements 

that would be designed to manage the national 

seashore effectively while providing visitors 

with a range of cultural, educational, and 

recreational options as well as choices for 

various land- and water- based modes of travel. 

Besides completing the backlog of deferred 

maintenance, alternative C proposes many 

construction, demolition, and rehabilitation 

projects that would amount to a one-time cost 

of about $43.1 million—for example, a new 

visitor center/headquarters facility and a 

centralized maintenance facility would be built 

in the Bill’s Hill location to improve visitor 

services and national seashore operations. Bike 

paths, interpretive trails, and parking at 

trailheads would provide further access to 

national seashore resources for the public. 

Additional planning efforts and studies 

(costing about $2.0 million) for resource 

stewardship, fisheries management, 

archeological surveys, a user capacity study, 

etc., would aid in the proactive management of 

the national seashore. In addition, 11 full-timeequivalent permanent employees and 4.5 fulltime-equivalent seasonal employees would be 

added to the NPS staff. 

Increased capital expenditures and additional 

staff, compared to the no-action alternative, 

would result in improved facilities, better 

service for the public, improved visitor experiences, and better protection for resources. The 

national seashore would continue to be an 

important visitor attraction along the Atlantic 

Coast of Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Improved facilities and opportunities would 

result in improved visitor experiences and 

likely in repeat visitation, especially from 

people outside the region. The tourism 

industry thrives on repeat visitation, which is 

good for the local and regional businesses 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

316 

(sales and income) and their employees (jobs 

and earnings). These conditions would result 

in minor, beneficial, and long-term impacts on 

the local and regional economies. 

Costs of Implementing Alternative C 

Nearly $43.1 million in capital improvements 

and $2 million for future planning and studies 

for various resources would be required in 

alternative C. Annual operational costs are 

estimated at $3.6 million. These improvements 

and research expenditures would be a minor, 

beneficial, and short-term impact on the 

regional economy. Operational expenditures 

would be a minor, beneficial, and long-term 

impact on the regional economy. 

This alternative also calls for increasing the 

NPS staff by 11 permanent full-time-equivalent 

employees and 9 seasonal workers (4.5 fulltime-equivalent employees)—for an additional 

annual cost of about $1,091,000—to continue 

current and proposed management programs. 

Alternative C has a total staffing level of 63.5 

full-time-equivalent employees—15.5 fulltime-equivalent employees higher than the noaction alternative. Although very important to 

the national seashore and staff (especially the 

new hires), these additions would have a 

negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on the 

regional economy. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Kennedy Space Center is planning to 

allow private development of a vertical launch 

facility within its boundaries that would then 

be leased to a third party for commercial 

operation. The extent of the development is 

unknown at this time, but it could be substantial and provide jobs and income for the 

construction industry. The space center is also 

realigning its work program and changing the 

total workforce as it transitions from the space 

shuttle program to other future programs. This 

action would likely have long-term but 

unknown impacts on the local economies of 

Titusville and surrounding areas, including 

Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Construction and development in the national 

seashore and in the space administration’s 

boundaries would have major, short-term, 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts on the 

regional economy. Large workload changes 

would have long-term, socioeconomic impacts 

on the region. However, the contribution of 

alternative C to these cumulative impacts 

would be very small. 

Conclusion 

Expenditures by visitors traveling to the 

national seashore would continue to have 

minor beneficial effects on the local and 

regional economies. These impacts would be 

long term on a local and regional basis for most 

visitor-related businesses and their employees. 

The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

additional new miscellaneous work proposed 

under this alternative would provide one-time 

short-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the 

regional economy. The national seashore’s 

annual expenditures and employee 

expenditures in the local and two-county 

regional economy would provide long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts. 

The impacts of NASA-related construction 

activity, together with the impacts of actions 

proposed in alternative C, would result in 

short-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative 

effects, mostly for the construction industry. 

Likely changes in the space center workforce 

and the national seashore’s small increase in its 

workforce would result in long-term impacts 

on the regional economy of unknown 

consequences. The contribution of alternative 

B to these cumulative impacts would be 

beneficial but very small. 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Regional and Local Economy 

Alternative D promotes a limited level of new 

development and also completes the backlog 

of deferred maintenance. There would be an 

emphasis on improving operations and 
Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics 

317 

maintenance efficiencies, protecting the 

resource, and enhancing the visitor experience. 

Considerable effort would be directed to 

providing interpretive waysides, exhibits, and 

opportunities for the public to experience and 

learn about national seashore resources. The 

administrative/headquarters would be in a 

leased facility outside the national seashore 

boundaries. 

Additional planning efforts and studies for 

resource stewardship, fisheries management, 

archeological surveys, a user capacity study, 

etc., would also be part of the national 

seashore’s new operations. Key to this alternative would be the increase in permanent staff 

by 10 full-time-equivalent employees and onetime costs of $42.1 million for construction and 

programs to maintain the national seashore 

and provide for the adequate protection of 

resources and safe and high-quality visitor 

experiences. 

Increased capital expenditures and additional 

staff compared to the no-action alternative 

would result in improved facilities, better 

service for the public, improved visitor experiences, and better protection for resources. The 

national seashore would continue to be an 

important visitor attraction along the Atlantic 

Coast of Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Improved facilities and opportunities would 

result in improved visitor experiences and 

likely in repeat visitation, especially from 

people outside the region. The tourism 

industry thrives on repeat visitation, which is 

good for the local and regional businesses 

(sales and income) and their employees (jobs 

and earnings). These conditions would result 

in minor, beneficial, and long-term impacts on 

the local and regional economies. 

Costs of Implementing Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes $21.6 million in capital 

improvements and $2 million for future planning and studies regarding various resources of 

the national seashore. Annual operational costs 

are estimated at $3.5 million. These maintenance, improvement, and research expenditures would be a minor, beneficial, short-term 

impact on the regional economy. Operational 

expenditures would result in minor, beneficial, 

and long-term impacts on the regional 

economy. 

An increase of 12.5 NPS permanent full-timeequivalent employees, two not to exceed oneyear workers and one STEP (student temporary educational program) worker would be 

needed to continue current and proposed 

management programs. Alternative D has a 

total staffing level of 60.5 full-time-equivalent 

employees—12.5 full-time-equivalent 

employees than the no-action alternative. 

Although very important to the national 

seashore and staff (especially the new hires), 

these additions would result in negligible, 

beneficial, long-term impacts on the regional 

economy. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Kennedy Space Center is planning to 

allow private development of a vertical launch 

facility within its boundaries that would then 

be leased to a third party for commercial 

operation. The extent of the development is 

unknown at this time, but it could be substantial and provide jobs and income for the 

construction industry. The space center is also 

realigning its work program and changing the 

total workforce as it transitions from the space 

shuttle program to other future programs. This 

action would likely have long-term but 

unknown impacts on the local economies of 

Titusville and surrounding areas, including 

Volusia and Brevard counties. 

Construction and development in the national 

seashore and in the space administration’s 

boundaries would have major, short-term, 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts on the 

regional economy. Large workload changes 

would have long-term socioeconomic impacts 

on the region with unknown consequences. 

However, the contribution of alternative D to 

these cumulative impacts would be very small. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

318 

Conclusion 

Expenditures by visitors traveling to the 

national seashore would continue to have 

minor beneficial effects on the local and 

regional economies. These impacts would be 

long term on a local and regional basis for most 

visitor-related businesses and their employees. 

The deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

new work proposed under this alternative 

would provide one-time, short-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on the regional economy. 

The national seashore’s annual expenditures 

and employee expenditures in the local 

gateway communities and two-county regional 

economy would provide long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts. 

The impacts of NASA-related construction 

activity, together with the impacts of actions 

proposed in alternative D, would result in 

short-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative 

effects, mostly for the construction industry. 

Likely changes in the space center workforce 

and the national seashore’s small increase in its 

workforce would result in long-term impacts 

on the regional economy of unknown 

consequences. The contribution of alternative 

D to these cumulative impacts would be 

beneficial but very small. 
319 

OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSES 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Under all of the alternatives, some negligible 

to moderate impacts on soils, vegetation, 

wildlife, soundscape, and water resources 

caused by recreational use and facilities 

would be essentially unavoidable (e.g., soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, and 

wildlife disturbances). In some areas, 

increases in visitor use may have low level 

adverse impacts on visitor experience (e.g., 

higher visitor numbers at docks or on trails.) 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance or 

construction activities, there would be no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources under any of the alternatives. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Under all alternatives, the national seashore 

would continue to be used by the public, and 

most areas would be protected in a natural 

state. The National Park Service would 

continue to manage the national seashore to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with the preservation of cultural 

and natural resources. Actions would be 

taken with care to minimize adverse effects 

on the long-term productivity of biotic 

communities and to provide appropriate 

recreational opportunities consistent with 

preservation of cultural and natural 

resources. 

Under the no-action alternative there would 

be virtually no new development and no 

appreciable loss of long-term ecological 

productivity. 

Under the alternative B, the preferred alternative, there would be a modest number of 

new recreational facilities, which could 

reduce ecological productivity in some 

localized areas. However, the preferred 

alternative would yield long-term benefits 

from a visitor experience perspective. 

Under alternative C there would be expanded (but still relatively modest) facilities 

to support recreational use and some 

localized loss of ecological productivity. 

However, this alternative would yield longterm benefits from a visitor experience 

perspective. 

Similar to alternative B, under alternative D 

there would be a modest number of new 

recreational facilities, which could reduce 

ecological productivity in some localized 

areas. However, this alternative would yield 

long-term benefits from a visitor experience 

perspective. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Under the no-action alternative, energy 

requirements would be unchanged because 

no new structures would be built and the way 

in which visitors reach the national seashore 

would not change. Gradually improving the 

energy efficiency of existing structures could 

reduce existing energy requirements. 

Alternative A would result in the least use of 

energy of all the alternatives because fewer 

facilities are provided for visitor and 

administrative use. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

320 

Under alternative B, the NPS preferred alternative, energy requirements would be slightly 

increased, with the addition of visitor 

amenities. 

Consolidating headquarters functions with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a new 

facility would result in a more energy efficient 

arrangement for meeting both agencies’ space 

needs that are currently provided in separate 

facilities. 

Under alternative C, the greatest consumption of energy would be required because this 

alternative entails a greater level of new 

facilities for visitor and administrative use. 

Consolidating the maintenance operations 

into a centralized location, versus having 

district operations close to major visitor use 

areas, would result in a greater consumption 

of fuels and travel time to reach major visitor 

use areas. 

Energy requirements under alternative D 

would be similar to alternative B, with a slight 

increase in energy requirements for 

expanded facilities provided for visitor and 

administrative use. 

Under all alternatives, the National Park 

Service would pursue sustainable practices 

whenever possible in all decisions regarding 

national seashore operations, facilities 

management, and developments. Whenever 

possible, the National Park Service would use 

energy conservation technologies and 

renewable energy sources. All three action 

alternatives contain elements that would 

result in more nonmotorized access for 

visitors to enjoy the national seashore. These 

actions would provide positive benefits in the 

area of energy and conservation potential. 
Chapter 

Consultation and

Coordination

5

323 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Canaveral National Seashore was based on 

input from the National Park Service, other 

agencies, American Indian tribes, and the 

public. Consultation and coordination 

among these groups was vitally important 

throughout the planning process. The public 

had several avenues available to provide 

comments during the development of the 

plan, including public meetings, postal mail, 

email, and the Internet. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND 

NEWSLETTERS 

To obtain public input during the course of 

the project, three newsletters were 

distributed and six public meetings held. 

Public comments included those received 

from local officials, national seashore staff, 

and various other stakeholders. In addition, 

our two land management partnering 

agencies, NASA and the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, were consulted throughout the 

process and participated in planning 

workshops. 

During the fall of 2002 and again in the fall of 

2003 the National Park Service published a 

newsletter and hosted public meetings with 

national seashore users and neighbors to 

understand their ideas and concerns for 

Canaveral National Seashore. Below is a 

summary of the collective thoughts shared by 

public, agency, and staff members. 

Resource Preservation 

 Continue to protect and preserve the 

natural, archeological, and historic 

resources of Canaveral National Seashore 

 Prevent degradation of water quality 

resulting from urban development 

 Allow for recreational and commercial 

fishing, while maintaining sustainable 

stocks and protecting nursery habitats 

 Protect habitats for birds, wildlife, and 

manatees 

 Protect and manage areas used for 

nesting by sea turtles and shorebirds 

 Use fire management to control exotic 

species and improve habitat conditions 

National Seashore Access 

 Encourage interpretive guide boat and 

eco tours in Mosquito Lagoon and its 

islands 

 Use boating restrictions (such as wake 

speed or pole-on/pole-off areas) when 

needed for natural and cultural resource 

protection and public safety 

 Disperse beach users throughout the 24 

miles of beaches 

 Allow for more beach use but do not 

create a feeling of overcrowding 

 Keep the national seashore open around 

the clock, especially the beaches, or open 

the national seashore early enough to 

enjoy sunrise or early morning birding 

Coordination of Government Agencies 

 Improve public communications about 

area closures, seasonal restrictions, and 

changes in national seashore policy 

 Coordinate with local communities and 

other government agencies concerning 

fire management and disaster recovery 

efforts 

 Provide seamless coordination of all 

government agencies when managing for 

visitor use 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

324 

Facilities and Services 

 Improve facilities and services that 

support national seashore users 

 Continue to manage the seashore in a 

fairly undeveloped manner 

 Provide more parking spaces, drinking 

water, showers, and improved restroom 

facilities at beach access locations (Apollo 

Beach) 

 Provide more boat launches and docks 

with temporary tie-ups throughout 

Mosquito Lagoon 

 Develop sites for large group activities in 

national seashore areas that are near local 

communities to accommodate family and 

organized outings, environmental 

education, and community events 

 Provide facilities for picnicking, 

horseback riding, and hiking 

 Offer a diverse range of camping 

opportunities - from vehicle/trailer 

camps to more remote and dispersed 

primitive camping sites on the islands and 

near beaches 

 Consider locating a visitor center in or 

near Titusville, Florida 

 Include more active and diverse, guided 

and unguided interpretive programs (e.g., 

boat tours, wayside exhibits, interpretive 

trails, guided walks and talks at the 

historic sites, and formal seminar 

programs) 

 Upgrade current visitor center facilities to 

meet user's demands and improve 

interpretive exhibits 

 Improve visitor orientation/ information 

at locations inside and outside the 

national seashore 

 Help visitors understand the boundaries 

of the national seashore 

The third newsletter was distributed during 

the spring of 2007, and three public meetings 

were held to gain input on the preliminary 

alternatives. Public comments were 

considered when selecting the preferred 

alternative. 

Some of the comments that were heard the 

most often included support for more law 

enforcement personnel and offering more 

educational and history programs. 

The first meeting was held at the NPS 

headquarters office in Titusville on June 12, 

2007. The meeting was attended by about 16 

people. Some of the suggestions at this 

meeting included concerns for keeping the 

national seashore’s pristine environments 

pristine (especially Playalinda Beach), having 

more enforcement personnel in the lagoon, 

limiting fishing tournaments (number of 

boaters), opening access to Bill’s Hill but 

maintaining the area’s wilderness quality (i.e., 

no visitor center), possibly having limited 

tours to remote cultural sites, having 

lectures/seminars about those remote sites, 

telling the history of the towns that existed 

(e.g., Wilson, Clifton, Allenhurst, Shiloh) and 

the people who lived there, and telling the 

stories of the WWI sites. Suggestions 

included an unpaved road in the Bill’s Hill 

area for scenic viewing and launching skiffs 

and canoes and kayaks in alternative B; 

adding a pole/troll area from the northern 

NPS boundary to the southernmost USFWS 

boundary, with run lanes (based on what 

crabbers were using now via GPS coordinates) for alternative B, adding a pole/troll 

area in alternative C, and incorporate a visitor 

center / NPS headquarters facility in the Bill’s 

Hill area in alternative D. 

The second meeting was held in the visitor 

information center in New Smyrna Beach on 

June 13, 2007. The meeting was attended by 

about 20 people. Some of the suggestions for 

alternative B at this meeting included not 

having a nonmotorized zone near Orange 

Island, making the area north of Jones Creek 

a pole/troll area, having a mandatory course 

for boaters and kayakers in Mosquito 

Lagoon, prohibiting fishing tournaments (or 

at least limiting the number of participants), 

having a private vendor outside the national 

seashore to rent canoes and kayaks, and 

making the fish tanks at the visitor center 
Public Involvement 

325 

bigger. Suggestions for alternative C included 

a new visitor information center, not having a 

motorized ferry service between Seminole 

Rest and Apollo Beach, adding/not adding a 

pole/troll area, prohibiting large water craft 

(that are making ditches and impacting fish), 

having more law enforcement personnel, 

developing a running corridor from Jones 

Creek on West Shore to Longies and Orange 

Island Creek, using a pontoon boat water 

shuttle to transport visitors from the 

mainland through the old channel to the 

barrier island (Eldora, etc.), teaching children 

about lagoon ecology and history, and 

providing parking on the mainland (Bill’s Hill 

or Seminole Rest areas) so that people can get 

to the barrier island (which would relieve 

parking congestion). Suggestions for 

alternative D were having the visitor center in 

New Smyrna Beach, charging a fee for the 

lagoon, requiring a special permit for 

pole/troll areas, limiting horsepower on the 

main channel, and maintaining environmental education programs for schools and 

expanding them for adults. 

 

The third meeting was held on June 14, 2007, 

at the Seminole Rest main house. About 14 

people came to the meeting. Suggestions for 

alternative B included making the pole/troll 

restrictions equal for everyone (commercial 

and noncommercial), having more law 

enforcement personnel, leaving the lagoon as 

it is (without a pole/troll area), using a water 

shuttle from Oak Hill to Eldora and back is a 

good idea, keeping multiple boats from 

herding schools and “pounding” fish 

(keeping them from escaping), and protecting 

primary fish spawning sites. Suggestions for 

alternative C included using a water shuttle 

from Oak Hill to Eldora and back, wanting a 

water shuttle from Seminole Rest to Apollo 

Beach, and wanting to expand the guided 

canoe trip to the small island areas. 

Suggestions for alternative D included not 

having a pole/troll area and increasing the 

pole/troll area in the north (above the Gomez 

Grant) area. 

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

released to the public on August 18, 2011. 

Two public meetings were held along the 

eastern coast of Florida near the National 

Seashore to review the draft plan and receive 

public input: September 19, 2011, in 

Titusville, Florida; and September 20, 2011 in 

New Smyrna Beach, Florida. About 90 

individuals attended the two public meetings. 

The public comment period closed on 

October 31, 2011. 

Approximately 800 copies of the draft 

document were distributed to the public and 

stakeholders, including federal, state, and 

non-governmental agencies and organizations. During the official comment period, a 

total of 26 correspondences were received. 

All comment letters received are posted to 

the PEPC Internet site (http://parkplanning. 

nps.gov/cana) for public inspection. 
326 

NPS RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

This section summarizes the comments 

received during the public comment review 

period for the Canaveral National Seashore 

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement opened on 

August 18, 2011. The public comment period 

ended on October 31, 2011. 

Comments were received via direct input into 

the Planning, Environment and Public 

Comment (PEPC) system, by email, or as a 

hardcopy letter. Correspondences were 

received from two difference states (Florida 

and Georgia) and three unknown locations. 

Several local, state, and federal agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations shared their 

comments: 

 Bethune Beach Property Owners 

Association 

 City of Oak Hill, Florida 

 Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

 Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

 National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

 St. Johns River Water Management 

District 

 Save the Manatee Club 

 Southeast Volusia Chamber of 

Commerce 

 United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

 University of Central Florida 

 Volusia County, Florida 

All written comments were considered 

during the preparation of this final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement in accordance with the 

requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1503). Comments allow the planning 

team, NPS decision-makers, and other 

interested parties to review and assess the 

views of other agencies, organizations, and 

individuals related to the preferred 

alternative, the other alternatives, and 

potential impacts. It is important to stress 

that the selection of the preferred alternative 

and revisions to the alternative are not based 

on how many people supported a particular 

alternative. 

Analysis of Substantive Comments 

on the Draft Plan 

Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 

1503, the NPS staff provided written 

responses to those pieces of correspondence 

that had either substantive comments or 

comments that the NPS planning team 

determined written response was required 

for clarification. Substantive comments are 

defined by Director’s Order 12: Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision-making (NPS, 2001) as those 

comments that: 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information in the 

environmental impact statement; 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental analysis; 

 Presents reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the 

environmental impact statement; and/or 

 Causes changes or revisions in the 

proposal. 

Substantive comments raise, debate, or 

question a point of fact or policy. Comments 

in favor of or against the preferred alternative 

or alternatives, or those that only agree or 

disagree with NPS policy are not considered 

substantive. However, the National Park 

Service elected to respond to some nonsubstantive comments to clarify common 

questions or misunderstandings among the 

public or other stakeholders. 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

327 

NPS Responses to Comments 

Comments that contained substantive points 

regarding information in the draft GMP/EIS 

or comments that needed clarification are 

extracted below. A concern statement has 

been developed to summarize the comments, 

but representative quotes are also included 

from original letters, edited only for style 

consistency and spelling. Scanned copies of 

letters received from local, state, and federal 

agencies and non-governmental 

organizations are included in the appendixes. 

Where appropriate, text in the Canaveral 

National Seashore Draft General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was 

revised to address comments and changes, as 

indicated in the following responses. All 

revisions have been incorporated into this 

finalized plan. 

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Concern Statement 1: Canaveral National 

Seashore is seeking to increase visitation 

without appropriately mitigating impacts 

on resources, and without regard to 

limited funding of new improvements. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Representative Comment 

(Correspondence 16): “Under the preferred 

alternative, the GMP calls for the dispersal of 

visitors to experience relatively undeveloped 

areas from the high use areas, e.g., emphasis 

will be placed on encouraging visitors to 

experience relatively undeveloped areas. The 

preferred alternative discussion indicates a 

need to restore disturbed areas (beaches) to 

natural conditions as the principle focus of 

resource management. The proposed solution 

as discussed in the preferred alternative 

appears to be dilution. However, the proposed 

dilution's impacts upon the CNS do not appear 

to have been discussed, particularly in context 

of visitor wear and tear.”

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Comment 

(Correspondence 18): “I am not convinced 

that the Department of the Interior has 

prioritized the current funding at their 

disposal. I believe they need to put more 

emphasis on folks in the "trenches" maintaining 

and improving lands they regulate... Why 

should government be immune to doing what so 

many of us have had to do "operate on much 

less income?”

NPS Response: The emphasis of the 

preferred alternative is to maintain the 

undeveloped character of the national 

seashore, while providing uncrowded 

experiences for visitors. The goal of the 

preferred alternative is not to bring in 

large numbers of people, and the number 

of visitors will continue to be limited by 

restricted parking, shuttle capacities, etc. 

The types of uses promoted—more 

kayaking, a few trails within the Eldora 

portion of the national seashore, and 

biking along the paved roads—will not 

affect Klondike Beach or other currently 

undeveloped areas of the national 

seashore. Additionally, in keeping with 

the concept of the preferred alternative to 

maintain its undeveloped and uncrowded 

character, there is no recommendation 

for additional camping areas or the 

creation of new parking. Instead, the 

preferred alternative seeks to find ways 

for visitors to explore the national 

seashore by kayak, canoe, bike trails, and 

hopefully in the future, a shuttle system. 

The cost of such improvements as 

presented in the Draft General 

Management Plan may seem misaligned 

with the difficult economic situation that 

is currently being faced by government 

agencies and members of the public. The 

estimated costs for the preferred and 

other alternatives include all of the 

proposed actions, while the reality is that 

some of the proposed actions may take 

many years to implement due to funding 

restrictions. Like many agencies and 

members of the public, Canaveral 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

328 

National Seashore is working diligently to 

become more fiscally efficient with a 

budget that has remained essentially flat 

in the face of inflation. As stated in a 

number of places in the draft plan, the 

costs for improvements in the alternatives 

are estimates and are contingent on 

future funding availability over the life of 

the plan. However, they have been 

included in the draft plan to fully describe 

the goals of the National Park Service to 

fulfill its commitment to visitors and to 

protect the resources of the national 

seashore. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND 

SPECIES PROTECTION 

Concern Statement 1: Commenters were 

concerned about visitors’ impacts on 

national seashore resources, especially 

species of special concern. 

Volusia County, Florida 

Representative Comment 

(Correspondence 22): “There is no mention 

of visitor impacts on protected species such as 

manatees, sea turtles, gopher tortoises, etc. in 

this section, and no mention of potential 

management strategies, such as visitor 

education on viewing/interaction practices, 

educational signage, etc. Management 

strategies in general are addressed in Appendix 

B, but viewing, signage and interaction is not 

specifically mentioned. A reference to Appendix 

B here would also be helpful... There is no 

mention of protected species management plans 

other than the Scrub-Jay Habitat Assessment in 

the Bill's Hill area in this section. Are 

management plans being actively implemented 

for manatees, sea turtles, gopher tortoises, 

etc.?”

NPS Response: The National Park 

Service is highly committed to the 

protection of natural resources, and is 

required by law and policy to protect 

species of special concern including 

federally and state listed species. The 

national seashore makes every effort to 

protect species of special concern from 

visitor and other impacts. To better 

protect sea turtles from visitor impacts, 

national seashore staff provide regulated 

Turtle Watch interpretive programming, 

close beaches at night to prevent nonregulated visitor contacts with sea turtles, 

and mark nests and place interpretive 

signs near boardwalks. These protection 

efforts have been highly successful, and 

tampering with sea turtle nests by visitors 

has been almost non-existent. Similarly, 

signs at boat ramps advise boaters that 

manatees are present, and we require 

visitors to use boardwalks in dune areas 

to protect gopher tortoise habitat. These 

dune boardwalks, and other protective 

measures such as speed limits and other 

signage, also provide protection for other 

species of special concern such as the 

indigo snake and the southeastern beach 

mouse. 

Partnerships with other government 

stakeholders and the public are critical 

for these protective measures to be 

successful, and new interpretive 

programming and contact methods with 

visitors continue to be developed. Several 

key implementation plans have been 

included in the draft plan, such as the 

Scrub-Jay Habitat Assessment for the 

Bill’s Hill area. The list of needed future 

implementation plans is not intended to 

be exhaustive, as other needs may arise in 

the future; instead, the list of future 

implementation plans is intended to 

convey to the public the plans that are 

near-term and of key importance to 

management of the national seashore. 

One noteworthy implementation plan 

that would follow this GMP is a resource 

stewardship strategy. This planning effort 

would establish more specific desired 

conditions and management strategies for 

key resources, including species of special 

concern. 

The draft GMP has undergone review by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, as well 

as numerous state agencies. Based on 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

329 

their feedback, the final Determination of 

Effect for federally listed species has been 

included as an appendix in the final 

GMP. 

Concern Statement 2: Some commenters 

expressed concern that information 

presented in the draft plan is outdated or 

incorrect, and requested that updated 

information be included in the Final GMP. 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Representative Quote (Commenter 19):

“Appears the figure is missing the NASA 

managed property on the map, but noted in the 

key... Some of the [museum collection] items 

are owned by NASA... Constellation Program 

cancelled, suggest changing “constellation 

moon-landing program” to “future 

programs...”

Volusia County, Florida 

Representative Quote (Commenter 22):

“There is no mention of potential aquatic 

invasive species such as the Green Mussel 

(Perna viridis), Charru Mussel (Mytella 

charruana), Titan Acorn (Pink) Barnacle 

(Megabalanus coccopoma), or the lionfish 

(Pterois volitans)... The [West Indian 

manatee] population survey data quoted is 

from 2005, which is now six years old; there 

have been significant changes in the interim 

years. For instance, the current the high count 

for manatees is now 5,076 from the 2010 

synoptic survey. It is suggested that the manatee 

synoptic survey data be updated.”

NPS Response: The national seashore 

and NPS planning staff are thankful for 

the attention to detail given to the plan by 

a number of reviewers. The 

representative quotes above are just two 

examples of such corrections suggested 

by readers. Map corrections, updated 

data, and references to appropriate 

appendixes have been included in the 

Final GMP. 

Concern Statement 3: A commenter 

expressed the need to quantify the park’s 

ecosystem services to better determine the 

benefit of conserving the park as 

compared to the costs of not conserving, 

especially in the context of climate change. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Representative Quote (Commenter 16):

“...We suggests the NPS include an effort to 

quantify [Canaveral National Seashore’s] 

ecosystem services, i.e., inventory and 

determine dollar valuations, in order to more 

accurately determine the benefit of conserving 

[the national seashore] as compared to the costs 

of not conserving... As part of the GMP, we 

encourage the NPS to explore whether the 

[national seashore] provides ecosystem services 

that can ameliorate climate change impacts. 

For example, the economic value of carbon 

sequestration potential represented by the 

[national seashore].”

NPS Response: The quantification of 

ecosystem services has not been included 

in this draft plan because it is out of the 

scope of the plan to decide major 

alternatives for visitor experience and 

facility development. While the 

quantification of ecosystem services has 

been completed for some areas in 

Florida, including the Indian River 

Lagoon System of which Mosquito 

Lagoon is a part, comprehensive data 

does not exist to quantify all systems 

within the seashore in a similar manner. 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL 

FISHING 

Concern Statement 1: Commenters stated 

concerns about the future of commercial 

fishing within the park, including the use 

of indicators and standards, zones, and 

management strategies associated with 

fishing and boating.
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

330 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 6):

“Maintain sustainable levels of commercial 

fishing within the park, however, continue the 

protection of restored oyster reefs from 

commercial harvesting to serve as a larval 

source to repopulate neighboring reefs.”

University of Central Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

14): “We realize that there is a long history of 

harvesting of the Eastern oyster Crassostrea 

virginica in Mosquito Lagoon, both inside and 

outside of CANA Boundaries. This has been a 

very important part of the local economy and 

livelihood of many families. Our concern 

expressed here is that the long-term 

sustainability of the oyster reefs may be in 

jeopardy and that if appropriate steps are not 

taken to protect the regeneration capacity of 

this species within CANA, the outcome would 

be more of an issue than reduced access or 

restrictions in CANA waters.”

University of Central Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

14): “Our first recommendation would be to 

eliminate harvesting of all shellfish within 

CANA waters and have it designated as a 

breeding sanctuary for replenishment of the 

surrounding waters. If this is not feasible, then 

we strongly encourage CANA to develop a 

program based upon sustainability. The idea of 

sustainable harvest is mentioned briefly on 

page 76 in Alternative 2 of the Draft 

Management Plan that, "Public and 

commercial activities would continue to be 

permitted unless documented trends in 

resource conditions require changes to visitor 

use management". Trends of resource 

conditions that reflect unsustainability of the 

resource already exist and action is warranted 

to implement a recovery program. The table, 

on page 117, that is the guide for most readers 

of this large document, simply states for all four 

alternatives that, "Commercial guiding and 

harvesting activities would continue to be 

permitted". We respectfully suggest that this be 

changed, in at least Alternative 2, to, 

"commercial guiding and harvesting activities 

would continue to be permitted at sustainable 

levels.”

City of Oak Hill 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

21): “A historical summary depicts the City of 

Oak Hill as a small coastal community that has 

thrived on fishing, shellfish gathering and all 

forms of aquaculture. The City of Oak Hill has 

seen its ability to maintain an economy based 

on the use of the Indian River/Mosquito Lagoon 

greatly diminished by the net-ban and other 

regulatory restraints. Additional restriction(s) 

of any nature will further reduce the City's 

sustainability as a coastal community 

dependent upon the free use of our natural 

resources.”

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

26): 1. Modify Table 1.: MANAGEMENT 

ZONES on pages 40 - 45 of the Draft GMP/EIS 

as specified in Enclosure 1 of the FWC’s 

January 6th letter, to reflect the manner in 

which marine fisheries management issues will 

be addressed (as summarized below): 

“Amend language throughout the Draft 

GMP/EIS, where appropriate, to state that 

fishing activities and fishing vessel operation 

will be conducted in the manner specified in the 

Fishery Management Plan. For example, any 

language in the document that proposes new or 

modified use of management strategies that 

restrict the use of internal combustion motors 

(e.g., pole/troll areas), limit vessel speed (e.g., 

idle/slow speed zones), limit vessel type or size, 

impose permitting requirements for fishing 

activities, limit access or close certain areas to 

fishing should be modified to refer to the 

Fishery Management Plan.”

“Modify Table 3: Indicators, Standards, and 

Potential Management Strategies on page 52 of 

the draft GMP/EIS as follows:” 

 Under “Potential Management Strategies” 

for both Amount of prop scarring and 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

331 

Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, 

modify the language to state that the 

following strategies, if selected, will be 

developed through the Fishery 

Management Plan process: Expansion of 

pole/troll areas, Increased idle or slowspeed areas, Mandatory permits and 

Access limitations. 

 Under “Indicators” for Influence of boat 

wakes on oyster reefs, delete the following 

language: “Change in oyster reef mortality 

(extent of visible dead shells) at individual 

reefs, both adjacent to primary boat 

corridors and in the national seashore’s 

more remote waters,” and replace it with 

the following language: “Indicators to 

determine change in oyster reef mortality 

will be developed in coordination with the 

FWC.” 

 Under “Recommended Standard” for 

Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, 

delete all language and replace with the 

following: “The recommended standard is 

to be determined in coordination with the 

FWC.” 

NPS Response: This GMP/EIS does not 

address changes in the management of 

commercial fishing in Canaveral National 

Seashore. Comments on the Draft 

GMP/EIS brought forth the question of 

the NPS authority to allow commercial 

fishing in the national seashore. After 

additional research, the National Park 

Service has determined that the general 

regulation (36 CFR 2.3[d][4]) prohibiting 

commercial fishing applies at Canaveral 

National Seashore. Due to the nature of 

this issue, the future management of 

commercial fishing will not be addressed 

in the Final GMP/EIS. Existing 

commercial fishing will be retained as an 

element common to all alternatives in this 

GMP/EIS, but the National Park Service 

does not intend to leave commercial 

fishing unchanged for the long term. The 

National Park Service intends to 

separately address commercial fishing 

upon completion of the general 

management plan. 

Existing commercial fishing will be 

retained as an element common to all 

alternatives in this GMP/EIS, but the 

National Park Service does not intend to 

leave commercial fishing unchanged for 

the long-term. the National Park Service 

intends to separately address these issues 

upon completion of the GMP. 

For this GMP/EIS, all alternatives assume 

the same level of commercial fishing. The 

national seashore would continue to 

renew permits to existing commercial 

fishing permit holders and strictly 

enforce the use of catch logs. The 

seashore would also continue to adopt 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s commercial fishing 

regulations and actively monitor and 

patrol fishing activities in Mosquito 

Lagoon to ensure state regulations are 

met. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

decided to stop commercial fishing in 

2018 within the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, which includes the 

NPS/USFWS joint mnagement area of the 

national seashore (where U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has primary jurisdiction 

over natural resources and the National 

Park Service has primary jurisdiction over 

cultural resources). This part of the 

seashore is administered for refuge 

purposes through the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pursuant to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act. This USFWS decision was addressed 

and announced as part of the finalization 

of the Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan in 2007. Until 2018, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would continue to 

manage fishing in this area according to 

state regulations and commercial fishing 

would continue through the existing joint 

NPS /USFWS permit system. The 

USFWS determination to stop 

commercial fishing in 2018 is 

independent of the NPS determination of 

the appropriate long-term action it will 

take regarding commercial fishing. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

332 

Under the action alternatives, the 

National Park Service would also develop 

a separate fishery management plan. The 

plan would include a public involvement 

and environmental compliance process 

and would be developed in partnership 

with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission , U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and other federal and 

state agencies. In the interim, the 

National Park Service would develop a 

memorandum of understanding with 

FWC that outlines the commitment of 

both agencies to collaborate in the 

management of fisheries within the 

national seashore and become 

cooperating agencies in the development 

of the fishery management plan. 

The plan would address fishing in the 

lagoon and offshore waters in order to 

better protect park resources including 

valuable fisheries resources and to 

determine sustainable harvest levels 

found within boundaries of the national 

seashore. The National Park Service 

would use the best available science in 

order to make informed decisions in the 

fishery management plan. 

In order to formally designate the 

pole/troll area identified in the preferred 

alternative, the National Park Service 

would pursue rulemaking in the Federal 

Register to establish a special regulation 

for this area. This would include 

substantial input from agencies and the 

public on the location, size, and 

boundaries of this area. It is anticipated 

that this input would be solicited as part 

of the preparation of the fishery 

management plan. Also, to better inform 

this process, the National Park Service 

would consider a pilot test of the 

pole/troll area and solicit public and 

agency feedback during the pilot test 

period. 

Due to growing concern that oyster reefs 

cannot sustain current harvest pressure, 

several steps are being taken to protect 

oyster reefs, including: restoring dead 

reef edges, identifying larval flow to 

identify key spawning and settlement 

areas and monitoring reef coverage to 

track changes over time. 

Due to the NPS legislative requirement to 

protect resource values and to provide for 

public recreational use of the national 

seashore, its management responsibility 

cannot be deferred until a fisheries management plan is completed. According to 16 USC 

459j-3, “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall 

permit ... fishing ... on ... waters under his 

jurisdiction within the seashore in 

accordance with the appropriate laws of the 

State of Florida and the United States to the 

extent applicable, except that he may 

designate zones where, and establish periods 

when, no ... fishing ... shall be permitted for 

reasons of public safety, administration, fish 

or wildlife management, public use or 

enjoyment, protection of the resources, or 

competing public use.” Further, 16 USC 1a2h authorizes the National Park Service to 

promulgate and enforce regulations 

concerning boating and other activities on or 

relating to waters located within areas of the 

national park system, including waters 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 

provided, that any regulations adopted 

pursuant to this subsection shall be 

complementary to, and not in derogation of, 

the authority of the United States Coast 

Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Therefore, until the FMP is developed, the 

National Park Service will utilize indicators, 

standards, and management zones to protect 

resources and visitor experiences. However, 

indicators, standards, and management 

strategies associated with certain zones, may 

be modified or refined based on outcomes 

from the fishery management plan. 

Concern Statement 2: Commenters stated 

concerns about potential courses of action 

regarding the future of guide fishing within 

the park. 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

333 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 1):

“...I do believe that some serious control needs 

to be exercised when it comes to guides, and I 

am certainly in agreement to limiting the 

number of guides or determining that they must 

be catch-and-release only, however I don't 

think guides should be totally removed.” 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 4):

“I would like to see the plan eliminate the 

commercial fishing which takes tons of marine 

life from the area, but still allow guides.”

Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

20): “We do not have a problem with limiting 

the number of guide permits in the Mosquito 

Lagoon; however, any such permits must be 

limited to use by the guide that holds the 

permit. We strongly oppose allowing the 

permit holder to lease, transfer, or sell to 

another entity. The CNS should have the 

ability to end the program at its discretion. 

Non-use for a specified period of time would 

cause the permit to revert back to the CNS.” 

NPS Response: Guided fishing is not to 

be confused with commercial fishing. 

For an activity to be considered 

commercial fishing, the sale of the 

harvest must take place, which is not 

authorized under commercial use 

permits for guided fishing. According to 

16 USCS 1802 (3), (Title 16. 

Conservation; Chapter 38. Fishery 

Conservation and Management; 

Generally) the term charter fishing 

means “fishing from a vessel carrying a 

passenger for hire (as defined in section 

2101[21a] of title 46 USC) who is 

engaged in recreational fishing.” 

Currently, guides are operating under 

the commercial use permit system, 

because the park has determined to 

allow a commercial operation within 

park boundaries because the service 

provided has been determined to be 

necessary and appropriate for public use 

and enjoyment of the seashore. 

Concern Statement 3: Commenters stated 

that the GMP should include analysis of 

the potential socioeconomic impacts of the 

phasing out of commercial fishing by FWS 

by 2018. 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

22): “Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics, Pg. 

310- There is no mention of the potential 

socioeconomic impact that phasing out 

commercial fishing by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service by 2018.”

NPS Response: The phasing out of 

commercial fishing by 2018 in the joint 

management area and Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge is a decision 

that was made by the FWS in the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

published in 2008. The FWS has 

jurisdiction over the joint management 

area. The CCP should be consulted 

regarding concerns surrounding this 

decision and its impacts on the region, 

including socioeconomic impacts. The 

plan can be found on the following 

website: 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/

CCPFinalRefugesDocuments.html. 

PARTNERSHIPS WITH AGENCIES 

AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 

Concern Statement 1: Commenters 

expressed the importance of continuing 

the partnership between universities and 

the park and the access to and use of the 

Feller’s House as a work-site. 

University of Central Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 5):

“Needless to say, our partnership with 

[Canaveral National Seashore] remains one of 

our most important collaborations for our 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

334 

program at UCF. The continuation and 

stability of our access to Feller House is 

important to our research and education 

program in marine sciences, and, we believe 

you will agree, a very important asset to 

CANA's continuing efforts in understanding 

and implementing the stewardship of the 

estuarine and marine systems managed by the 

NPS. I want to assure you that our current and 

long-term plans at UCF are dependent upon 

continued full access to the Feller House, and 

the maintenance of the successful pace of 

research and education is founded on the status 

quo of our current relationship.”

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 6):

“Keep contract with the University of Central 

Florida for management of the Feller's House 

Research Field Building to promote 

collaboration between the university and park 

for research and education.”

NPS Response: Canaveral National 

Seashore has obtained the benefit of 

several hundred thousand dollars in 

research on such important topics as 

seagrass recovery, oyster reef health, the 

status of aquatic invasive species and salt 

marsh restoration techniques through its 

relationship with universities and use of 

the Feller property as a research facility. 

The seashore will continue to provide an 

appropriate facility to universities and 

institutions to obtain critical information 

needed to adequately manage national 

seashore resources. 

Concern Statement 2: Commenters stated 

potential partnership opportunities may 

exist with NGOs, private sector investors 

and existing Interagency Agreements. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

16): “There may be funding/resource 

opportunities for maintaining and protecting 

[national seashore] resources in the form of 

partnerships with nongovernmental 

organizations and private sector 

investments... As part of the GMP, the EPA 

encourages the NPS to explore whether its 

wetlands restoration efforts can be enhanced 

by participation in a wetlands mitigation bank 

through it existing interagency agreements 

and/or through partnerships with [NonGovernmental Organizations] (e.g., The 

Nature Conservancy), the US Army Corps of 

Engineers, etc.” 

NPS Response: The national seashore 

will continue to fully explore such 

opportunities for partnerships across all 

sectors of the community. Such 

partnerships will become even more 

critical as funding becomes more 

restricted in the future. 

Concern Statement 3: Commenters 

expressed concern about the involvement 

of other agencies and stakeholders, and 

the approval process of future 

management plans. 

Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

20): “The uplands and submerged lands in the 

area were originally provided to the federal 

government for the development and 

construction of the Canaveral Space Center in 

the form of six Dedications from Florida's 

Trustees of the Internal Trust Fund. The 

Trustees are the Governor and Cabinet and 

they hold title to all state lands, both upland 

and submerged sovereignty lands. One of the 

Dedications was an amendment which would 

allow the establishment of a wildlife refuge; 

therefore, the State of Florida has some 

remaining title interest in the area. That 

remaining interest is just one good reason for 

the Florida FWC to be intimately involved in 

the development and approval of any fisheries 

regulations... We strongly request that the 

management plan be amended to clearly state 

that the Florida FWC be involved in the 

development and approval of any marine 

fisheries management plans and regulations.” 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

335 

Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

20): “CCA Florida could support the CNS's 

Preferred Alternative B if it was amended to 

(A) make clear that any future fisheries 

management plan envisioned by the plan would 

be cooperatively developed and approved by 

the CNS, Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge and the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation commission (FWC)...”

NPS Response: In order to protect the 

valuable fish populations found within its 

boundaries, the National Park Service 

will develop a Fishery Management Plan 

in consultation with state and federal 

resource management partners and 

stakeholders. These organizations can 

provide expert advice on management of 

fish populations and support regulations 

specific to the national seashore. The 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

and St. Johns Water Management District 

are examples of two other important 

stakeholders in the development of 

future management plans. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Concern Statement 1: Commenters stated 

the need for commercial services in the 

form of vendors providing basic beach 

gear, water, snacks, and educational 

material while another commenter 

requested vendors be prohibited 

altogether. 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 6):

“Prevent any vendors from working inside the 

park, particularly along the Playalinda stretch 

of beach. Selling food and drinks results in a 

greater amount of trash being deposited on the 

beach and disrupts the aesthetic appeal of a 

natural beach.”

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

13): “Some basic items such as drinking water 

and possibly even some trail type food items 

should be made available for purchase... 

Appropriate educational materials should be 

made available for purchase and possibly even 

items that would be used to pursue the 

recreational activities such as fishing 

equipment. Items that would provide personal 

protection such as sunscreen and protective 

clothing such as hats could also be made 

available in a noncommercial environment.” 

NPS Response: Under the preferred 

alternative, no commercial vendors will 

sell food and drinks nor rent equipment 

in the national seashore, in order to 

maintain its undeveloped nature. 

However, there is a need to provide basic 

supplies and interpretive opportunities 

for visitors. In the preferred alternative, a 

visitor contact station is proposed at the 

South District Ranger Station to provide 

interpretive materials and basic sundries. 

A vending machine for water has recently 

been installed near the fee booth. The 

preferred alternative would maintain the 

quiet nature of the seashore while 

providing necessary services within the 

existing infrastructure. 

Concern Statement 2: Commenters stated 

the need for an alternative transportation 

system, including improved safety for 

bicyclists. Commenters also expressed 

concerns about a possible future shuttle 

bus system. 

Bethune Beach Homeowner Association 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 3):

“Bike lanes need to be extended from Volusia 

County's section of A1A to the end of Apollo 

Beach and on all other paved roadways in the 

northern section of the park. Hundreds of 

bicyclists use these roadways a day. It is a top 

priority to ensure the safety of bicyclists.” 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

336 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

19): “A bicycle path connecting with the 

proposed USFWS bike path” [along State Route 

402 into Playalinda Beach] presents a potential 

security problem. This is a concern as people 

will be more inclined to hop the fence and go 

exploring (onto NASA property) on a bike then 

they would be with their car or walking in. 

Where would parking for the [shuttle bus for 

Apollo Beach] be, on CNS property or offsite? 

Who would pay for the parking lot installation 

and maintenance? Propose a parking bus 

area... Are there plans to have a shuttle run to 

Playalinda? If so, where? Who pays for it? How 

would the bus service pay for itself? Propose bus 

route... Has the possibility of extending the 

Volusia County Public Transit system shuttle 

bus into the national seashore as alternative 

transportation been investigated for economic 

feasibility?”

NPS Response: The National Park 

Service as a whole and Canaveral 

National Seashore are both committed to 

providing alternative transportation 

systems to improve visitor experience 

and to reduce environmental and climate 

change impacts of fuel-based 

transportation. Such developments will 

take time to plan in order to ensure the 

safety of visitors, as well as protect 

interests such as security needs at NASA’s 

Kennedy Space Center. For example, the 

bike path along Route 402 is not planned 

to go south of the beach road into the 

security area of the Space Center for 

operational and public safety reasons. 

The National Park Service views 

alternative transportation as another 

opportunity to engage in community and 

agency partnerships. Canaveral National 

Seashore will be working closely with 

NASA, the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, and others, and is 

already participating in task groups 

working to extend a regional bike trail 

into the Titusville area. The development 

of a shuttle system in the National 

Seashore is still in its infancy, and will 

require the input of local officials, 

planners, transportation departments, 

agency partners, and the public. By 

including this concept in the general 

management plan, groundwork is laid to 

begin pursuing these efforts including 

economic feasibility and routes. 

Concern Statement 3: Commenters had 

concerns about phasing out 24-hour access 

to the boat ramp, as well as general 

concerns about funding law enforcement 

activities. 

Volusia County, Florida 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

22): “Will phasing out 24 hr. access to the boat 

ramp across from Parking Area 1 have a 

significant impact, socioeconomic and access 

wise, on the public?” 

Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 1):

“I do not think that any of [the alternatives] 

address the lack of enforcement enough. The 

current situation as far as enforcement goes is 

totally bankrupt, and has done little to slow 

damaging practices on the water, including 

Pole-and-Troll Zone violations, prop-scarring 

along shorelines, unsafe practices by guides 

(such as exceeding maximum persons on a 

boat), and poaching. The number of 

enforcement officers should be increased, and 

proper management brought in to ensure 

effectiveness.”

NPS Response: All three alternatives 

highlight the need for, and propose 

additional Law Enforcement positions. 

Please reference the Cost Estimates 

section for the proposed additional 

number of rangers under each alternative. 

The low number of visitors using the boat 

ramp after hours supports the move away 

from 24-hour access in order to improve 

visitor safety while not significantly 

impacting visitor use of the boat ramp. 

The current practice of waiving the 
NPS Responses to Substantive Comments 

337 

entrance fee for visitors entering the park 

to use the boat ramp is not in compliance 

with NPS Recreation Fee Guidelines 

contained in Director’s Order 22, which 

states, “Fees are used to fund projects 

that address deferred maintenance needs, 

provide new visitor programs and 

services, protect resources, improve and 

rehabilitate facilities for visitors. The 

rationale for supplementing appropriated 

funds with visitor fees is that people who 

use parks should pay a part of the cost 

incurred by the National Park Service for 

their visit, including expenses associated 

with avoiding and mitigating impacts on 

resources and responding to increased 

demand for visitor facilities and services.” 

Concern Statement 4: Commenter stated 

interest in signage indicating the 

boundaries of the respective agencies 

within the area. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Representative Quote (Correspondence 

22): “Are there plans to increase signage, 

indicating national seashore boundaries? Any 

strategies to demarcate National Wildlife 

Refuge and Space Center boundaries in order 

to reduce confusion?”

NPS Response: Currently there are few 

to no markers along the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ICW). Boundary signs are 

needed at key boating entry points such 

as near the ICW Marker 60 denoting the 

northwest corner of the park and across 

from Riverbreeze boat ramp. However, a 

profusion of signs will be avoided in 

order to preserve the visual aesthetic of 

the seashore. The Canaveral boundary is 

on charts and maps and most users/ 

fishers are familiar with these maps and 

boundaries. The National Park Service 

will consider adding a park map or 

brochure on the Riverbreeze bulletin 

board. 
338 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

The National Park Service contacted the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

The letter advised these agencies of the NPS 

planning process for this General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

and requested a current list of federally listed 

threatened, endangered, or candidate species 

within the national seashore. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service responded in a 

letter dated June 8, 2005; the response letter 

included a list of such species found within 

the state of Florida. 

In subsequent communications, NPS staff 

sought advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service regarding how to fulfill NPS 

responsibilities for complying with section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. The National 

Park Service prepared a determination of 

effect, which is included in this final plan as 

appendix D. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service responded with concurrence on the 

NPS determinations of effect for upland 

species under their jurisdiction, and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service was not 

required to respond because of the 

determination of “no effect” for the marine 

species under their jurisdiction. 

To fulfill EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA) 8 309 

and National Environmental Policy Act 

responsibilities, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency reviewed the draft plan, 

and gave the plan a “ Lack of Objections” 

rating in a letter dated October 17, 2011. 

The National Park Service contacted the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

on September 12, 2003. The letter advised the 

advisory council about the start of the 

planning effort, asked for their involvement 

in the planning process, and solicited input 

on issues and concerns to be addressed by 

the plan. The advisory council had an 

opportunity to review and comment on the 

draft plan. No reply from the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation was 

received. 

STATE AGENCIES 

The National Park Service contacted the 

Florida state historic preservation officer

(SHPO) on September 12, 2003. The letter 

advised the state historic preservation officer 

about the start of the planning effort, asked 

for their involvement in the planning process, 

and solicited input on issues and concerns to 

be addressed by the plan. The SHPO 

responded in a letter dated September 14, 

2011 that cultural resources were adequately 

addressed in the draft plan. 

The National Park Service contacted the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission in a letter dated May 20, 2005. 

The letter advised the commission of the NPS 

planning process for this General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Suggestions from the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Commission, compiled by the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, were incorporated into this plan. 

The National Park Service requested a 

consistency determination for the federal 

Coastal Zone Management Act via the 

Florida State Clearinghouse program of the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

Conditional concurrence was granted by the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection in a letter dated January 17, 2012. 

The National Park Service coordinated with 

the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission to update the 

plan. The National Park Service responded in 

a letter dated December 19, 2013, with 

proposed changes to the plan as agreed to by 

the commission and the National Park 

Service. In letters dated January 22, 2014, and 
Consultation and Coordination 

339 

February 4, 2014, the commission and the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection recognized that the conditions for 

the state’s concurrence were met. 

AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples may have traditional 

interests and rights in lands now under NPS 

management. Related American Indian concerns are sought through Native American 

Consultation. The need for government-togovernment consultation stems from the 

historic power of Congress to make treaties 

with American Indian tribes as sovereign 

nations. Consultation with American Indian 

tribes is required by various federal laws, 

executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

They are needed, for example, to comply 

with section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Implementing regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

also call for Native American Consultation. 

The National Park Service contacted the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Seminole 

Nation of Oklahoma by letter on 

September 12, 2003. The NPS letter advised 

the tribes of the planning process, invited 

them to participate in planning, and inquired 

about the tribes’ potential interests and 

concerns as they relate to the planning effort. 

The Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida responded 

with a letter requesting any information that 

the National Park Service may have regarding 

the identification and protection of cultural 

resources within the updated plan. The 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

agreed to enter into government-togovernment consultation. None of the tribes 

requested to participate in the planning 

process, but they reserved their right to 

comment. 

No comments were received on the draft 

plan from any of the three federally 

recognized tribes culturally affiliated with the 

national seashore. 
340 

LIST OF AGENCIES OR ORGANIZATIONS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS PLAN 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Coast Guard 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Forest Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

AMERICAN INDIAN 

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

Seminole Tribe of Florida (THPO) 

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable Bill Nelson, Senator 

Honorable George S. LeMieux, Senator 

Honorable Suzanne Kosmas, House of 

Representatives 

STATE OFFICIALS, SENATORS, 

AND REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable Charlie Crist, Governor 

State Senator Thad Altman (District 24) 

State Senator Evelyn Lynn (District 7) 

State Representative Ralph Poppell 

(Brevard District 29) 

State Representative Dorothy Hukill 

(Volusia District 28) 

State Representative Steve Crisafulli 

(District 32) 

STATE AGENCIES 

AND COMMISSIONS 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

State Historic Preservation Office 

REGIONAL, COUNTY, AND 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Titusville 

New Smyrna Beach 

Edgewater 

Oak Hill 

ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, 

AND UNIVERSITIES 

University of Central Florida 

Florida Institute of Technology 

Daytona Beach Community College 

University of Florida 

Florida State University 

LIBRARIES 

Titusville 

New Smyrna Beach 

Edgewater 

Oak Hill 

SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Titusville High School 

Astronaut High School 

New Smyrna Beach and Space Coast 

Junior/Senior High School 
List of Agencies or Organizations Receiving a Copy of This Plan 

341 

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

Florida Today 

Daytona Beach News Journal 

New Smyrna Beach Observer 

RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS 

Orlando Channel 2 (WESH) 

Orlando Channel 6 (WKMG) 

Orlando Channel 9 (WFTV) 

Orlando Channel 24 (WMFE) 

 

Appendixes,

Selected References,

Preparers and Consultants,

and Index

345 

APPENDIX A: CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE LEGISLATION 

88 STAT. l PUBLIC LAW 93-626-JAN. 3, 1975 

Public Law 93-626 

AN ACT 

'l'o E"stablh;h the Cunnveral National Seashore in the State of Florida, and for 

other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre.sentatives of tlw 

United States of America in Congres8 a.ssern:bled, That in order to 

preserve and protect the outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, ecologic, 

and historic values of certain lands, shoreline, and waters of the Stat;,. 

of Florida, and to provide for public outdoor recreation use and 

enjoyment of the same, there is hereby established the Canaveral 

National Seashore (hereinafter referred to as the "seashore"), as 

generally depieted on the map entitled "Boundary Map, Canaveral 

National Seashore", dated August 1974 and numbered NS-CAN40,000A. Such seashore shall comprise approximately sixty-seven 

thousam! five hundred acres within the :u·e.a more particularly 

2121 

January 3, 1975 

[H. R. 5773] 

Canav<"ral National Seashore, 

Fla. 

Establishment. 

16 usc 459j. 
APPENDIXES

346 

2122 

U0undr>rv n:-

,·isi•:tns, pul>li• 

tion <n Fedc•retl 

RPgister 

L·•nd acquisilion 

f.<!"P<'rl tr; c-ongr<"~swnal comnutlC'f"S. 

PUBLIC LAW 9:\-626-JAN. 3, 1975 [88 STAT. 

debtribPd hy a lint> beginning at the inte.rse~..~tion of State Highway ;J and State Roafl J0:2, thence gene-rall~y e:tster]y followmg 

State Road 402 to a point one-half mile offshore in the 

Atlantic OcPn.n~ thence northwesterly along a line ·whir.h is at 

Pnch point one-half mile distant from the high wate.r mark to 

Betlnme Beach, tlwnee inla.ml in a gC'nera.lly \W:ster1y direction 

through Tnnter Flats a.nd Shipyard Canal, thence northwesterly to 

the lntr~woa.stal 'Yatenvay, thPncP sontltt'rly along the Intracoast-al 

,V.atE"rway to the. boundary of t.lw Kennedy SpaC'e Cent(·r, thence southwesterly to t:"nit.ed St.atrs Highway 1. tlw.nce southerly along State 

Highwtty 3 to the point of beginning. Tlw boundary map shall he on 

file and available for public inspection in the offief's of the United 

States Fish and \Vildlife Se.rvice :md National Park Service, Department of the Interior~ '\Vashington, District of Columbia. After advising the Committees on Tnt.erior and Trumlar Affairs of the United 

States Congress, in writing, at le.ast sixty davs prior to making any 

boundary revisions, the Sf'rretary may from time to time make minor 

nwisions in the boundarif's of the seashore: by publication of a revised 

map or otlwr boundary deseription in the Federal Regist.Pr: Pro .. vide.d, 

That the total acreage included within thP boundaries shall not t~xeeed 

that enumerab>.rl in this section. 

SEc. 2. VVithin the boundat·ieB of the seA.nshore, the Secretary may 

acquire lands, waters, ami interests t.herE>-in hy donat.ion1 purehase with 

donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or transfer. Any property 

owned by the State of Floridtt or any politic-al subdivision thereof 

may he a~quired only by donation. It is the intent and purpose of this 

Act that the SecrPtary shall have sole rr.ut.horit.y to dt~velop and 

improve those State owned lands donated now and in the future in 

accordance with thr. intent and purposes of this A~t. Notwithstanding 

any othf',r provision of law~ a.uy fedendly owned property within the 

botuH.Iaries of theo. sea~hore may, with the ('OJH'.urrence of the agency 

having custody thereof, be transferred ,~,.,ithout. consideration to the 

administrative jtu-isdict.ion of the Se,crehuv of the Interior and he may 

develop an~ ~(_lm~nist<:_r such l_:~nds, in ,a ~naml~T co!l~ist~·!It ~it:}~ th~ pnrpoSf'.s of tlus Act.. 1 n accPptmg 1anas r.ransrerre.o oy uw 1~ a.uoi:i.a.t 

Aeronautirs a1vl Space .\.dministration pursuant to this Ac.t, t.he 

Se,erPt.ary shall enter into n written cooperative agreeme.nt with the 

A1lministrator to assure the use of such lands in a manner whieh is 

de-emed eonsist.ent with the pnhlie safet.~, and wit.h the nee,ds of the 

spaee and defense prog11nns of the, Nation: Pro1.•ldnl, That. no new 

constrnetion or development shall 00 permitted within the sea .. '!hore, 

excp,pt for the construction of sueh facilities a.s the S(;'..cretary deems 

nec.essu.ry for the health aut..l safdy of the \-isit in!f pnhlic. nr for the 

prop('.J' administrat lun of the. ~Pashor(•: p, Ol'idrd jurtl1u', That. after 

the date of the ennc.tnu-mt of this Ad. the SP(TP.t.n.ry of the Interior, 

in euoperation \Vlt.h the Admini5trator of tht· Katlonal At·ronaut-ic.s 

and Spacf' Adminl,:;:;tratinn . .slwll subn1it to the Commit.tE>rs on Interior 

;md Tnsular Affairs nf tlw Congr('~S awl to the Committee on S(,'icnce 

awl Astronantic~ of tlw TTonsp of Ht~pn'st'ntatives anrl to the C:omrnittee on Aeronantie:1l and Sp:H'P ScieiH'P.S of thP ~enate a rq.~ort of 

:ill lnnd transfers made by thr \'atioll:tl ,_\.ern!mutics and :--lpare 

Adminlstrntion to the fkp:utment of tlH' lntl'rior tllldt>l' this _-\ct. 
Appendix A: Legislation 

347 

88 STAT. l PUBLIC LAW 93-626-JAN. 3. 1'175 2123 

SE~. ;j, (n.) Except for prope1t.y clee-mec1 JH'~'e~sary by the Se,Gretnry 16 usc .t59J-2. 

for v1sitor faeilitie-s, or for acct:>ss to or :ulmiui~tnd ion of the ~r:·nshore. 

any OWilcr (!I' o-wnerti of improYe.d propC'rty on tlu-! datP. of its aequisition by t hr. r'lecretal'y mny, as a conLlition of sth_·h acqnisit.ion. retain for 

thf'mseh't~s iliH.l t br:ir sw·c.e:->:-;ors or assigns a right of nse and oc.eupnnry 

of the improved prope.rt_y for now::omnu:>n·.ial residential purpo~es for 

n dd-inite te.rm not to E'XC'ePd L\W'llt,v-fin::'- ye.urs, or in liPu thereof, for a, 

tt~rm e-nding at the death o£ the owner, or the clenth of his spouse, 

whir.hever is t.lH~ later. The ow1wr sha.ll elect. the. term to be reservPtl. 

Vn1f'ss the prnpPrt.y is whn-lly or p:utially donatNl to t.hr, Cnitecl 

Sr.ate::~. the Secretnry shal1 p:ty to the owner the fa.ir market value of 

t.he prot'erty on the d:dc of such aequisition less t.he fair ma.rket valut>, 

on suelt date of the right. re-tainer! by the owner. 

(b) The Hocrl't.'lry may terminate a. rig-ht of use nnd oec.npaney 

reta.inecl pursnn.ut t.o this &'.ctit1n upon his fleterminn.t.ion that such usc 

n.ncl oc{::.upalH'·.V :is heing extTeiSPd in a ... manner noL consistent with the 

purposes of this ..Act, tlnd upon temler to the holder of the right of an 

amount equal to the fnir market value of that. portion of the right 

\-:·hicJt n'mnins mtexpin~d on the.cln.te of tern1ination. 

(e) Tlw tenn "improved property", a..c; used in this section slw.ll er;:.1_n;,provPd pr<)pllH~ml. ::t detadwd. noncorume.reial residential dwelling, the construction of which w;ts Leg:nn before, ,Janua.ry 1, Hli1 (herenfte.r refe.rred 

h"l rls "dwelling1'), toge,ilwr with so mueh of the land on \vhich the 

chvelli1Jg is situated, the said land being in the same ownexship as t.ht~ 

dwelling, a.s thP Secretary shall designate to be rf'.fl20nab1y necessary 

f(}l' t.hf'. e.njoynJe.nt of the dwelling for the sole purpose of noncomm~r-

~inl resirlent.in 1 liSe, togethrr with any strud.ures, lH'eessary t.o the 

d.we.1ling which are s1tna.te.d on the land so ch·signa.tC'Il. 

(d) Except n.s otherwi~f'. prrnTirl~.•fL the SPcr-etary sha 11 have Hl.e 

itntborit.y to HSe conllemnation a~ a lltt'ans of rr~._·quirlng .'l elf'.'tr and 

ma.rk('tablP title, free of any and all encmnbranee:::. 

SEc. -t The ,'-'et·retn.rv ~hall pl'l'mit ln111ting, fi~hing, anrl trapping Hunting, fishing, 

on hlllds and \Yat.ers m"itlt'r hi.s jurisdiction ,~·ithin thC. boundaries of "n~i t~,~~t~~g';~~'~ts. 

the SPashon' in acconhuH·t~ \Yit.lt tlte apprOJH'iate laws of the Statr. of 

Florida and thr. Pnitrrl SL1te~ to 11w e:xh:.nt.. :1pplieablf': exeept. that 

he may desi~nate. zone~ whPH', and e~tab]j:o;h lJeriocl~ \\ hE'n, no hnntiug. fishing:, nr trapping slmll lw twnnittecl for rvasous of public 

safety, admiui:.::;t.ration. fish llllfl ''"i1dh.t't:> mana~1?nw.nt, public. u2e. a1Hl 

enjoynwnt, proh~1·t.ion of t.he rt'.sour('e, or competing publi('. use. Exr.t:>pt 

in eme.rgpncies, any regulations presnihing any su(_'.h restriet ions shall 

be put il.tt.o effp,ct, only after ~_·onsultation \Yith t.he appropriate StatP 

agC'IlC'.y n·svon:::ih1P fnr lumt.ing, fi~hir1g, and trapping activities. 

SF-c. fl (a) The S(•.ashore. shalllw admini~tPrP.-1., proteetcd, and df:'\'!:"1- Admtni,tr .. tiun 

opecl in a<:r·.ordancp, with tlw provisjons of the .A.ct of ,\ngu.--t 2.'\ 1916 16 usc 45 "i- 4 

( :w :--;1 at.. :~:~::-1; If-; 1_~ .~.C. 1.. ~----!). n :-- amP.ndPd and ~uppl('Jllente<l, ex(·('pt. 

that rmv otllt·r st.a.t.nt.orv ant.hority available to lhl~ Se1TE'btry for the 

consPrv{ttlon IIHlnagemc:nt of nahlrnl resoul'CPS may be ntiliz.Pd to thP 

t>.xtr-nt. he finds ::;w:·l1 :111thority will fnrthtT lhP pnq>nsP~ of thp Act.. 

{b) Notwithstanding any otiwr provl::;ions of this Aet~ lands and 

WR.tt>r::-: in the .Merritt Island :\ational \Vildlifc Hrfng;e a., de::wrilwfl 

in sul*''i•etinn {t') {~) of this section which an• pari of the se<:tc.·dwre 

shall lw. adrninistPrNl for refuge pnrposrs t.hrongh thP. lTnited ~tat.e.s 

Fish and \.Vildlift> Servict> pu~na.nt. to the ~at.ional VVih.l1ife Hefugv 
APPENDIXES

348 

2124 

Sj.'P""'ard L 

Hd!.Jnd \'lSI\or 

Cr-nt<'t. dP<:IILI\a• 

110n. 

<an~vcraJ Na" 

t•r·n<>l s,.. .. ~h"''"" 

Adv!SLlt"'J Cr•mm1s-

~srohlrs.h"'''''t 

11:. USC ·F'J;-~ 

PUBLIC LAW 93-626-JAN. 3, 1975 [88 STAT. 

~V-"'itf'.m Administration Act, as anw.nded (80 ~tat. U~i); 16 lT.S.C. 

fi(iB(ld-6().1-ieP), exrept that the. St:'cr~._•tary nwy utilize. snell additional 

authority as may be available to him for the conseryutwll a.nd management of wildlif~) and natural resources, tlw d.eYelopnH.'nt. of outdoor 

re~r('ation opprn·tunit.ies, and iut.erprrt.iYc educ.ation as he deems 

appropriate, eon::;isteut with the prest..•n·a.tion of nat.nra.l a11d wildlife 

value,5. 

(c) Thl' Secrf't.ary shallea.nse to be issued a wr-11 deJineU division of 

man:lg;ement. autho.rity Letween the :National Park S<~t·vice and the 

United ~tates Fish a.ncl '\Vildlife-. Sen·i<.:e. It ls the intL·.nt itnd \lUrpose 

of this Act. that. such mnnagement authorit)\ geni-'rally, ~hll l be as 

follows: 

(1) The NjJional Park Servi('e shall administf'r those lands and 

wn.tf'rs described as follows: beginning at t.lH'- lntPrsertion of ::-;tate 

Highway :1 and State Road 402; thence easterly alfmg State Road ·!02 

and continuing easterly in a straight line to a point one-half mile offshore in the Atlantic Oc.ean, followmg the southern bonndar,y of the seashore, creat€d iu section 1; thence. northwesterly alollf!' the bountlary 

of tJ1e seashore \.reated in section 1, which line is at Padt point ont>.-

half mile distance from the high v,:ater mark, to Bet.hun(· Bt·.ach; 

thence inland in a generall.v westerly direction through Turner Flats 

and .Shipyard Canal; thence northwe-Bt.erly to the Intracoastal \Va.t.erway; thence southerly along the Intracoastal \Va.terwa.y to the 

boundary of the KP-Imedy Spaee Center; then southwesterly to Pnitf'.d 

States Highway 1; thence southerly along .State Highwtty ~ to the 

nort-hern boundary of H. 1\:f. Gomez Grant; thencp past.erly along the 

northern boundary of H. M. Gomez Grant and. cont.inuing easterly 

in a straight line to a point of int.ersPdion with the line bel ween the 

marsh a.nd the dunes; thence southerl.Y along the line between the 

marsh and the dunp.-.s to a point approximately one-half milf' north of 

the southern boundary of the seashore crea.te.d in section 1 ; thence 

westerly in a straight line to connect with and to follow the f+overr~­

ment Railroad to its int.e-rse,ction with State Highway ;-3; thf'-nce 

southerly along State Highwtty 3 to the point of lwginning. The 

pnrtion of land bounded by the nort.he.rn boundary of the H. l\1. Gmnez 

Grant is hereby transfern-\d to the Seeretary of the Int.{'rior and may 

LC'- used for the J?Urpose ol establishing surh facilities as are TIPPrled for 

the administratiOn of the sea.shore1 for the. eonstruetion of thf'. principal 

visitor center which shall be designated as the "Spt>-:->sard L. Holland 

Visitor (\mter'', and for a rP.nt.ral access to the spashorC': Prom/led, hou•o•er~ That the. Secretary of the Int-erior, upon thP rPque>st of the 

Administrator of the National AeronauticH aiHl Spare Arlmini~trntion, 

shall dose this area or any part thereof to the public when neres.c;ary 

for spac~ operations. In arlmmist.<·.ring tlw f;horPlllle and arijarent. lands 

the t'e-<_Tf>t.ary shall retain sueh lands in tlwir natural and primitive 

r.ondition, shall prohibit vPhic.ular traflic on the be.aeh C'XC<'pt for 

administ.nttive. purposes, and shn.Il develop only those faeilitit·R which 

he deL•rns essential for public health and safr~t.v. 

(:!) Tho Unit~.d Sta(<>S Fish and Wildlife Servic.e shall admini,ter 

t.he remaining lands described in section 1 of t.he Act. 

S>c. (l. (a) There is hereby established the Canaveral National Seashore. Addsory Commission which shall consult and advise with the 

Sec.re-tary on all matters o£ planning, developnu~nt,, R.t1d operation of 
Appendix A: Legislation 

349 

88 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 93-626-JAN. 3, 1975 

the seashore awl shall provide such otlli'r ach·ict~ and assist a nee as may 

be Uf;eful in carrying out t.he purposes of this Ac.t.. The Commission 

~ha.Jl t('rminate. ten ye.ars after the datP the Sl•ashore is established pursHant to tltis Ad, unless extended by t hf'. Congre.ss. The Commission 

shall be composed of five members who shall servt> for terms of t.vro 

years. )!embers shall be appointed by the Secretary, one of \Yhom he 

!:l-hall desigPatt> as C:hainna11, in the following manner; 

( 1) one member from each eountv in which the st>ashore is 

located, to b('. selecte.d from recomnu::'tldations made by tlH' county 

commission in each county; 

(2) two members representing the State of Florida \vhosha.ll bt' 

se.lected frorn recomnw.nda.tions mn<le by the Governor of Florida; 

aitd · 

( 3) one meml)(~l' representing the general pnbli<:. 

(h) .\fter the Secretary designah\s Uw mentbE'r to lw. Chairman, the 

Commission may meet as often as necessary at the rall of the Chairman 

or of the Secret':try, or upon petition of a 'majority of the memlX'rs of 

tlw Commission. Anv \Tacancv in the Commission shall he, filled in 

tht- ,.;arne mantwr a.s ihe orlgillal ap\)()int.ment was made. 

(c) Members of the Commission stall serve without compensation, 

as such. lmt the Secretary may pay, upon vouchers si_5Q.ted by the 

Chairman, the expenses reasonably ineurred by the Cominrssion and its 

members in carrying out their responsibilit.i{'s under this section. 

SEc. 7. Cpon ena.etmt>nt of this Act, those lanrls toLe use<l for the. 

allministra.t.ive and visitor facilities deseribed in sect.ion 5 (c) ( 1) shall 

be transfen·Nl by this Act to the St>.cretarv of the Inter·ior and those 

portions of the ~.John F. Kennedy Spacf:·center falling within the 

houncltu·ies of the. seashore as defined in sPetion 1 of this Act shall 

become a part o£ the ~ea.slwre, ancl within ninety days thereafter, the 

~\.dministrator, National Atcronautics and Spac(', .Administration, shall 

gmnt to the St'cretary for canying out tlw intent and purpose of this 

Act such ust~ of said portions as tlw Administrator detennines is not 

i1wonsistent \vitb public sa,frty and the nt'f'ds of the spRee nnd defense 

programs of the ~ation. Notwit-hstanding any other provision of law, 

any lands wit.hin the seashor·<' .... vhieh the Administrator dPtermines to 

he 'exee_ss to the needs nf such age.n<~Y shall he transferrPd to t.hr, See· 

retary of the TntPrior for ai.lminist.ration in acrorda.nci:' with tht> pro·· 

visions of this Act: P.l'Ot'idcd. Thut any portions of the John F. 

~t>nnedy Spaet• CentPr within the soashore not t.ra.nsfened to tht> 

Secretary sha.ll remain undE'r the control and jurisdiction of t.Jw 

Adtninistrat.nr. 

R~<x. S. \Vithin thrPt' vears frPm the datP. of e·nactment of this Ad, 

the SPcret.arv shall rPvie.w t.hP, fU'ea. within tht'- seashore and sha.ll report 

to thP President, in !lc-eordance with sed.ion 3 (e) and (d) of thf' 

Wil<kmess Act ( 78 Stat. 8Pl; ln 1:.s.c. 11~2 (") and ( cl)), his n·commeuda.tions a!:' to the suih-1hilit:v or nonsuitability of any :tre.a within t.he 

seashore for preservation as ~vilderness. and a.ny (h·Signation of anv 

sueh a.rl?a.s a.s a wildt:'nw~ shall l)t• ac.~~omplished in aecorllance with 

said subsedions oft ht> \Vildl?:rne.-;s Ad .. 

SEc. 9. (a) There an· hereby authorizPt] to be appropriat<:>.d sueh 

sums as may bt:> necessary to carry out the pnr-poses of this Art, but 

not fnore than ~7.941,000 for the acquisition of lands ttnd int.erf'.xts in 

lands. In order to avoid ~~xres..<;i\'t> costs rt>sulting from dela:v~ in the 

ac-q11isit.ion progra.m, the SPcrl'tary Rha.ll makP, t>ver~· rPasonahlf' efl'ort 

to l'tumptly !lN]llin' the printb..'ly ownt>d lands within thi' sP:ashor('. 

Cnt.il ::tll such l:tnd,; are aequirC'd, lw ~hall report. in ,.,Tiling on ,June ;}0 

of Padt year tc tht> Committees on Tnt('rior and Insnlar Affairs of the 

PnitNl ~HatPs Congrt>ss. tlw follo\\'ing i11formation: 

2125 

T.ormination. 

Tran,;fer of 

lands. 

16 usc 459j-6. 

Report !" Pr .. ~­

tdent. 

16 USC 4S9j-7 

R"port!. tc> con· 

gresSJunal 'OtnnnttPP s 
APPENDIXES

350 

2126 

s~"shurc- dt'vf'l· 

<>pn>•'ll( plan, 

transmitt<d \0 

congr"~si·:>nal 

cornrr:tttet'S. 

PUBLIC LAW 93-627-JAN. 3, 1975 [88 STAT. 

(J) the amount of lanrl acquirerl during the <'1\lTt'lll fiseal 

yE>ar and t.he amount expr:nded therf'for; 

(2) the amount of land remaining to be at·.quired; and 

(3) the amonnt of land programed for acquisition JIJ the 

Pnsuing fiscal vear and t.he estirnated eo~t thf'reof. 

(b) For~ t.he dPvelopment. of t>ssent.ial pnbli(: f aeilitit>;:; there are 

authorized to lw. appropriated not morP than $300,000. \Vithin three. 

years from thP date of the rnaetment o[ this Aet., the Secretary shall 

(levelop and transmit to the C'mnmittees on Interior and Insnlar Affairs 

of the United Statf',s Congre~s a final mast.E'r plan for· the fnlJ development of the seashore tonsistE'nt with tlw prese.rvation objectives of 

this Act 1 indicating: 

(1) the facilities neeOed to accommodate Uw h~:•.alth, safety, 

and recreation needs of the visiting publici 

(2) the location and estimated cost of all facilities; and 

(3) the projected need for any aJditional facilities within the 

seashore. 

Approved ,January 8, 1975. 
Appendix A: Legislation 

351 

626 

102 STAT. 2831 

Oct. 31, 1988 

!H.R. 3559] 

Florida. 

16 usc 459j-1 

note. 

16 usc 459j-1 

note. 

Historic 

preservation. 

16 usc 459j-l 

note. 

Public 

information 

NATIONAL SEASHORES 

2. Canaveral 

PUBLIC LAW 100-564-0CT. 31, 1988 

Public Law 100-564 

1 OOth Congress 

An Act 

To authorize and direct the acquisition of lands for Canaveral National Seashore, 

and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADDITIONS TO CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE. 

(a) SEMINOLE REST AND STUCKEY'S.-

(1) The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this Act referred 

to as the Secretary") is authorized and directed to acquire 

approximately 25 acres of land in the State of Florida known as Seminole Rest and approximately 10 acres of land known as Stuckefs. Both areas are depicted on a map entitled "Additions to 

Canaveral National Seashore" numbered NS-CAN-40000-C and 

dated May 1988. 

(2) The Secretary shall manage the lands known as Seminole 

Rest for the primary purpose of protecting and interpreting their 

archaeological and historic resources and the lands known as Stuckey's for the primary purpose of establishing an administrative headquarters and visitor center within Volusia 

County, Florida. 

(b) ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.-Land acquired under this section 

may only be acquired in accordance with section 2 of the Act entitled 

"An Act to establish the Canaveral National Seashore in the State of 

Florida, and for other purposes" (16 U.S.C. 459j-1). 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT 

OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES. 

Section 9(b) of the Act entitled "An Act to establish the Canaveral 

National Seashore in the State of Florida, and for other purposes" (16 

U.S.C. 459j-8) is amended by striking out "not more than $500,000." 

and inserting in lieu thereof "$2.6 million in addition to the sums previously appropriated.". 

SEC. 3. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 

(a) MAP.-The Secretary shall file the map referred to in this Act 

with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of 

Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, Senate, and the map shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except that correction of clerical and 

typographical errors in such map may be made. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Director of 

the National Park Service, Department ofthe Interior. 
APPENDIXES

352 

NATIONAL SEASHORES 

PUBLIC LAW 100-564-0CT. 31, 1988 

(b) AUTHORIZATIO:-.J OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are authorized to 

be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

acquisitions authorized by this Act. 

Approved October 31, 1988. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY H.R. 3559: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 100-695 (Comm. on Iuterior and Insular Affairs) 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 100.....534 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 134 (1988): 

,June 20, considered and passed House. Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

627 

102 STAT. 2832 
353 

APPENDIX B: DESIRED CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

FOR THE NATIONAL SEASHORE 

This section focuses on desired conditions and 

strategies to guide management of Canaveral 

National Seashore in all alternatives, including 

the no-action alternative. They guide actions 

taken by NPS staff on such topics as natural 

and cultural resource management, NPS 

facilities, and visitor use management. Each 

topic discussed below in table format has three 

key parts: (a) desired conditions for that topic, 

(b) a list of associated law or policy sources, 

and (c) broad management strategies that may 

be used to achieve those desired conditions. 

Desired conditions articulate the ideal conditions the National Park Service is striving to 

attain. Desired conditions provide guidance 

for fulfilling the national seashore’s purpose 

and for protecting the national seashore’s 

fundamental resources and values on a 

national seashore-wide basis. 

The associated strategies describe actions that 

could be used by the National Park Service 

(and/or its partners) to achieve the desired 

conditions. This is not an exhaustive list of 

management strategies. As new ideas, 

technologies, and opportunities arise, they 

would be considered if they further support 

achieving the desired condition. 

Although attaining some conditions set forth in 

these laws and policies and strategies may have 

been temporarily deferred in a national park 

system unit because of funding or staffing 

limitations, the National Park Service would 

continue to strive to implement these 

requirements with or without a new 

management plan. 
APPENDIXES

354 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (terrestrial and marine) 

Desired Conditions Sources 

The national seashore is managed holistically, as part of a 

greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. 

• NPS Management Policies 2006

• NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies 

 Continue to seek cooperative agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, and other adjacent land-managing agencies to protect ecosystem habitat and wildlife. 

 Continue to develop cooperative agreements, partnerships, and other feasible arrangements to set an example 

in resource conservation and innovation, and to facilitate research related to national seashore resources and 

their management. 

 Work collaboratively with the landowners inside and outside the national seashore to protect viewsheds leading 

into, within, and seen from inside the national seashore. Use cooperative agreements, conservation easements, 

donation, land exchanges, cooperatively produced management plans, or other tools to accomplish viewshed 

protection. 

 Inventory all ecosystem components and determine limits of natural system variation (baseline condition). 

 Monitor system dynamics to detect abnormal changes in time to affect remedial actions. 

 Maintain and restore all components and processes of naturally evolving ecosystems, recognizing that change 

caused by extreme natural events such as hurricanes are an integral part of functioning natural systems. 

 Maintain natural genetic diversity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. 

 Maintain or improve air and water qualities that affect terrestrial and marine ecosystems. 

 Protect and restore threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. 

 Regulate and mitigate human activities to minimize adverse impacts. 

 Educate visitors about the importance and fragility of terrestrial and marine resources, threats to them, and 

mitigation to lessen impacts. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Desired Conditions Sources 

National seashore fire management programs are 

designed to meet resource management objectives 

prescribed for the various areas of the national seashore. 

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering 

resource values to be protected and firefighter and public 

safety, using the full range of strategic and tactical 

operations as described in an approved fire management 

plan. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 2007 Canaveral National Seashore Fire Management 

Plan 

Management Strategies 

 Maintain a current fire management plan to reflect changes in wildland fire policy, fire use applications, and the 

body of knowledge on fire effects within the national seashore’s vegetation types. 

 Maintain a cooperative agreement for fire suppression with appropriate federal, tribal, state, and local agencies 

and organizations. 

 Provide information on whether specified objectives for prescribed fires are met. Institute monitoring programs 

for such fires to record fire behavior, smoke behavior, decisions, and fire effects. 

 Use fire as a management tool to maintain native plant communities and control nonnative species. 

 Provide visitors information so that they can learn the role of fire in the ecosystem. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

355 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Desired Conditions Sources

Federal and state listed threatened and endangered 

species and their habitats are protected and sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations 

that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the 

national seashore are restored where feasible and 

sustainable. 

 Endangered Species Act 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 

 Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act 

 Coastal Zone Management Act 

 Florida State Protective Legislation 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Support research that contributes to management knowledge of special status species and their habitat. 

 Complete an inventory of rare or protected plants and animals in the national seashore and regularly monitor 

the distribution and condition (e.g., health, disease). Modify management plans to be more effective based on 

the results of monitoring. 

 Cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that NPS actions 

comply with the Endangered Species Act. 

 Protect and strive to recover all species native and their habitats to the national seashore that are listed under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

 Participate in the recovery planning process when appropriate. 

 Manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for 

listed species. 

NONNATIVE SPECIES

Desired Conditions Sources

The management of populations of exotic plant and 

animal species, up to and including eradication, are 

undertaken wherever such species threaten national 

seashore resources or public health and when control is 

prudent and feasible. 

 Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species” 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Complete an inventory of plants and animals in the national seashore and regularly monitor the distribution and 

condition (e.g., health, disease) of selected species that are (a) invasive exotics or (b) native species capable of 

creating resource problems (e.g., habitat decline due to overpopulation). 

 Assess the methods by which exotic species become established and spread into native plant communities so 

that strategies for preventing introduction and establishment can be developed and implemented. Study the 

environmental and ecological effects of exotic species invasion to assess threats, develop a long-term program 

for reversing threats, and prioritize management actions. 

 Control or eliminate nonnative plants and animals, exotic diseases, and pest species where there is a reasonable 

expectation of success and sustainability. 

 Manage exclusively for native plant species in pristine and primitive management areas. In other management 

areas, limit planting of nonnative species to noninvasive plants that are justified by the historic scene or 

operational needs. 

 Provide interpretive and educational programs on preservation of native species for visitors and neighbors. 
APPENDIXES

356 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

Desired Conditions Sources

The national seashore’s geologic processes and resources 

are preserved and protected as integral components of 

the natural systems. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Assess the impacts of natural processes and human-related events on geologic processes and resources. 

 Maintain and restore the integrity of existing geologic processes and resources. 

 Integrate geologic resources management into national seashore operations and planning. 

 Develop a plan to address geologic research, inventory, and monitoring. 

 Prepare a geologic inventory, including the identification of the significant geologic processes that shape 

national seashore ecosystems and the identification of the human influences on those geologic processes (i.e., 

the identification of geologic hazards; inventory of type sections or type localities within the national seashore; 

“textbook” localities that provide particularly good or well-exposed examples of geologic features or events and 

that may warrant special protection or interpretive efforts; and identification of interpretive themes or other 

opportunities for interpreting the significant geologic events or processes that are preserved, exposed, or occur 

in the national seashore). 

 Update geologic map of the national seashore in digital format that can be used in the national seashore’s 

geographic information system (GIS). 

 Update geologic interpretations of localities that are the subject of interpretive stops or displays, and develop 

programs to educate visitors about geologic processes and resources. 

SOILS

Desired Conditions Sources

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand 

and preserve the soil resources of the national seashore, 

and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural 

erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or 

its contamination of other resources. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as 

natural a condition as possible, except where special 

considerations are allowable under policy. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Collect baseline information on soils. 

 Update soils map of the national seashore in digital format that can be used in the national seashore’s 

geographic information system (GIS). 

 Take actions to prevent or minimize adverse, potentially irreversible impacts on soils and implement soil 

conservation and soil amendment practices to reduce impacts as appropriate. 

 Minimize soil excavation, erosion, and off-site soil migration during and after any ground-disturbing activity. 

 Survey areas of the national seashore with soil resource problems and take actions appropriate to prevent or 

minimize further erosion, compaction, or deposition. 

 Apply effective best management practices to problem soil erosion and compaction areas in a manner that stops 

or minimizes erosion, restores soil productivity, and reestablishes or sustains a self-perpetuating vegetation 

cover. 

 Whenever possible, educate visitors about soils. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

357 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

WATER RESOURCES

Desired Conditions Sources

Surface water and groundwater are protected and water 

quality meets or exceeds all applicable water quality 

standards. 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are 

maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface 

water and groundwater. 

 Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11514, 

“Protection and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality” 

 Clean Water Act; Executive Order 12088, “Federal 

Compliance with Pollution Control Standards,” 

 Rivers and Harbors Act 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Work with appropriate governmental bodies to obtain the highest possible water quality standards available 

under the Clean Water Act. Continue to follow the recommendations of the 1996 Indian River Lagoon 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 

 Cooperate with other government agencies to maintain and/or restore the quality of national seashore water 

resources. 

 Take all necessary actions to maintain or restore the quality of surface and ground waters in the national 

seashore consistent with the Clean Water Act. 

 Study the effects of the water quality on aquatic life. 

 Promote water conservation by the National Park Service, concessioners, visitors, and national seashore 

neighbors. 

 Apply best management practices to all pollution-generating activities and facilities in the national seashore, 

such as NPS maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas. 

 Minimize the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals and manage them in keeping with NPS policy and 

federal regulations. 

 Continue to monitor the effects of visitor use. 

 Continue to assess stormwater runoff. 

 Promote greater public understanding of water resource issues at the national seashore, and encourage public 

support for and participation in protecting the Mosquito Lagoon watershed. 

 Continue NPS water quality monitoring program and participation in watershed councils. 
APPENDIXES

358 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

WETLANDS

Desired Conditions Sources

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are 

preserved and enhanced. 

The National Park Service implements a “no net loss of 

wetlands” policy and strives to achieve a longer-term 

goal of net gain of wetlands across the national park 

system through the restoration of previously degraded 

wetlands. 

The National Park Service avoids to the extent possible 

the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the destruction or modification of wetlands and avoids 

direct or indirect support of new construction in 

wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

The National Park Service compensates for remaining 

unavoidable adverse impacts on wetlands by restoring 

wetlands that have been previously degraded. 

 Clean Water Act 

 Rivers and Harbors Act 

 Executive Order 11514, “Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality” 

 Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” 

 “Protecting America’s Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible, and 

Effective Approach,” White House Office on 

Environmental Policy, 1993 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection

Management Strategies

 Conduct or obtain national seashore-wide wetland inventories to ensure proper planning, management, and 

protection of wetlands. 

 Locate all facilities to avoid wetlands if feasible. If avoiding wetlands is not feasible, take other actions to comply 

with Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, the Clean Water Act, and Director’s Order 77-1: 

Wetland Protection. 

 Prepare a Statement of Findings for wetlands if the NPS actions would result in adverse impacts on wetlands. 

Include in the Statement of Findings an analysis of the alternatives, a delineation of the wetland, a wetland 

restoration plan to identify mitigation, and a wetland functional analysis of the impact site and restoration site. 

 Enhance natural wetland values by using them for educational and scientific purposes that do not disrupt 

natural wetland functions. 

 If natural wetland functions have been degraded or lost because of human action, work to restore wetlands to 

predisturbance conditions, to the extent practicable. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

359 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

FLOODPLAINS

Desired Conditions Sources

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. 

Long- and short-term environmental effects associated 

with the occupancy and modification of the floodplain 

are avoided. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate 

development or inappropriate human activities to a site 

outside the floodplain or where the floodplain would be 

affected, the National Park Service. 

 prepares and approves a “Statement of Findings” in 

accordance with Director’s Order 77-2 

 uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable 

to reduce hazards to human life and property while 

minimizing impacts on the natural resources of 

floodplains 

 ensures that structures and facilities are designed to 

be consistent with the intent of the standards and 

criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 

CFR 60) 

 Rivers and Harbors Act 

 Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” 

 Special Directive 93-4 “Floodplain Management, 

Revised Guidelines for National Park Service 

Floodplain Compliance” (1993) 

 National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60) 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain Management

Management Strategies

 Continue to follow the recommendations of the 1996 Indian River Lagoon comprehensive conservation and 

management plan. 

 Establish flood awareness, preparedness, and warning system plans as necessary. 

 Make national seashore visitors aware of hazards associated with flash flooding and inform visitors what to do in 

such situations. 

 Avoid development and location of visitor activities in floodplains to the extent practicable. 
APPENDIXES

360 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

AIR QUALITY

Canaveral National Seashore is classified as a class II area under the Clean Air Act. This classification is the secondmost stringent and is designed to prevent air quality degradation. Air quality is monitored by the state of Florida at a 

number of stations outside by the national seashore. 

Desired Conditions Sources

Good to excellent air quality is maintained. Scenic views, 

both day and night, are protected and unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of current and future visitors. 

 Clean Air Act 

 Florida State Air Regulations 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS 77: Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual 77 

Management Strategies

 Although the National Park Service has very little direct control over air quality in the air shed encompassing the 

national seashore, national seashore managers would continue to cooperate with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), Commission on Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency on air quality issues. 

 Minimize air quality pollution emissions associated with national seashore operations, including the use of 

prescribed fire and visitor use activities. 

 Ensure healthful indoor air quality at NPS facilities. 

 Participate in federal, regional, and local air pollution control plans and in drafting regulations and reviewing 

permit applications for major new air pollution sources. 

 Develop educational programs to inform visitors and regional residents about the threats of air pollution. 

 Form regional partnerships to develop alternative transportation systems and promote clean fuels. 

 Participate in research on air quality and effects of air pollution. Determine changes in national seashore 

ecosystem functions caused by atmospheric deposition and assess the resistance and resilience of native 

ecosystems in the face of these external factors. 

NIGHT SKY

Desired Conditions Sources

Excellent opportunities to see the night sky are available. 

Artificial light sources both within and outside the 

national seashore do not unacceptably adversely affect 

native species (such as sea turtle nesting and hatchlings) 

or visitor’s opportunities to see the night sky. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

Management Strategies

 Cooperate with visitors, neighbors, and local government agencies to find ways to prevent or minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light into the night scene in the national seashore. 

 In natural areas, limit artificial outdoor lighting to basic safety requirements and use shielding when possible. 

 Evaluate the impacts on the night sky caused by national seashore facilities. If light sources are affecting night 

skies, study alternatives such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or eliminating unnecessary sources. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

361 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES

An important part of the NPS mission is to preserve or restore the natural soundscapes associated with national park 

system units. The sounds of nature are among the intrinsic elements that combine to form the environment of our 

national park system units. Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

seashore: 

Desired Conditions Sources

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient 

soundscapes, restores degraded soundscapes to the 

natural ambient condition wherever possible, and 

protects natural soundscapes from degradation due to 

human-caused noise.

Noise sources are managed to preserve or restore the 

natural soundscape. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 47: Sound Preservation and Noise 

Management 

 Executive Memorandum signed by President Clinton 

on April 22, 1996 

Management Strategies

 Monitor and minimize or prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect national seashore resources 

or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. 

 Minimize noise generated by NPS management activities by strictly regulating administrative functions—such as 

the use of motorized equipment. Consider noise in the procurement and use of equipment by NPS staff. 

 Encourage visitors to avoid unnecessary noise, such as the use of generators and maintaining quiet hours in the 

campgrounds. 

 Disruptions from recreational uses are managed to provide a high quality visitor experience in an effort to 

preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural sounds. 
APPENDIXES

362 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Desired Conditions Sources

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and 

their significance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed 

condition unless it is determined through formal 

processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and 

excavated, and the resulting artifacts, materials, and 

records are curated and conserved in consultation with 

the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer and 

affiliated American Indian tribes, as appropriate. Some 

archeological sites that can be adequately protected may 

be interpreted to visitors. 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended; sections. 106 and 110 

 Executive Order 11593 

 Archeological Resources Protection Act 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act 

 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation 

 2008 Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

among the National Park Service, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Council of State Historic Preservation Officers 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

and NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline (1998) 

Management Strategies

 Complete national seashore-wide archeological resource inventory, including within the marine environment. 

Document and evaluate archeological resources for their National Register of Historic Places eligibility. The most 

critical area for study is land where development or visitor activity is planned. 

 Determine which archeological sites should be added to the Archeological Sites Management Information 

System (ASMIS). 

 Initiate a program of evaluation and nomination for those properties believed to be eligible for inclusion in the 

national register and/or for properties that have had a consensus determination of eligibility already made. 

 Educate visitors on regulations governing archeological resources, encouraging them through the national 

seashore’s interpretive programs to respect such resources and leave them undisturbed. Monitor and assess the 

condition of known archeological sites. Develop and implement stabilization strategies for sites being threatened 

or destroyed. 

 Treat all archeological resources as eligible for listing in the national register pending a formal determination of 

their significance by the National Park Service, the Florida state historic preservation office, and associated Indian 

tribes. 

 Protect all archeological resources eligible for inclusion in or listed in the national register. Design facilities to 

avoid known or suspected archeological resources. If disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct 

formal consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as appropriate, and the Florida state 

historic preservation office and Indian tribes in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

2008 NPS Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. 

 Conduct data recovery excavations at archeological sites only where protection or site avoidance during design 

and construction is infeasible. Should archeological resources be discovered following mitigation and during 

construction, stop work in that location until consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, 

consistent with 36 CFR Part 800, has been completed. 

 Limit archeological research to sites that are in imminent or identifiable danger of destruction through natural 

causes or as the result of development actions. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

363 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC STRUCTURES

Desired Conditions Sources

Prehistoric and historic structures are inventoried, and the 

significance and integrity are evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria. Qualities that 

contribute to their listing in, or eligibility for listing in, the 

national register are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, unless it is 

determined through formal processes that disturbance or 

natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended; sections 106 and 110 

 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines 

for Archeology and Historic Preservation 

 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties 

 2008 Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

Among the National Park Service, Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and National Council of 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

and NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline (1998) 

Management Strategies

 Update and certify the national seashore’s List of Classified Structures. 

 Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of all prehistoric and historic structures under national register 

criteria. 

 Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the Florida state historic preservation officer and the Keeper of the 

National Register of Historic Places with recommendations for eligibility for listing in the national register. 

 Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic property listed in, or determined eligible for 

listing in, the national register, subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and in consultation with the 

Florida state historic preservation officer. 

 Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation treatment for such properties. 

 Analyze the design elements of prehistoric and historic structures in the national seashore to guide rehabilitation 

and preservation treatment of such properties. 

 Get additional information on and interpret the historic African American communities at Clifton and Allenhurst. 
APPENDIXES

364 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

According to Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, a cultural landscape is 

a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural resources and is often expressed in the way land is 

organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of 

structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such 

as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values and traditions. 

Desired Conditions Sources

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify 

landscapes potentially eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and to assist in future 

management decisions for landscapes and associated 

resources, both cultural and natural. 

Management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving 

the landscape’s physical attributes, biotic systems, and use 

when that use contributes to its historic significance. 

Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction 

of cultural landscapes is undertaken in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. 

 National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation implementing 

regulations 

 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management 

and NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline (1998) 

Management Strategies

 Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of cultural landscapes under national register criteria. 

 Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the Florida state historic preservation officer and the Keeper of the 

National Register of Historic Places with recommendations for eligibility for listing in the national register. 

 Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each cultural landscape listed in, or determined eligible for 

listing in, the national register, subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and in consultation with the 

Florida state historic preservation officer. 

 Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation treatment for such cultural landscapes. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

365 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

Desired Conditions Sources

All museum collections (objects, specimens, and 

manuscript collections) are identified and inventoried, 

catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, and 

provision is made for access to and use of the collections 

for exhibits, research, and interpretation. 

 National Historic Preservation Act 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

 Archeological Resources Protection Act 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

and NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline (1998) 

 NPS Museum Handbook, Parts I and II 

Management Strategies

 Inventory and catalog all national seashore museum collections and those under NASA Kennedy Space Center 

loan agreements in accordance with NPS standards. 

 Use NPS standards and guidelines on the display and care of artifacts; plan for exhibit areas facilities that are 

sufficient to meet current curatorial standards. 

 Protect the qualities that contribute to the significance of collections in accordance with established standards. 

 Identify, inventory, catalogue, document, preserve, and protect all museum objects and manuscripts and make 

them available to use for exhibits, except irreplaceable items that would not be displayed or stored at the 

national seashore. 
APPENDIXES

366 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Desired Conditions Sources

Contemporary affiliated American Indian and other 

communities are permitted by law, regulation, or policy to 

pursue customary religious, subsistence, and other 

cultural uses of national seashore resources with which 

they are traditionally associated. Recognizing that 

resource protection mandates affect human use and the 

cultural context of national seashore resources, the 

National Park Service plans and executes programs in 

ways that safeguard cultural and natural resources while 

reflecting informed concern for contemporary peoples 

and cultures traditionally associated with them. 

The National Park Service and tribes that are culturally 

affiliated with the national seashore maintain positive, 

productive, government-to-government relationships. NPS 

managers and staff respect the viewpoints and needs of 

the tribes, continue to promptly address conflicts that 

occur, and consider American Indian values in national 

seashore management and operation. 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, and Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act 

 Executive Order 13007, “American Indian Sacred 

Sites” 

 Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on 

Government-to-Government Tribal Relations 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management

and NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline (1998), National Environmental Policy Act 

 NPS Organic Act of 1916 

 Archeological Resources Protection Act 

Management Strategies

 Complete an ethnographic overview and assessment of the national seashore, including the historic African 

American communities at Clifton and Allenhurst. Provide interpretation, if appropriate. 

 Consult periodically with affiliated American Indian tribes regarding management of cultural resources. 

 Continue to provide access to sacred sites and national seashore resources by American Indians when the use is 

consistent with seashore purposes and the protection of resources. 

 Treat all ethnographic resources as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places pending a formal 

determination by the Florida state historic preservation officer as to their significance. 

 Protect all ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing in, or listed in, the national register; if 

disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the Florida state historic 

preservation officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and affiliated tribes as appropriate, in 

accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

 Conduct regular consultations with affiliated tribes to continue to improve communications and resolve any 

problems or misunderstandings that occur. 

 Provide for access to, and use of, natural and cultural resources in the national seashore and collections by 

American Indians that are consistent with national seashore purposes; do not unreasonably interfere with 

American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources, and do not degrade national seashore resources. 

 Encourage employment of American Indians on the national seashore staff to improve communications and 

working relationships, and encourage cultural diversity in the workplace. 

 Continue to cooperate with tribes in conducting ethnographic studies to better understand which tribes are 

culturally affiliated with the national seashore and identify culturally significant resources. 

 Continue regular consultations with affiliated tribes to improve communications and resolve any problems or 

misunderstandings. 

 Consider culturally affiliated tribal values in efforts to improve overall management and interpretation. 

 Implement a joint monitoring program to monitor potential impacts on ethnographic resources. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

367 

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

VISITOR USE

Current laws, regulations, and policies leave considerable room for judgment about the best mix of types and levels 

of visitor use activities, programs, and facilities. For this reason, most decisions related to visitor use are addressed in 

the alternatives. However, all visitor use of national park system units must be consistent with the following 

guidelines. 

Desired Conditions Sources

National seashore resources are conserved “unimpaired” 

for the enjoyment of future generations. Visitors have 

opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely 

suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and 

cultural resources found in the national seashore. No 

activities occur that would cause derogation of the values 

and purposes for which the national seashore has been 

established. 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management 

divisions within a national park system unit, the types 

and levels of visitor use are consistent with the desired 

resource and visitor experience conditions prescribed for 

those areas. 

Visitors would have opportunities to understand and 

appreciate the significance of the national seashore and 

its resources, and to develop a personal stewardship 

ethic by directly relating to the resources. 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities in 

the national seashore are accessible to and usable by all 

people, including those with disabilities. 

 NPS Organic Act 

 National Park System General Authorities Act 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations

 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards 

2006 

 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

 28CFR36 

 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards 

(May 2006) 

 U.S. Access Board Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines 

for Outdoor Developed Areas 2009 

 Director’s Order-42: Accessibility for Visitors with 

Disabilities in NPS Programs, Facilities, and Services

 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

 43 CFR 17 Subpart E, Enforcement of 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in 

Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department 

of the Interior 

Management Strategies

 Provide a range of opportunities for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the national seashore and its 

natural and cultural resources. 

 Continue to monitor visitor comments on such issues as crowding, encounters with other visitors in the 

backcountry, availability of backcountry campsites during busy times of the year, availability of parking, etc. 

 Conduct periodic visitor surveys to stay informed of changing visitor demographics and desires to better tailor 

programs to visitor needs, desires, and interests. 

 Ensure that all national seashore programs and facilities are accessible to the extent feasible and consistent with 

legal and policy requirements. 

 Continue to enforce the regulations promulgated in 36 CFR with regard to visitor use limitations. 

 Develop strategies to ensure that all new and renovated buildings/facilities, programs, activities, and services, 

including those provided/offered by concessioners, are designed and constructed in accordance with applicable 

rules, regulations, and standards. Evaluate buildings/facilities, programs, activities, and services to determine the 

degree to which they are currently accessible to and usable by people with disabilities; identify barriers that limit 

access, and develop strategies for removing those barriers. 
APPENDIXES

368 

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

VISITOR ACCESS

Desired Conditions Sources

Visitors have reasonable access to the national seashore, and 

there are connections from the national seashore to regional 

transportation systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities 

in the national seashore provide access for the protection, 

use, and enjoyment of national seashore resources, and they 

preserve the integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological 

processes, protect national seashore resources, and provide 

the highest visual quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation 

planning forums that may result in links to the national 

seashore or that impact national seashore resources. Working 

with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies on transportation 

issues, the National Park Service seeks reasonable access to 

the national seashore and connections to external and 

alternative transportation systems. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS Transportation Planning Guidebook

Management Strategies

 Work with gateway communities and local, regional, state, tribal, and federal agencies to develop a regional 

approach to transportation planning between local communities and national seashore areas. Encourage 

establishment of a multiagency, multicounty regional transportation planning group. 

 Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Florida Department 

of Transportation, and other sources to seek funding and staff to participate in and encourage effective regional 

transportation planning and enhancements, including both road and nonroad transportation (e.g., bikeways, 

road signs, trails, intelligent transportation systems, cultural resources, recreational access and facility 

development, visitor centers, traffic-calming devices, and gateway community enhancements). 

 Encourage, where appropriate, alternative transportation systems that contribute to maximum visitor enjoyment 

of and minimum adverse impacts on national seashore resources and values. 

 Advocate for corridor crossings for wildlife and other accommodations to promote biodiversity. 

 Avoid or mitigate harm to individual animals, fragmentation of habitats, and the disruption of natural systems. 

BACKCOUNTRY USE

Desired Conditions Sources

Backcountry use is managed in accordance with a 

backcountry management plan (or other plan addressing 

backcountry uses) that is designed to avoid unacceptable 

impacts on national seashore resources or adverse effects on 

visitor enjoyment of appropriate recreational experiences. The 

Park Service seeks to identify acceptable limits of impacts, 

monitors backcountry use levels and resource conditions, and 

takes prompt corrective action when unacceptable impacts 

occur. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

Management Strategies

 Develop the national seashore’s backcountry management plan to avoid unacceptable impacts on resources or 

adverse effects on visitor enjoyment of appropriate recreational experiences. 

 Pay special attention to occupancy limits in backcountry and wilderness island settings. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

369 

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Commercial services are another way of providing for the visitor experience and use previously described. 

Commercial operators are “partners” with the National Park Service to provide goods and services to visitors that are 

necessary and appropriate but not provided by the National Park Service. The National Park Service manages 

commercial service levels and types to achieve the same resource protection and visitor experience conditions 

required by the NPS Organic Act, General Authorities Act, management policies, and other regulations and policies. 

In addition, commercial services must comply with the provisions of the NPS Concessions Management Improvement 

Act of 1998. By law, all commercial activities in national park system units must be authorized in writing by the 

superintendent. A commercial activity is defined as any activity for which compensation is exchanged. It includes 

activities by for-profit and nonprofit operators. Commercial services are more than just concessions. They include 

concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, leases, cooperative agreements, rights- of-way, and special use 

permits. All commercial services must be managed. All commercial services must be necessary and/or appropriate by 

achieving the resource protection and visitor use goals for the park system unit. 

Desired Conditions Sources

All commercial services must be authorized, must be 

necessary and/or appropriate, and must be economically 

feasible. Appropriate planning must be done to support 

commercial services authorization. 

Same as Visitor Experience and Use (described earlier) 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS Concessions Management Improvement Act of 

1998 

 Same as Visitor Experience and Use 

Management Strategies

 Establish and document that all commercial services in the national seashore are necessary and/or appropriate 

before they are proposed or reauthorized. 

 Ensure that all necessary and/or appropriate commercial activities in the national seashore are authorized in 

writing by the superintendent. 

 Stop all unauthorized commercial activities in the national seashore. 

 Use the most appropriate authorization tool (concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, leases, 

cooperative agreements, rights-of-way, and special use permits) to manage the commercial services program 

effectively and efficiently. 

 Ensure that all commercial activities in the national seashore provide high quality visitor experiences while 

protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources. 

 Ensure that new or modified concessions are economically feasible and that the operator has a reasonable 

opportunity to make a profit before they are proposed in a planning document. 

 Establish levels of commercial use that are consistent with resource protection and visitor experience goals for 

the national seashore, and do not unduly interfere with the independent visitor’s ability to participate in the 

same activity. 

 Ensure that all commercial services are safe and sustainable. 

 Authorize only those commercial services that are not or cannot be made available within a reasonable distance 

outside the national seashore. 

 Prepare a commercial services plan if necessary to describe in detail the actions required to achieve commercial 

services and related visitor experience goals. 
APPENDIXES

370 

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the saving of human life would take precedence over all other 

management actions as the National Park Service strives to protect human life and provide for injury-free visits. 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national seashore: 

Desired Conditions Sources

While recognizing that there are limitations on its 

capability and constraints imposed by the Organic Act to 

not impair resources, the Park Service and its 

concessioners, contractors, and cooperators would seek 

to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors 

and employees. 

NPS staff would strive to identify recognizable threats to 

safety and health and protect property by applying 

nationally accepted standards. NPS staff would reduce or 

remove known hazards and/or apply appropriate 

mitigative measures, such as closures, guarding, gating, 

education, and other actions. 

 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

29CFR 

 NPS Management Policies 2006 

 Director’s Order-50 and RM-50 “Safety and Health” 

 Director’s Order 58 and RM-58 “Structural Fire 

Management” 

 Director’s Order 83 and RM-83 “Public Health” 

 Director’s Order 51 and RM-51 “Emergency Medical 

Services” 

 Director’s Order 30 and RM-30 “Hazard and Solid 

Waste Management” 

Management Strategies

 Maintain a current hurricane evacuation plan. 

 Establish a documented safety program to address health and safety concerns and identify appropriate levels of 

action and activities. 

 Ensure that all potable water systems and waste water systems meet state and federal requirements. 

 Provide for interpretive signs and materials to notify visitors of potential safety concerns, hazards, and 

procedures to help provide for a safe visit and to ensure that visitors are aware of possible risks of certain 

activities. 

 Establish a structural fire program and maintain a structural fire brigade to provide prevention programs and 

protection of life and property. 

 Develop an emergency preparedness program to maximize visitor and employee safety and protection of 

resources and property. 

 Develop an emergency operations plan including a hazardous spill response plan to plan for and respond to 

spills. 

 Provide a search and rescue program to make reasonable efforts to search for lost persons and rescue sick, 

injured, or stranded persons. 

 Provide an emergency medical services program to provide for the care of the ill and injured, including 

emergency pre-hospital care and the emergency medical transport of sick and injured from the national 

seashore’s remote setting to medical help. 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

371 

OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability can be described as doing things in ways that do not compromise the environment or its capacity to 

provide for present and future generations. Sustainable practices consider local and global consequences to minimize 

the short- and long-term environmental impacts of human actions and developments through resource conservation, 

recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 

Desired Conditions Sources

NPS and concessioner visitor management facilities are 

harmonious with national seashore resources, compatible 

with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, 

as accessible as possible to all segments of the 

population, energy efficient, and cost effective. 

All decisions regarding operations, facilities management, and development in the national seashore, from 

the initial concept through design and construction, 

reflect principles of resource preservation. Thus, all 

national seashore developments and operations are 

sustainable to the maximum degree possible and 

practical. New developments and existing facilities are 

located, built, and modified according to the Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or other 

similar guidelines. The national seashore has, whenever 

possible, state-of-the-art water systems for conserving 

water, and energy conservation technologies and 

renewable energy sources. Biodegradable, nontoxic, and 

durable materials are used in the national seashore 

whenever possible. The reduction, use, and recycling of 

materials is promoted, while materials that are 

nondurable, environmentally detrimental, or that require 

transportation from great distances are avoided as much 

as possible. 

 Executive Order 12873 mandates federal agency 

recycling and waste prevention 

 Executive Order 12902 mandates energy efficiency 

and water conservation at federal facilities 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993) 

 NPS Green Park Plan 

Management Strategies

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design directs NPS management philosophy. It provides a basis for 

achieving sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages 

responsible decisions. Sustainability principles have been developed and are followed for interpretation, natural 

resources, cultural resources, site design, building design, energy management, water supply, waste prevention, and 

facility maintenance and operations. The NPS Green Parks Plan further advances the agency’s commitment to 

reducing environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions across all levels of the organization. In addition to 

following these principles, the following also would be accomplished: 

 Work with experts both inside and outside the National Park Service to make the national seashore’s facilities 

and programs sustainable. Seek partnerships to implement sustainable practices in the national seashore. Also 

work with stakeholders and business partners to augment NPS environmental leadership and sustainability 

efforts. 

 Work with suppliers and contractors to incorporate sustainable practices. 

 Promote energy-efficient practices and renewable energy sources wherever possible. 

 Mention sustainable and unsustainable practices in interpretive programs. Educate visitors on the principles of 

environmental leadership and sustainability through exhibits, media, and printed material. 

 Educate NPS employees so that they have a comprehensive understanding of their relationship to environmental 

leadership and sustainability. 
APPENDIXES

372 

OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is expected to affect the national seashore’s weather, resources (e.g., shorelines, vegetation, fish and 

wildlife, historic structures, and submerged cultural resources), facilities (e.g., docks and roads), and visitors (e.g., 

seasonal use patterns, recreational fishing, navigational hazards, and visitor opportunities). These changes would 

have direct implications on resource management and national seashore operations, and on the way visitors use and 

experience the national seashore. Although climate change would affect the seashore during the life of this plan, 

many of the specific effects, the rate of changes, and the severity of impacts are not known. 

Desired Conditions Sources

Canaveral National Seashore is a leader in its efforts to 

address climate change by reducing the contribution of 

national seashore operations and visitor activities on 

climate change; preparing for and mitigating climate 

change impacts; and increasing its use of alternative 

transportation, renewable energy and other sustainable 

practices. NPS staff proactively monitor and mitigate for 

climate change impacts on cultural and natural resources 

and visitor amenities. Education and interpretive 

programs help visitors understand climate change 

impacts in the national seashore and beyond, and how 

they can respond to climate change. Partnerships with 

various agencies and institutions allow NPS staff to 

participate in research on climate change impacts. The 

best available scientific climate change data and 

modeling would be incorporated into specific 

management planning, decisions, or actions which may 

be taken under any of the alternatives described in this 

plan. 

 NPS Organic Act 

 Executive Order 13423 (includes requirements for 

the reduction of greenhouse gases and other energy 

and water conservation measures) 

 Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226 

(ensure that climate change impacts be taken into 

account in connection with departmental planning 

and decision making) 

 NPS Management Policies 2006 (including sections 

on environmental leadership [1.8], sustainable 

energy design [9.1.1.6], and energy management 

[9.1.7]) 

 NPS Environmental Quality Division’s “Draft Interim 

Guidance: Considering Climate Change in NEPA 

Analysis” 

 NPS Climate Change Response Strategy 

Management Strategies

 Identify key natural and cultural resources and visitor amenities that are most vulnerable to climate change. 

Establish baseline resource conditions, identify thresholds, and monitor for change. Identify key resources in 

various management zones/areas (e.g., backcountry, recreational beaches, seagrass protection, or national 

seashore operations) that may require different management responses to climate change impacts. 

 Undertake comprehensive climate change planning to anticipate, adapt to, and mitigate for climate change 

impacts on the national seashore. This might include climate change scenario planning, participation in the NPS 

Climate Friendly Parks program, or adherence to the NPS Climate Change Response Strategy or Green Parks Plan 

guidance. 

 Explore and establish alternative transportation options for staff and visitors, such as bicycle lanes and parking 

and shuttle or ferry services. Explore use of low-emission vehicles and biofuels for national seashore operations. 

Encourage partners and concessioners to provide or use alternative transportation. 

 Form partnerships with other resource management entities to maintain regional habitat connectivity and 

refugia that allow species dependent on national seashore resources to better adapt to changing conditions. 

 Use the dynamic environment of the northern Florida coast as a teaching opportunity about climate change. 

Educate visitors about climate change and research efforts, and climate change impacts on the resources they 

are enjoying. Inspire visitors to action through leadership and education. 

 Restore key ecosystem features and processes, and protect key cultural resources to increase their resiliency to 

climate change. By reducing other types of impacts on resources, the overall condition of the resources would 

improve and they would have more easily recover from or resist the impacts of climate change. 

Adapted from IHDP 2008 and NPS 2010.

 
Appendix B: Desired Conditions and Management Strategies for the National Seashore 

373 

OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

LAND PROTECTION

Desired Conditions Sources

Land protection plans are prepared to determine and 

publicly document what lands or interests in land need to 

be in public ownership, and what means of protection 

are available to achieve the purposes for which the 

national seashore was established. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

Management Strategies

 Prepare an updated land protection plan for the national seashore. 

 Seek acquisition of the Stuckey property on a willing-seller basis. 

COMMUNITY AND AGENCY RELATIONS

Desired Conditions Sources

The national seashore is managed as part of a greater 

ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, 

surrounding communities, and private and public groups 

that affect, and are affected by, the national seashore. 

The national seashore is managed proactively to resolve 

external issues and concerns and ensure that national 

seashore values are not compromised. 

Because the national seashore is an integral part of larger 

regional environment, the National Park Service works 

cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and 

resolve potential conflicts, protect national seashore 

resources, and address mutual interests in the quality of 

life for community residents. Regional cooperation 

involves federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; 

neighboring landowners; and all other concerned parties. 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

Management Strategies

 Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private organizations to achieve the purpose of the 

national seashore. Seek partnerships for resource protection, research, education, and visitor enjoyment. 

 Keep landowners, land managers, local governments, and the general public informed about national seashore 

management activities. Have periodic consultations with landowners and communities affected by national 

seashore visitors and management actions. Work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal 

governments whose programs affect or are affected by activities in the national seashore. 

 To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land uses, keep landowners, 

land managers, local governments, and the public informed about NPS management activities. Respond 

promptly to conflicts that arise over their activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on 

adjacent lands that may affect the national seashore. Seek agreements with landowners to manage their lands 

in a manner that is compatible with national seashore purposes. Seek ways to provide landowners with technical 

and management assistance to address issues of mutual interest. 
APPENDIXES

374 

OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

UTILITY AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

Desired Conditions Sources

National seashore resources or public enjoyment of the 

national seashore are not denigrated by nonconforming 

uses. Telecommunication structures are permitted in the 

national seashore to the extent that they do not 

jeopardize the national seashore’s mission and resources. 

No new nonconforming use or rights-of-way are 

permitted through the national seashore without specific 

statutory authority and approval by the director of the 

National Park Service or his representative, and are 

permitted only if there is no practicable alternative to 

such use of NPS lands. 

 Telecommunications Act; 16 USC 79; 23 USC 317; 

36 CFR 14 

 NPS Management Policies 2006

 Director’s Order 53A: Wireless Telecommunications

 Reference Manual 53 Special Park Uses

Management Strategies

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs all federal agencies to assist in the national goal of achieving a seamless 

telecommunications system throughout the United States by accommodating requests by telecommunication 

companies for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements to the extent allowable under each agency’s 

mission. The National Park Service is legally obligated to permit telecommunication infrastructure in the national 

seashore if such facilities can be structured to avoid interference with national seashore purposes. 

 Locate new or reconstructed utilities and communications infrastructures in association with existing structures 

and along roadways or other established corridors in developed areas. For reconstruction or extension into 

undisturbed areas, select routes that would minimize impacts on the national seashore’s natural, cultural, and 

visual resources. 

 Place utility lines underground to the maximum extent possible. 

 Work with service companies, local communities, and the public to locate new utility lines so that there is 

minimal effect on national seashore resources. 

 Follow NPS policies in processing applications for commercial telecommunications applications. 
375 

APPENDIX C: DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 

Canaveral National Seashore 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Determination of Effect for Federally Listed Species 

May 2012 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

North Florida Ecological Services Office 

Jacksonville, Florida 

and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service 

Protected Resources Division, Southeast Region 

Saint Petersburg, Florida 

Prepared by: 

National Park Service 

Canaveral National Seashore 

and 

Denver Service Center – Planning Division 

 
APPENDIXES

376 

Introduction

Canaveral National Seashore has initiated a 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) that will guide 

the management of the national seashore for 

the next 20 years. The plan is broad, as the 

intent of a general management plan is to set 

the overall direction for a National Park 

Service (NPS) unit, but it does specify some 

future actions that may have impacts on 

federally listed species. 

Under alternative B, the NPS preferred 

alternative, Canaveral National Seashore 

would be managed to preserve and enhance 

the natural and historic landscape features 

associated with the national seashore’s 

eastern Florida coastal barrier island system. 

Emphasis would be placed on retaining the 

seashore’s relatively undeveloped character 

and providing uncrowded experiences by 

dispersing visitors via a shuttle service or 

canoe, kayak, hiking, and biking trails. 

Coordination with land-managing partners, 

including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) would be increased to provide 

additional educational opportunities and 

programs for visitors and enhanced 

monitoring of Mosquito Lagoon resources. 

Due in part to the diverse habitats and size of 

the national seashore, there more than 50 

species of concern that are listed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or the State of 

Florida. In this analysis, we focus on several 

species that are known to occur in the 

national seashore, and for which we 

anticipate some level of effect from the 

actions proposed in the preferred alternative. 

The following table summarizes the 

determinations of effect for the relevant 

species. For all other species in Table 9 of the 

Final GMP/EIS, we predict no effect. Further 

consultation on federally listed species will 

occur in the future if and when the seashore 

prepares implementation plans such as a 

Fishery Management Plan. 

Species Analysis 

Eastern indigo snake: The eastern indigo 

snake occurs in coastal scrub habitat, wooded 

areas, and behind the primary dunes at 

Canaveral National Seashore. In the future, 

there might be a bike trail that is adjacent to 

several areas of Eastern indigo snake habitat. 

Therefore, there may be adverse effects on 

the snake during construction of a bike trail 

along State Route 402 to Playalinda Beach, 

and in the future when bicyclists travel on the 

trail. In the long run, the existence of the bike 

path might actually reduce road mortality and 

enhance habitat by providing a “break” or 

barrier between the vegetated habitat and the 

road. These impacts are expected to be highly 

localized, and would likely result in shortterm displacement of individuals, not impacts 

on populations of the species. However, as 

prescribed fire projects in coastal scrub 

habitat is carried out, the habitat for the 

snake will likely expand, allowing for greater 

numbers and distribution of these species in 

the national seashore. The prescribed 

burning projects are expected to have 

beneficial effects on the Eastern indigo snake 

in the long term. However, due to the 

possibility of adverse impacts during bike 

trail construction and later during its use, it 

Summary of determination of effect on federally listed species for implementation of the preferred 

alternative of the Canaveral National Seashore GMP/EIS 

Eastern indigo snake 

Drymarchon corais couperi May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Florida scrub-jay 

Aphelocoma coeruluscens May affect, likely to adversely affect 

Southeastern beach mouse 

Peromyscus polionotus nineiventris May affect, likely to adversely affect 

West Indian (Florida) manatee 

Trichechus manatus latirostris May affect, not likely to adversely affect 
Appendix C: Determination of Effect 

377 

has been determined that the preferred 

alternative may affect and is not likely to 

adversely affect Eastern indigo snake. 

Florida scrub-jay: The Florida scrub-jay is 

found in coastal scrub habitat in the national 

seashore, which is carrying out prescribed 

fire projects to increase the health and extent 

of this habitat. Florida scrub-jay habitat is 

generally found in the southern and western 

parts of the national seashore, including the 

vicinity of the South District ranger station. 

Therefore, similar to the Eastern indigo 

snake, there may be adverse effects on the 

Florida scrub-jay during construction of a 

bike trail along State Route 402 to Playalinda 

Beach, and in the future when bicyclists travel 

on the trail. These impacts are expected to be 

highly localized, and would likely result in 

short-term displacement of individuals, not 

impacts on populations of the species. The 

prescribed burning projects are expected to 

have beneficial effects in the long-term by 

expanding available habitat for the Florida 

scrub-jay. However, due to the possibility of 

adverse impacts during bike trail 

construction and later during its use, it has 

been determined that the preferred 

alternative may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect Florida scrub-jay. 

Southeastern beach mouse: In Canaveral 

National Seashore, the Southeastern beach 

mouse primarily occurs in the dunes along 

Klondike, Apollo, and Playalinda beaches. It 

is also occasionally found in vegetation and 

buildings farther west inland of the dunes. 

The construction of new restrooms at 

Playalinda and Apollo beaches, bike trail 

construction along State Route 402 to 

Playalinda Beach, and the burial of power 

lines (especially near Eldora Hammock) may 

have detrimental effects on the southeastern 

beach mouse. These actions may result in 

habitat disturbance or removal, and 

disturbance to the activity patterns of the 

mice. These effects are expected to be 

localized, but could cause long-term impacts 

on individuals of the species. There is a 

possibility that the extension of the Castle 

Windy Interpretive Trail may result in similar 

impacts, though this is less likely because the 

mouse does not generally use the hammock 

vegetation found there. Based on these 

possible detrimental effects, it has been 

determined that the preferred alternative 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect

Southeastern beach mouse. 

West Indian (Florida) manatee: Several 

actions in the preferred alternative that 

promote resource management in Mosquito 

Lagoon are likely to have beneficial impacts 

on the Florida manatee. No actions are 

anticipated to have detrimental effects. The 

phase-out of nighttime boat ramp use at 

Apollo Beach may reduce manatee injury and 

mortality due to boat use along the east side 

of the lagoon during hours when visibility is 

very low. In addition, the designation of a 

slow-speed area in the lagoon is also 

expected to reduce manatee injury and 

mortality, by increasing the opportunities for 

visitors to see and avoid manatees in the 

water. Increased patrols in Mosquito Lagoon 

and other areas of the national seashore will 

support these activities, leading to beneficial 

effects on the Florida manatee. Therefore, it 

has been determined that the preferred 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect, the West Indian (Florida) 

manatee. 

Additional Comments 

During the development of this Determination of Effect, two species (piping plover 

and fragrant prickly-apple) have raised 

questions by NPS staff. Though we dismiss 

the rest of the species in table 9 because no 

effect is anticipated, we felt these two species 

deserved additional discussion. 

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is 

occasionally seen on the beaches at Canaveral 

National Seashore in January and February. A 

few individuals of this species may spend 

short durations or overwinter at the national 

seashore, but they do not nest or spend long 

durations in the national seashore in general. 

No impacts are expected on piping plover 

from any of the actions proposed in the 

preferred alternative, so this species was 

dismissed from further analysis (no effect). 
APPENDIXES

378 

Due to questions about the protection of 

fragrant prickly-apple (Harrisia fragrans), the 

GMP/EIS contains language stating that this 

species is found in some areas to the north of 

the national seashore, and is also found on 

some of the islands. However, it is not 

officially a listed species for either Brevard or 

Volusia counties; therefore, it was not 

included in this section 7 analysis. No 

impacts are expected on this species from any 

of the actions proposed in the preferred 

alternative, and by policy, the National Park 

Service protects species of concern even if 

they are not officially listed for the counties 

in which the park unit is located. 

Additionally, under the preferred alternative, 

there would be a greater emphasis on 

education and interpretation for visitors and 

other users of the national seashore. This 

would likely translate into direct beneficial 

impacts for species of concern in the national 

seashore, by increasing awareness of the 

species and enhancing public understanding 

of their role in the ecosystem. The commitment to increased education and interpretation in the preferred alternative will also 

promote the national seashore managers’ 

ability to continue and expand its strong 

relationship with the FWS at Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge and other agency 

partners.
379 

APPENDIX D: AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS 

 
APPENDIXES

380 
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Kurt S. Browning 

Secretary of State 

DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

U.S. Department of the Interior- National Park Service 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 S. Washington Avenue 

Titusville, Florida 32796-3553 

RE: DHR Project File Number: 2011-3820 

National Park Service- Canaveral National Seashore 

D18 (DSC-P) - CANA 67147 

September 14, 2011 

Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Canaveral National Seashore 

Brevard and Volusia Counties 

Dear Ms. Palfrey-Perez: 

This office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties and the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

It is the opinion of this office that the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement adequately 

addresses cultural resources located within the Canaveral National Seashore. 

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservationist, by electronic 

mail scott.edwards@dos.myflorida.com, or at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278. 

Sincerely, 

Laura A. Kammerer 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

For Review and Compliance 

500 S, Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • http://www.flheritage.com 

Ll Director's Office 

(850) 245.6300 • FAX: 245.6436 

0 Archaeological Research 

(850) 245.6444 • FAX: 245.6452 

Iii Historic Preservation 

(850) 245.6333 • FAX: 245.6437 
Background 

The CNS is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) in partnership with the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which owns approximately 70 percent of the 

CNS associated with the Kennedy Space Center, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

administers the adjacent Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge where the NPS co-manages 

with US FWS approximately 34,000 acres. 

Purpose & Need: The plan's purpose is to decide how to best fulfill the CNS' purpose, 

maintain its significance, and protect its resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. 

Due to substantially changed conditions since its 1982 inception, the GMP requires updating. 

The new realignment of the South District beach-access road outside the primary NASA 

security zone has facilitated increased visitor traffic as has the highly popular MosquitoLagoon boat tours. The CNS has acquired significant archeological and historic resources, 

e.g., the acquisition of the Seminole Rest property and thirteen retained use and life estates and 

the discovery of the French fleet's shipwreck survivor's camp, a product of France's 1565 

attempt to establish a Florida settlement. Additionally, the historic Eldora State House has 

been rehabilitated and opened to the public and a research facility has been established. 

Furthermore, population pressures are increasing, e.g., boat wakes damaging oyster reefs, boat 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed w~h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
anchors damaging sea-grass beds, and boat traffic decreasing angler enjoyment. Moreover, 

there is pressure to allow personal watercraft and provide commercial services. 

Description: The proposed action, this GMP, provides guidance for the next 20 plus years on 

perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing a quality visitorexperience opportunity. Any proposed development consistent with the proposed action would 

require feasibility studies, detailed planning, and environmental documentation. Additionally, 

GMP implementation is dependent upon available resources and consequently may occur in 

phases over many years. 

Alternatives: This DEIS evaluated four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, for 

managing the national seashore in context of seven management zones. Each alternative 

proposes a different configuration of the management zones based on its concept. The intent 

for every management zone is to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources to the 

greatest extent possible given available funds. 

Concept: Alternative A (no action) - the CNPS will continue to be managed under 

the overall operational direction provided in its enabling legislation, previous 

planning documents, and existing interagency/cooperative agreements. 

Concept: Alternative B (preferred action) - the CNS will be managed to preserve 

and enhance the natural and historic landscape features associated an eastern Florida 

coastal barrier island system. Emphasis will be on retaining the relatively 

undeveloped character and providing an uncrowded experience by dispersing visitors 

via a shuttle, canoe or kayak, hiking- walking and bicycle trails. 

Concept: Alternative C - the CNS will be managed in a way so visitors can choose 

from a variety of access options to land- and water-based natural and cultural 

features, recreational opportunities, and educational pursuits to facilitate an in-depth 

understanding of the natural and cultural history of eastern coastal Florida. 

Concept: Alternative D - the CNS will be managed with a focus on enhancing 

lands, resources, and facilities and to promote outdoor recreational and interpretive 

educational opportunities consistent with preservation of the natural and cultural 

resources. 

The major differences between the four alternatives appear to be in the degree of construction 

and staffing. For example, 

Alternative A - Deferred maintenance items ($6.24 million worth of deferred 

maintenance backlogged items, including about $5.2 million for roads) will be 

corrected over the life of this plan. A short list of minor capital improvements 

($115,000) will be completed. These one-time costs amount to $10.3 million. 

Estimated annual operations, maintenance, and leasing costs will bring the total 

annual operating costs to $2.6 million. · 

Alternative B - the backlog of deferred maintenance will be cleared up ($6.24 

million), a series of capital improvements will be implemented (26.9 million), 

including future planning studies ($2 million). The DEIS states this Alternative 

requires an additional $18.6 million more in expenditures than Alternative A, 
including: an additional $0.8 million for annual operational costs, 10.5 more full time 

positions (an annual increase in cost of approximately $785,000). 

Alternative C - completes the backlog of deferred maintenance ($6.24 million), 

proposes many capital improvements ($43.1 million) construction, demolition, and 

rehabilitation projects, e.g., a new visitor center/headquarters facility and a 

centralized maintenance facility, and future planning studies ($2 million). This 

Alternative appears to require an additional $34.1 million more in expenditures than 

Alternative A, including an additional $1.0 million for annual operational costs, an 

increase of 11 full-time equivalent employees and 9 seasonal workers (an annual 

increase in cost of approximately $1,091 ,000). 

Alternative D - completes the backlog of deferred maintena,nce ($6.24 million), 

implements a series ·of capital improvements ($21. 6 million), provides for limited 

new development ($42 million) and future planning studies ($2 million). Emphasis is 

upon improving operations and maintenance efficiencies, protecting the resource, and 

enhancing the visitor experience through interpretive waysides, exhibits, education/ 

experience opportunities. This Alternative appears to require an additional $55.3 

million more in expenditures than Alternative A, including an additional $0.9 million 

for annual operational costs, an increase of 12.5 full-time equivalent employees, two 

not to exceed one-year workers and one STEP (student temporary educational 

program) worker (an annual increase in cost of approximately $934,000). 

Environmental Impacts: 

The DEIS describes environmental impacts qualitatively, e.g., negligible- no measurable or 

perceptible changes, minor - slight but detectable, and would result in small but measurable 

localized changes, moderate - readily apparent resulting in easily detectable localize changes, 

and major - severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial resulting in appreciable changes. 

However, the DEIS does not appear to provide the measurements (quantitative analysis) to 

supporting its qualitative designations. According to the DEIS, all alternatives appear to have 

short and long-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and long-term beneficial impacts 

and lack substantiating environmental information supporting these impact determinations. 

This GMP does provide for performance indicators and standards to help ensure desired 

conditions are being attained. For example it uses priority resource indicators: sea-grass and 

oyster reef impacts from boat activities, such as propeller scarring, vessel groundings and 

anchoring. Additionally, the CNS is described as having an ongoing sea-grass-bed baseline 

assessment. 

EPA Comments: 

Visitor Dispersal Analysis Recommendations 

Under the preferred alternative, the GMP calls for the dispersal of visitors to experience 

relatively undeveloped areas from the high use areas, e.g., emphasis will be placed on 

encouraging visitors to experience relatively undeveloped areas. The preferred alternative 

discussion indicates a need to restore disturbed areas (beaches) to natural conditions as the 

principle focus of resource management. The proposed solution as discussed in the preferred 
alternative appears to be dilution. However, the proposed dilution's impacts upon the CNS do 

not appear to have been discussed, particularly in context of visitor wear and tear. Moreover 

the preferred alternative appears to be seeking to increase visitors, and thereby increasing the 

wear and tear upon the CNS without providing any "wear and tear" mitigation. Furthermore, 

the proposed GMP indicators do not appear to cover the typical non-boating visitor "wear and 

tear" upon the CNS. 

The DEIS would benefit from more quantitative analysis: e.g., discuss the existing visitordensity per unit area and its resulting impacts. Such an analysis would allow the DEIS to 

estimate a prediction of how increasing the density of visitors in areas previo:usly isolated from 

visitors might impact these CNS natural resources, e.g., wild life including sensitive species. 

For example, the wildlife may have adapted to the existing high visitor density areas by 

retreating to low density areas, the same ones to be opened up as the proposed "dissolution" 

solution. 

Additionally, the DEIS'sfocus appears to be on the benefit to the vistors' experience quality. 

The DEIS should discuss how dispersing visitors will impact those visitors who (use to) know 

where to escape the crowd only to find the NPS has brought the crowd to them. 

Consequently EPA recommends the GMP provide for more quantitative abilities to assess the 

environmental impacts of its preferred alternative regarding its visitor dispersal emphasis. 

GMP Recommendations- ecosystem services 

In the era of shrinking government finances which are reasonably foreseeable to continue 

shrinking, the EPA encourages the NPS to rethink and investigate its existing resource funding 

paradigm as part of the proposed GMP. There may be funding/resource opportunities for 

maintaining and protecting CNS resources in the form of partnerships with nongovernmental 

organizations and private sector investments. As part of this recommendation to facilitate this 

objective, the EPA suggests the NPS include an effort to quantify the CNS' ecosystem 

services, i.e., inventory and determine dollar valuations, in order to more accurately determine 

the benefit of conserving the CNS as compared to the costs of not conserving. 

The Ecosystem Services concept was formally defined by the United Nations' 2004 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), a four-year study involving more than 1,300 

scientists worldwide. The MEA grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories: 

provisioning, such as the production of food and water; regulating, such as the control of 

climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural, 

such as spiritual and recreational benefits. 

Examples of ecosystems "services" include: moderating weather extremes and their impacts, 

dispersing seeds, mitigating drought and floods, protecting people from the sun's harmful 

ultraviolet rays, cycling and moving nutrients, protecting stream and river channels and coastal 

shores from erosiqn, detoxifying and decomposing wastes, controlling agricultural pests, 

maintaining biodiyersity, generating and preserving soils and renewing their fertility, 
contributing to climate stability, purifying the air and water, regulating disease-carrying 

organisms, and pollinating crops and natural vegetation.' 

Further information and resources can be found ... 

1. US EPA's Ecosystem Services research at htt,p://www.epa.gov/ecology/ 

2. US Forest Service's Ecosystems Services Project at 

htt,p://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/index.htm 

3. Evaluation ofEcosystem Services ofCoastal Habitats in the GulfofMexico: Mustang 

Island - study goals are to map and characterize habitats in a barrier-island system typical of 

Gulf coast areas; develop procedures and tools for identifying and assigning ecosystem 

services (ES) to habitats, and develop a scalable and transferable tool for valuing and 

mapping value of ES. See: htt,p://www.harteresearchinstitute.org/ecosystem-services/174-

ecosystem-services-projects 

4. Natural Capital Project (NatCap) is a venture led by Stanford University, the University of 

Minnesota and two of the world's largest conservation organizations, the Nature 

Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund. It aims to transform traditional conservation 

methods by including the value of"ecosystem services," which are currently not part of the 

traditional economic equation, in business, community and government decisions. 

Natural capital are the goods and services from nature which are essential for human 

life. When properly managed, ecosystems yield a flow of services vital to humanity, 

·including the production of goods (e.g., food), life support processes (e.g., water 

purification), and life fulfilling conditions (e.g., beauty, recreation opportunities), 

and the conservation of options (e.g., genetic diversity for future use). Despite its 

importance, this natural capital is poorly understood, scarcely monitored, and, in 

many cases, undergoing rapid degradation and depletion. 

NatCap developed a software program called In VEST (Integrated Valuation of 

Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs) to map and value nature's goods and services 

essential for humans. The software, which is available as a free download, enables 

the comparison of various environmental scenarios. What is the real cost of draining 

a wetland or clearing a coastline of mangroves? In VEST models the trade-offs and 

helps decision makers better understand the implications of their choices. NatCap is 

now moving the In VEST software onto the Google Earth Engine platform. the new 

tool can map trends and allow scientists to forecast such things as soil fertility, 

erosion and deforestation. See: htt,p://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/ 

1 http://www.esa.org/education diversity/pdfDocs/ecosystemservices.pdf 
GMP Recommendations - ecosystem services - climate change 

The DEIS states While the major drivers of climate change are outside the control of the 

National Park Service but climate change is a phenomenon whose impacts are occurring or 

are expected in Canaveral National Seashore in the time frame of this management plan. 

As part ofthe GMP, the EPA encourages the NPS to explore whether the CNS provides 

ecosystem services that can ameliorate climate change impacts. For example, the economic 

value of carbon sequestration potential represented by the CNS. · 

Additionally because Florida has been hard hit by hurricanes, the number of troubled property 

and casualty insurers in Florida has increased, according to Jupiter-based Weiss Ratings. After 

analyzing the financial condition of the insurers in Florida as of midyear, Weiss Ratings gave 

35 of them a rating ofD or F. That's up from 29 with poor grades on Dec. 31, 2010. 

Consequently another economic benefit afforded by the existence of CNS is it prevents new 

development requiring expensive insurance (or risking insolvent insurers) and storm repair 

plus it provides a buffer against hurricanes for existing inland developments. 

GMP Recommendations - ecosystem services -wetlands mitigation 

As part of the GMP, the EPA encourages the NPS to explore whether its wetlands restoration 

efforts can be enhanced by participation in a wetlands mitigation bank through it existing 

interagency agreements and/or through partnerships with NGOs (e.g., The Nature 

Conservancy), the US Army Corps of Engineers, etc. A mitigation bank is a wetland, stream, 

or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain 

circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts 

to aquatic resources permitted under Section 404 or a similar state or local wetland regulation. 

See: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact16.html Assistance with exploring 

whether the Wetlands Mitigation Banking concept could enhance CNS wetlands restoration 

efforts, Eric Somerville of Region 4 EPA's staff is available. Mr. Somerville can be reached 

by phone: 706-355-8514 or email: Somerville.eric@epa.gov. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you wish to discuss this matter 

further, please contact Beth Walls (404-562-8309 or walls.beth@epa.gov) of my staff. 

Sincerely, 

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief 

NEP A Program Office 

Office of Policy and Management 
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW UP ACTION 1 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

LO-Lack of Objections 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the 

proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be 

accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. 

EC-Environmental Concerns 

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation 

measures that can reduce the environmental impacts. EPA would Jike to work with the lead agency to reduce these 

impacts. 

EO-Environmental Objections 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate 

protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or 

consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA 

intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EO-Environmentally Unsatisfactory 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are 

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with 

the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS 

sate, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement 

Category 1-Adeguate 

The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental irnpact(s) of the preferred alterative and 

those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collecting is 

· necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

Category 2-Insufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for the EPA to fully assess the environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably 

available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the 

environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be 

included in the final EIS. 

Category 3-lnadeguate 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the 

action, or the EPAreviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of 

alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant 

1 From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of the Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 

Reply to Attn of' T A_ A 4C 

Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez 

Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington A venue 

Titusville, FL 32796-3553 

Dear Ms. Palfrey-Perez: 

October 24, 20 II 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Canaveral National Seashore provided in your letter 

dated August 18, 2011. Our comments, compiled by our Medical and Environmental 

Management Branch, are enclosed. 

If you have any questions, please reach Mr. John Shaffer at 321-867-8448. 

Sincerely, 

Robert D. Cabana 

Director 

Enclosure 
1 

KSC Environmental Management Branch Comments 

PAGE REFERENCE COMMENT SUGGESTION 

I 

7 Map - Federal Land NASA boundaries are not clear on this map. Suggest using "NASA Boundaries" on all maps if not 

Management Map on page 63, Alternative A, indicates the noted. 

words, "NASA Boundaries" above the Gomez 

Grant line. 

7 Map - Federal Land Appears the figure is missing the NASA Suggest correcting map or key. 

Management managed property on the map, but noted in the 

key. 

7 Map- Federal Land Air Force managed property (CCAFS) is color Suggest correcting map or key. 

Management coded on the map, not in the key. 

88 Historic Properties Suggest adding "NASA KSC" in this sentence, reading 

paragraph, second then as, "The NPS would coordinate with the U.S. Fish 

sentence and Wildlife Service, NASA KSC, and other partners to 

establish historic context for these sites and to provide 

education programs (on-site, off-site, and /or virtual)." 

98 Historic Properties Same as suggestion for page 88. Suggest adding "NASA KSC" in this sentence, reading 

paragraph, second then as, "The NPS would coordinate with the U.S. Fish 

sentence and Wildlife Service, NASA KSC, and other partners to 

establish historic context for these sites and to provide 

education programs (on-site, off-site, and /or virtual)." 

150 Table 9: A20 Species "Rana-capito." Should be "Lithobates capito." 

Amphibians 

150 Table 9: Reptiles Species "Drymarchon corais couperi." Should be Drymarchon couperi." 

150 Table 9: Reptiles Gopher Tortoise. Should be listed as a candidate species (C) by USFWS. 

179 Prehistoric District Is the Ross Hammock Archaeological District Suggest adding another paragraph for this archeological 

missing under the "Prehistoric District," which district. 

is managed under CNS and consists of 

8V0213, Ross Hammock Salt Rendering Plant, 

8V0130, Ross Hammock Midden, and 

8VO 131, Ross Hammock Indian Mounds? -

Enclosure 
2 

PAGE REFERENCE COMMENT SUGGESTION 

180 Under Elliott Plantation, Register nomination for Elliot Plantation was to Need to amend the completion date with NPS Southeast 

sixth sentence be completed in FY 20 I 0. That was not Archeological Center to see their progress with this 

accomplished, so date in this document needs to project. 

be changed. 

209 Museum Collections, Some ofthese artifacts are owned by NASA. Suggest adding in the second paragraph, "Some of the 

second paragraph artifacts collected within the Seashore and stored at the 

NPS Southeast Archeological Center are also owned by 

NASA" possibly before the sentence beginning with 

"Curated objects .... " 

215 John F. Kennedy Space Date referenced is 1990 to 200 I. Current dates and launch rates are available and should be 

Center, third sentence used. 

311 Cumulative Effects, lines Constellation Program cancelled. Suggest changing, "constellation moon-landing program" 

ll and 12 to "future programs" and incorporate throughout the 

document. 

348 Management Strategies, Bullet states, "appropriate state historic Suggest changing to "Florida State Historic Preservation 

bullet 7 preservation officer," should this be the Florida Officer." 

State Historic Preservation Officer? 

351 Management Strategies First bullet. Suggest adding, "Inventory and catalog all national 

seashore collections and those under NASA KSC loan 

agreements in accordance with NPS standards." 

362 Historic Structures, first CNS manages NASA historic structures. Suggest "Historic resources at Canaveral National 

sentence Seashore that are managed by CNS for NASA include 15 

structures. n 

Center Planning and Development Comments 

PAGE REFERENCE COMMENT SUGGESTION 

71 AREA-SPECIFIC Does this mean composting system or septic More information is needed regarding the statement, 

MANAGEMENT system with drain field? "High-Maintenance chemical toilet facilities will be 

ACTIONS, Playalinda replaced with a more efficient and sustainable system." 

Beach, second paragraph 

- -

Enclosure 
3 

PAGE REFERENCE COMMENT SUGGESTION 

71 Playalinda Beach Access, The statement "A bicycle path connecting with This is a concern as people will be more inclined to hop 

third paragraph the proposed USFWS bike path .. .'" Presents a the fence and go exploring (onto NASA property) on a 

potential security problem. bike then they would be with their car or walking in. 

72 Shuttle Bus for Apollo Where would parking for the shuttle bus be, on Propose bus parking area. 

Beach CNS property or offsite? Who would pay for 

the parking lot installation and maintenance? 

72 Shuttle Bus for Apollo Are there plans to have a shuttle run to Propose bus route. 

Beach Playalinda? If so, where? Who pays for it? 

How would the bus service pay for itself? 

--· - --- - -· -

Enclosure 
OFFICERS 

Don Roberts 

Chairman 

Jeff Miller 

Vice Chairman 

Jim Williams 

Presidenl 

Bruce Aebel 

Vice Presitlenl 

Fred Crabill 

Vice Presidenl 

Gary Burdette 

Vice Presidenf 

Paul Giordano 

Vice Presidenl 

David EUrich 

Treas11rer 

Bill Bird 

Secrelary 

Chapter Presidents 

Steve Bowler 

Ben Branch 

John Burden 

Fred Crabill 

Matt Davids 

Blaine Dickenson 

Doug Forde 

George Foster 

Char Gibicsar 

Dianne Harbaugh 

Wiley Horton 

Tom Kasprzak 

David Kennedy 

Heath Marston 

Denny Martin 

Jerry McGinley 

Jeff Miller 

Richard Moore 

Bert Norris 

Steve Orman 

Paul Osman 

AI Penson 

Rick Smith 

Deroo Strickman 

Rufus Wakeman 

Dean Watson 

Chairman Emeritus 

Jeff Allen 

Bill Bird 

Curtis Bostick 

Chester Brewer 

John Brownlee 

Mark Carter 

Bill Eppley 

Tom Fuess 

George Geiger 

Scott Green 

Ernie Hendry 

David Howton 

Alex Jernigan 

Mike Kennedy 

Cary Kresge 

Jeff McFadden 

Tim Nettles 

Bob Oglesby 

John Pinder 

Ed Sapp 

Karl Wickstrom 

Staff 

Ted Forsgren 

Executive Director 

Brian Gorski 

Chief Operating Officer 

Dan Askin 

General Manager 

Tom Wiles 

Accountant 

Trip Aukeman 

Deputy Director 

i\'like Modisett 

Regional Director 

Scott Nichols 

Regional Director 

Miriam Askin 

Event Coordinator 

CCAFLE> 

Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 S. Washington Avenue 

Titusville, FL 32796 

Dear Superintendent, 

On behalf of CCA Florida and our 9,000 members, we appreciate the opportunity to 

provide recommendations and comments on the Canaveral National Seashore General 

Management Plan. Please fmd CCA's full comments on the GMP attached. 

CCA looks forward to continuing to work with Canaveral National Seashore and the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to develop a General Management Plan which 

will protect the valuable natural resources while maintaining access for saltwater anglers. 

Sincerely, 

Ted Forsgren 

Executive Director 

Coastal Conservation Association Florida 

Dedicated to Conserving and Protecting Florida's Marine Resources 

P.O. Box 568886, Orlando, Florida 32856-8886 (407) 854-7002 Fax (407) 854-1766 
CCAFLORIDA 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

CANAVERAL NATIONAL SEASHORE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

The Canaveral National Seashore (CNS) contains some of the finest saltwater 

fishing in Florida. One of the premier areas is Mosquito Lagoon, the home of huge 

redfish. Anglers come long distances to fish the lagoon in search of world records 

on light tackle. It is an outstanding area for fly fishermen. Many records have been 

taken in the lagoon because of the unique relationship of redfish and the lagoon. 

Redfish in the Mosquito Lagoon are known to spend their entire lives in the lagoon 

and do not migrate offshore to spawn as do most redfish. Therefore, the lagoon 

contains huge spawning size redfish year round. Huge redfish in shallow water 

year round is a lure that brings light tackle anglers from all over the country to 

Mosquito Lagoon. 

The Mosquito Lagoon and Indian River areas are an important and valuable 

component of Florida's 18 billion dollar saltwater recreational fishery. The real 

challenge to CNS managers is to work cooperatively with recreational fishers to 

develop plans which provide angler access and resource protection. CCA Florida 

has a proven history of support for marine fisheries conservation programs and we 

look forward to working with the CNS to achieve those goals. 

RECOMMENDATION 

CCA Florida could support the CNS's Preferred Alternative B if it was 

amended to (A) make clear that any future fisheries management plan envisioned 

1 
by the plan would be cooperatively developed and approved by the CNS, Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC), (B) maintain the access to and use of the boat ramp on the 

northern edge ofthe CNS seven days a week and 24 hours a day. 

COMMENTS 

l.CNS AUTHORITY TO MANAGE LANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS IN 

PARK - The uplands and submerged lands in the area were originally provided to 

the federal government for the development and construction of the Canaveral 

Space Center in the form of six Dedications from Florida's Trustees of the Internal 

Trust Fund. The Trustees are the Governor and Cabinet and they hold title to all 

state lands, both upland and submerged sovereignty lands. One of the Dedications 

was an amendment which would allow the establishment of a wildlife refuge; 

therefore, the State of Florida has some remaining title interest in the area. That 

remaining interest is just one good reason for the Florida FWC to be intimately 

involved in the development and approval of any fisheries regulations. 

2.FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS - We strongly request that the 

management plan be amended to clearly state that the Florida FWC be involved in 

the development and approval of any marine fisheries management plans and 

regulations. The State of Florida, through the FWC, has done an outstanding job of 

managing Florida's fisheries and providing angler access to fisheries. The excellent 

redfish and spotted sea trout fisheries in the CNS and statewide are examples of the 

FWC's ability to manage fisheries. 

3. NO FISHING ZONES -We are pleased to see that current management of the 

CNS and the Preferred Alternative B does not contain any no fishing zones. CCA 

Florida does not support no fishing zones as a management measure. Prohibiting 

recreational access and recreational fishing is a last resort, draconian action. The 

FWC and the recreational fishing community have done an excellent job of 

protecting and managing fisheries in the Mosquito Lagoon and surrounding areas. 

2 
The outstanding redfish and sea trout fisheries are evidence of the good 

management and the strong angler support for the fisheries. 

4.NO MOTOR AND POLE- TROLL ZONES- We do not have a problem with 

the placement of limited P and T Zones provided the areas are not so large that it 

prevents reasonable ingress and egress by anglers. The Merritt Island Refuge 

managers have worked with CCA Florida and other concerned anglers to establish 

some pole and troll zones in the Lagoon. The anglers helped to identify the areas 

and establish access corridors in the zones. The northern most zone in the proposed 

alternative B needs to have slow speed access corridors for motorized boats. 

S.LIMIT ON PROFESSIONAL GUIDE PERMITS IN CNS- We do not have a 

problem with limiting the number of guide permits in the Mosquito Lagoon; 

however, any such permits must be limited to use by the guide that holds the 

permit. We strongly oppose allowing the permit holder to lease, transfer or sell to 

another entity. The CNS should have the ability to end the program at its 

discretion. Non use for a specified period of time would cause the permit to revert 

back to the CNS. 

6.PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING- We have no problems with the 

current no cost recreational fishing permit which is primarily an educational 

program and is not intended to limit angler access. 

CLOSING COMMENTS 

CCA Florida looks forward to working with the Canaveral National Seashore, 

Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission in 

developing management plans for the protection and management of the 

outstanding fisheries in the Mosquito Lagoon and Indian River. 

Prepared by CCA Florida 10-19-2011 

3 
Submitted via PEPC on 10/25/11 

Correspondence ID: 17 

To Whom It May Concern: 

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce, (officially known as 

the New Smyrna Beach - Edgewater - Oak Hill Chamber of Commerce) I would like to recommend 

Alternative C for the future plan of Canaveral National Seashore to the United States Department of 

Interior, National Park Service. As you know, the Chamber of Commerce was instrumental in bringing the 

Canaveral National Seashore here to New Smyrna Beach under the leadership of Mr. TC Wilder. Since 

its inception, the park on the north side has been visited by millions of visitors each year. The park is an 

important asset to the City of New Smyrna Beach and the County of Volusia as it draws many visitors 

from around the world, thus encouraging economic development and tourism for the surrounding areas. 

This northern end of the park encompasses many more opportunities for environmental, historical and 

unique natural and cultural visitor experiences and resources and we feel that more emphasis and visitor 

centers need to be placed in this area. Additionally, under this plan the expansion of the land and water 

based trails will tie in nicely with the Rails and Trails program that Volusia County is working on with the 

City of Edgewater and City of Oak Hill under the ECHO Initiative. As a side note, the City of Oak Hill has 

been designated as and Enterprise Zone, thus allowing for many more opportunities that the County, City 

and Canaveral National Seashore may be able to optimize for future operations and facilities with ease of 

access from the mainland, not just the beachside. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and input for this important twenty year plan for 

Canaveral National Seashore. We appreciate the impact that the park has on our environment and 

community. 

Sincerely, 

Samantha Bishop 

Executive Vice President 
www.dep.state.fl.us 

January 17, 2012 

Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington Avenue 

Titusville, FL 32796-3553 

RE: National Park Service – Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Canaveral National Seashore 

Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida 

SAI # FL201108255934C 

Dear Superintendent Palfrey-Perez: 

The Florida State Clearinghouse has coordinated the state’s review of the August 2011 

Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for 

Canaveral National Seashore under the following authorities: Presidential Executive 

Order 12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes (F.S.); the Coastal Zone Management Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq., as amended; and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, as amended. 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), designated by the 

Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) as the state’s lead coastal management 

agency pursuant to § 306(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c) 

and § 380.22, F.S., has reviewed the referenced Draft GMP/EIS under the provisions of 

15 C.F.R. 930, subpart C and hereby notifies the National Park Service (NPS) that the 

GMP/EIS will be consistent with the FCMP only upon the NPS’ full compliance with 

the conditions stated in this letter. The bases for this conditional concurrence are set 

forth in Section III below, and a summary of comments received from other state and 

regional agencies is reflected in Section I. The comment letters from those agencies are 

attached and incorporated in this letter by reference. 

I. SUMMARY OF STATE AGENCY COMMENTS

The Department’s Central District Office (DEP) in Orlando recommends that the NPS 

revise the Air Quality section of the Draft GMP/EIS to update the air quality standards 

listed. Please refer to the following U. S. Environmental Protection Agency website 

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 

Rick Scott

Governor

Jennifer Carroll

Lt. Governor

Herschel T. Vinyard Jr.

Secretary
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 2 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

for the current air quality standards for Ozone-O3 and Particulate Matter-PM2.5: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. The DEP also states that if Alternatives C or D 

are chosen, drinking water distribution system permits and domestic wastewater 

collection/transmission system permits would be required for the installation of new 

water and sewer lines. 

The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) advises that Alternatives 

B, C and D include minor construction projects (e.g., parking areas, boat ramps and 

buildings) that may require Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) for stormwater 

management and wetland or surface water impacts in accordance with Chapters 40C-4, 

40C-40, 40C-42 and 40C-400, Florida Administrative Code. For additional information on 

the state’s ERP permitting requirements, please contact Mr. David Dewey, Director of 

the SJRWMD Maitland Service Center, at (407) 659-4821. 

Many of the issues covered by the Draft GMP/EIS relate to water resources within the 

SJRWMD and intersect with SJRWMD’s Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan and the National Estuary Program’s Indian River 

Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The Draft GMP/EIS 

indicates that Alternative B – the NPS’ preferred alternative – appears to be consistent 

with the goals and objectives of both management plans. The SJRWMD looks forward 

to continued collaboration with NPS staff at Canaveral National Seashore. For further 

information and assistance, please contact Mr. Ron Brockmeyer, Environmental Scientist V, at (386) 329-4459. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has provided detailed 

comments, recommendations and supporting technical information in its letter of January 

6, 2012, and Enclosures 1 and 2 appended to the letter, copies of which are attached. 

The letter notes the coordination efforts between the FWC and NPS to address the 

agency’s concerns regarding management activities proposed in the Draft GMP/EIS. 

Because several major issues could not be resolved, however, the FWC finds it necessary to condition its concurrence regarding the consistency of the document with the 

federally approved FCMP. 

FWC staff fully supports the NPS’ intent to develop a Fishery Management Plan to 

address commercial and recreational fishing within Mosquito Lagoon and offshore 

waters of the national seashore. The agency offers its commitment to work with the 

national seashore, federal and state resource management agencies and fishing 

stakeholders in the development of fisheries management strategies that provide for 

and balance healthy and sustainable fisheries, habitat protection, and visitor use. 
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 3 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

II. STATE CONSISTENCY FINDING – CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE

The FWC and the Department hereby notify the NPS that the Draft GMP/EIS will be 

consistent with the enforceable policies of the FCMP if and only if the following conditions are satisfied. Should the NPS fail to implement the following measures, or some 

alternative measures identified and mutually agreed upon between the Department, 

FWC and NPS to ensure the GMP/EIS’ consistency with the enforceable policies of 

the FCMP, this conditional concurrence shall be treated as a finding that the Draft 

GMP/EIS is inconsistent with the enforceable policies of Chapter 379, F.S., under 15 

C.F.R. 930.4(b). 

1. Modify TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONES on pages 40 - 45 of the Draft GMP/EIS as 

specified in Enclosure 1 of the FWC’s January 6th letter, to reflect the manner in 

which marine fisheries management issues will be addressed. 

2. Amend language throughout the Draft GMP/EIS, where appropriate, to state 

that fishing activities and fishing vessel operation will be conducted in the 

manner specified in the Fishery Management Plan. For example, any language 

in the document that proposes new or modified use of management strategies 

that restrict the use of internal combustion motors (e.g., pole/troll areas), limit 

vessel speed (e.g., idle/slow speed zones), limit vessel type or size, impose 

permitting requirements for fishing activities, limit access or close certain areas 

to fishing should be modified to refer to the Fishery Management Plan. 

3. Modify TABLE 3: INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES on page 52 of the Draft GMP/EIS as follows: 

• Under “Potential Management Strategies” for both Amount of prop scarring

and Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, modify the language to state that the 

following strategies, if selected, will be developed through the Fishery Management Plan process: Expansion of pole/troll areas, Increased idle or slow-speed 

zones, Mandatory permits and Access limitations. 

• Under “Indicators” for Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, delete the 

following language: “Change in oyster reef mortality (extent of visible dead 

shells) at individual reefs, both adjacent to primary boat corridors and in the 

national seashore’s more remote waters,” and replace it with the following 

language: “Indicators to determine change in oyster reef mortality will be 

developed in coordination with the FWC.” 

• Under “Recommended Standard” for Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, 

delete all language and replace with the following: “The recommended 

standard is to be determined in coordination with the FWC.” 
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 4 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

The FWC emphasizes that the NPS’ compliance with the foregoing conditions need not 

delay finalizing the Draft GMP/EIS. The management zones could remain as proposed, 

as long as the final GMP/EIS provides that the management of fishing activities and 

fishing vessel operations within the zones will be governed by the Fishery Management 

Plan being developed and the NPS modifies Table 3 as indicated in Condition 3 above. 

The FWC recognizes that the GMP only provides the framework for NPS’ management 

of seashore resources – it does not implement the management actions reflected in the plan. 

The FWC contends that the proposed management zones and actions listed below should 

not be implemented through the Superintendent’s Compendium process, but instead 

undertaken through rulemaking, because they would result in a significant alteration in 

the public use pattern of the seashore and are of a highly controversial nature (see 36 C.F.R. 

§ 1.5(b)). Again, finalizing the Draft GMP/EIS need not be delayed to achieve consistency 

with the FWC’s enforceable policies in the FCMP, as subsequent regulatory processes (e.g.,

Fishery Management Plan development, implementation of management actions and 

management zones through rulemaking) will provide opportunities for further coordination and resolution of the issues of concern to the FWC and stakeholders. 

Absent modification of the Draft GMP/EIS to address the three conditions listed above, 

this conditional concurrence shall be treated as an objection, because the FWC has 

determined that the following management actions contained in the Draft GMP/EIS 

that reduce or eliminate fishing activities, either directly or indirectly, are inconsistent 

with the FWC’s enforceable policies contained in the FCMP: 

1. Direct or indirect prohibition of recreational or commercial fishing activities; 

2. Area closures; 

3. Access limitations; 

4. Limitations or prohibitions on the use of internal combustion motors; 

5. Limitations or prohibitions on vessel type, size and speed; 

6. Limitations on harvesting gear; and 

7. Permit requirements specific to fishing activities. 

Because the NPS could implement one or more of the foregoing actions in any of the 

following management zones described in the Draft GMP/EIS, the identified areas are 

also inconsistent with the FWC’s enforceable policies in the FCMP: 

1. Visitor Orientation/NPS Administration Zone; 

2. Environmental/Historical Education Zone; 
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 5 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

3. Recreation Zone; 

4. Backcountry Zone; and 

5. Sensitive Resource Zone. 

III. BASIS FOR FINDING OF CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE

The following state laws are enforceable policies of the federally approved FCMP and 

therefore provide the bases for the FWC’s objection: 

379.23 Federal conservation of fish and wildlife; limited jurisdiction.— 

(2) The United States may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over lands so acquired and 

carry out the intent and purpose of the authority except that the existing laws of 

Florida relating to the Department of Environmental Protection or the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission shall prevail relating to any area under their supervision.

The seven management actions listed on page 4 are inconsistent with this enforceable 

policy of the FCMP, because they will reduce or eliminate fishing activities through the 

enforcement and implementation of federal law rather than state law. 

379.244 Crustacea, marine animals, fish; regulations; general provisions.— 

(1) OWNERSHIP OF FISH, SPONGES, ETC.—All fish, shellfish, sponges, oysters, 

clams, and crustacea found within the rivers, creeks, canals, lakes, bayous, lagoons, 

bays, sounds, inlets, and other bodies of water within the jurisdiction of the state, and 

within the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean within the jurisdiction of the state, 

excluding all privately owned enclosed fish ponds not exceeding 150 acres, are the 

property of the state and may be taken and used by its citizens and persons not citizens, 

subject to the reservations and restrictions imposed by these statutes. No water bottoms 

owned by the state shall ever be sold, transferred, dedicated, or otherwise conveyed 

without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereon, except as otherwise 

provided in these statutes. 

The seven management actions listed on page 4 are inconsistent with this enforceable 

policy of the FCMP, because they will restrict the public’s right to fish in a manner not 

provided by Florida law. 

379.232 Water bottoms.— 

(1) OWNERSHIP.—All beds and bottoms of navigable rivers, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, 

sounds, inlets, oceans, gulfs and other bodies of water within the jurisdiction of Florida shall 
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 6 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

be the property of the state except such as may be held under some grant or alienation 

heretofore made. No grant, sale or conveyance of any water bottom, except conditional leases 

and dispositions hereinafter provided for, shall hereafter be made by the state, the Board of 

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, or any other official or political corporation. Persons who have received, 

or may hereafter receive permits to do business in this state, with their factories, shucking 

plants and shipping depots located in this state, may enjoy the right of fishing for oysters and 

clams from the natural reefs and bedding oysters and clams on leased bedding grounds, and 

shall have the right to employ such boats, vessels, or labor and assistants as they may need[.]

The seven management actions identified on page 4 are inconsistent with the foregoing 

enforceable policy, because they infringe upon the authority of the state to determine 

oyster and clam harvest through the regulation of recreational and commercial fishing 

and related business operations. 

379.2401 Marine fisheries; policy and standards.— 

(1) The Legislature hereby declares the policy of the state to be management and 

preservation of its renewable marine fishery resources, based upon the best available 

information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine 

environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all 

the people of this state for present and future generations.

The FWC adheres to the foregoing policy when managing the state’s marine fishery 

resources for fishing activities, and because the statute is included in the federally 

approved FCMP, it applies equally to the NPS in its management of marine fishery 

resources located within seashore boundaries for desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences. 

The seven management actions described above are inconsistent with this enforceable 

policy, because they are not based on “best available information” and, by reducing or 

eliminating fishing activities, they do not provide for “optimum sustained benefits and 

use” to the people of this state. 

379.2401 Marine fisheries; policy and standards.— 

(3) All rules relating to saltwater fisheries adopted by the commission shall be consistent 

with the following standards: 

(c) Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of 

annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a 

continuing basis.
Ms. Myrna Palfrey-Perez, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Page 7 of 8 

January 17, 2012 

The seven management actions listed above are inconsistent with this enforceable policy, 

because they conflict with the marine fisheries rules developed and promulgated by the 

FWC for saltwater fisheries, by reducing or eliminating "reasonable means and quantities 

of annual harvest." The Draft GMP /EIS does not provide any data showing that the 

"maximum practicable stock abundance" of the seashore's marine fisheries resources 

will be impacted if fishing (harvesting) is not reduced or eliminated. 

Please see the FWC's January 6th letter (attached) for additional comments and recommendations regarding the management of natural resources and visitor access within 

the national seashore. The FWC looks forward to continued coordination with NPS 

staff to resolve the issues of concern and offers its assistance in the development of 

specific plans and strategies to inventory, monitor, protect and manage fish and wildlife 

species and their habitats. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with 15 C.P.R. 930.43(c), a copy of this letter has been sent to the Director 

of the NOAA Office of Ocea:q. and Coastal Resource Management. Mediation by the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce may be sought pursuant to 15 C.P.R. 

930, subpart G, for serious disagreements between a state and federal agency with 

regard to direct federal action as contemplated by 15 C.P.R. 930, subpart C. 

Should you have any questions regarding the FWC' s comments and recommendations, 

please contact Ms. Jessica McCawley, Director of FWC' s Division of Marine Fisheries 

Management, at (850) 487-0554 or Jessica.McCawley@MyFWC.com, or Mr. Dennis David, 

Director of FWC's Northeast Region, at (352) 732-1390 or Dennis.David@MyFWC.com. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft GMP /EIS. For additional information or assistance regarding the state's review, please contact Ms. Lauren P. Milligan, 

Coordinator of the Florida State Clearinghouse, or Mr. Danny Clayton, Administrator 

of the Florida Coastal Management Program, at (850) 245-2163. 

je 

Chief 

· er 

of 

L. 

Staff 

Fit!w~~ JLF/sm/lm 

Enclosures 
United States Department of the Interior 

December 19, 2013 

Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington Ave. 

Titusville, Florida 32796 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

620 South Meridian Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 

SUBJECT: National Park Service response to FWC request for additional information for the 

conditional concurrence determination for the Canaveral National Seashore, Draft General 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. (SAI# FL201108255934C) 

Dear Mr. Wiley: 

This letter contains the National Park Service (NPS) response to the September 6, 2013, letter received 

fi·om the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regarding the Coastal Zone 

Management Act consistency determination for the Canaveral National Seashore, Draft General 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DGMP/EIS). This response also contains 

additional information and commitments that were discussed and agreed to in principle at our last 

meeting with your staff on December 13, 2013. We greatly appreciate the dedication of you and your 

staff to work together and resolve the remaining issues with our GMP. 

This response is organized by citing the three specific conditions identified in the September 6, 2013, 

----· letter in italics and following each specific condition with the NPS response and proposed changes that 

will be incorporated into the Final GMP/EIS. 

CONDITION #1 

"On pages 40- 45 (Table 1: Management Zones), modifY the table as specified in Enclosure 1 to 

reflect how marine fisheries management issues will be addressed. " 

The CNS response did not identifY if "Table 1: Management Zones" in the DGMP/EIS has been 

amended as specified in this condition. Please provide the FWC with additional information that 

specifically identifies how "Table 1: Management Zones" has been amended in the DGMP/EIS in 

order to satisfy this condition, or specifically identifY alternative measures that have been agreed 

upon between DEP, FWC and NPS to ensure the DGMP/EIS' consistency with the eriforceable 

policies of the FCMP. 

NPS Response: 

The following is an excerpt of the Management Zones section from the Final GMP/EIS that replaces 

the text in the DGMP/EIS in response to your comments on condition #I. The text that is underlined 

1 
is additional information that has been added and the text that has a strikethrough is infonnation that 

has been deleted from the original DGMP/EIS. 

*************** 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones describe how different areas 

of the national seashore would be managed. 

Each management zone specifies 

complementary natural resource conditions, 

cultural resource conditions, oppmtunities for 

visitor experiences, and appropriate facilities, 

and combines these into a possible management 

strategy that could be applied to locations 

within the national seashore. As such, 

management zones give an indication of the 

management priorities for various areas. 

The following seven management zones have 

been developed for the national seashorevisitor orientation/NPS administration, 

environmental/historical education, recreation, 

backcountry, sensitive resource, NASA 

security/safety clearance, and joint management 

area. The action alternatives presented later in 

this chapter each propose a different 

configuration of the management zones within 

the national seashore based on the concept for 

each alternative. In every management zone, 

the national seashore intends to preserve and 

protect natural and cultural resources to the 

greatest extent possible given avmlable funds. 

An overview of the management zones is 

provided on the following pages, with more 

2 

detail in tables 1 and 2 that follow. The tables 

describe desired resource conditions, allowable 

visitor opportunities and activities, and the 

appropriate level of development for each 

management zone. 

A number of these zones address management 

of fishing-related activities. The National Park 

Service will coordinate with the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in 

accordance with the Memorandum of 

Understanding (discussed in the Interagency 

Agreements section of Chapter I and elsewhere 

throughout the document) prior to developing 

and implementing management actions that 

modify current management of fishing activities 

or fishing vessel operations within the national 

seashore. A fishery management plan will be 

developed to guide fishing-related activities and 

address impacts of vessel operation on fisheries 

resources. (See the Fisheries section under 

Alternative B in Chapter 2 for more information 

about the fishety management plan.) Fisheriesrelated management strategies associated with 

certain zones may be modified or refined based 

on outcomes from the proposed hshery 

management plm1. 
Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

NPS 

Management 

Activities 

Commercial 

Services 

Management zones 

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT ZONES 

This zone would be the primary 

orientation area where overall 

interpretive themes are introduced to the 

visitor. Exhibits, formal talks, walks, 

guided hikes, and other organized or 

self-directed visitor opportunities would 

occur in this zone. 

Public use would be limited in certain 

parts of this zone, such as NPS 

maintenance and administrative facility 

areas. 

This is the primary zone for NPS visitor, 

administrative, and maintenance 

facilities. When appropriate, 

management actions-especially those 

related to resource management-would 

be interpreted. 

NPS staff would be on-site. 

Commercial services that suppmt visitor 

use and NPS administrative activities 

would be appropriate if compatible with 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

3 

Visitors would be exposed to a variety of 

on-site interpretive services designed to 

enhance educational exploration of the 

national seashore. Visitor opportunities 

would include programs, guided tours, 

talks and roving rangers, self-guided 

activities, viewing and learning about the 

national seashore's flora, fauna, and 

cultural resources. 

Visitor use would be managed to prevent 

resource damage. 

This is the primary zone for NPS visitor 

educational and interpretive facilities and 

activities. NPS management activities 

would include those necessary to preserve 

and protect resources. When appropriate, 

management actions-especially those 

related to resource management-would 

be interpreted. 

NPS staff would often be on-site. 

Commercial services that support visitor 

use and NPS administrative activities 

would be appropriate if compatible with 

desired resource conditions and visitor 
Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

Management 

Activities 

Commercial 

Services 

Management Zones 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.) 

Visitors could hike, boat, fish. picnic. 

sulf, take scenic drives ami boating trirs, 

participate in beach activities, and S!H'f 

fishing, take photographs, and study 

nature, rienie, lltlEI Stn·f. Limited 

horseback riding could occur in 

designated areas. Interpretation would be 

provided through infonnal programs, 

guided tours, talks, roving rangers, and 

waysides. 

Visitation levels would be low to high. 

Levels could be highest at access 

locations throughout this zone. 

Visitor use would be managed to limit 

resource impacts. 

provided to help support the basic needs 

of visitors-such as access, information, 

and public health and safety. 

NPS staff would periodically patrol. 

Commercial services that suppmt visitor 

use and NPS administrative activities 

could be provided if compatible with 

resource conditions and visitor 

experience goals. 

Guided fishing would be restricted and 

capped in 2013 in the Joint Management 

Area as outlined in the USFWS 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Commercial harvesting fishing would be 

4 

Visitors could explore natural elements 

of the national seashore with minimal 

distraction from modern intrusions or 

other visitors. Boating in nonmotorized 

boats weald be flermitted wonld be 

allowed in this zone. Some areas may be 

designated pole/troll areas. Visitors could 

also participate in beach activities, study 

nature, hike, take photographs, camp in 

primitive camping area, and fish. Limited 

horseback riding could occur in 

designated areas. Minimal on-site 

interpretation would be related to 

management and protection of natural 

and cultural resources. 

Visitor access would be primarily by 

nonmotorized means such as hiking, 

kayaking, and canoeing. Marked 

channels to allow controlled motorized 

access could be designated. Visitation 

levels would be low. Visitor use would 

be dispersed throughout the zone. 

Visitor use would be managed to limit 

resource impacts. 

" " activities would include mitigation of 

threats to resources and public safety. 

NPS staff would periodically patrol. 

Limited commercial services that support 

visitor use and NPS administrative 

activities could be provided if compatible 

with resource conditions and visitor 

experience goals. 

Guided fishing would be restricted and 

capped in 2013 in the Joint Management 

Area as outlined in the USFWS 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Commercial harvesting fishing would be 
Management Zones 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.) 

eliminated in the Joint Management 

Areas by 2018, as also outlined in the 

USFWS plan. Guided and unguided 

recreational fishing might be allowed in 

designated areas. 0Hee #!is GMP I E!S is 

eompletee, the J>la!ioHal Park Serviee 

weHld de>1elop a plaH for mooagemeH! ef 

the fisheries iH aEljaeeH! Ha!ieHal seashore 

waters iH relatieH !e tile USF'.VS fllaHs. 

Outside of the Joint Management Area, 

recreational fishing activities classified 

as commercial services (i.e. guides) will 

be conducted in the manner specified in 

the fishery management plan once it is 

developed and completed. Please refer to 

the introduction of the alternatives 

section of this chapter for information 

regarding the NPS approach to address 

commercial fishing in tl1e national 

seashore. 

5 

eliminated in the Joint Management 

Areas by 2018, as also outlined in the 

USFWS plan. Guided and unguided 

recreational fishing might be allowed in 

designated areas. 0Hee #!is GMP I EIS is 

eemfJleteEI, the Na!ioHal Park Se£¥iee 

weHie eevelefl a fllaH for maHagemeHt ef 

the fisheries iH aejaeeHt Ha!ieHal seashore 

waters iH relatioH to !he USFWS fllaHs. 

Outside of the Joint Management Area, 

recreational fishing activities classified 

as commercial services (i.e. guides) will 

be conducted in the marmer specified in 

the fishery management plan once it is 

developed and completed. Please refer to 

the introduction ofilie alternatives 

section of tl1is chapter for information 

regarding the NPS approach to address 

commercial fishing in the national 

seashore. 
Visitor 

Opportunities 

and Access 

Management 

Activities 

Commercial 

Services 

CONDITION #2 

Table 1. Management Zones (cont.) 

Sensitive Resource Zone 

Visitation would be restricted in this zone to 

protect sensitive resources. Any and all visitor 

activities would be highly directed or led by 

NPS guides. The significance of the resources 

would primarily be interpreted in the visitor 

orientation/NPS administration zone through 

interpretive and educational exhibits and 

programs. 

Visitor access would be restricted or highly 

directed and controlled over established 

pathways. 

NPS staff and other researchers would 

occasionally be present and involve permitted 

research and monitoring activities, mitigation 

of threats to resources, and improving habitat 

for targeted species. 

NPS staff would periodically patrol. 

Not available. 

*************** 

Management Zones 

"Amend Management Plan language, where appropriate, to reflect that fishing activities and fishing 

vessel operation will be conducted in the manner specified in the Fishery Management Plan. For 

example, language should be amended anywhere in the document that proposes new or modified use 

of management strategies that limit the use of internal combustion motors (e.g., pole/troll areas), limit 

vessel speed (e.g., idle/slow speed zones), limit vessel type or size, permitting requirements for fishing 

activities, access limitations, or area closures. " 

The CNS response did identifY that a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) would be developed in 

coordination with the FWC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other state and federal agencies. The 

CNS response further stated that the FMP " ... would address fishing in the lagoon and offshore waters 

in order to better protect park resources ... " What the CNS response did not identifY was if the FMP 

would also address "fishing vessel operation" in addition to "fishing in the lagoon and offihore 

waters", and if the GMP had been amended to " ... reflect that fishing activities and fishing vessel 

operation will be conducted in the manner specified in the Fishery Management Plan." Please provide 

the FWC with additional information that specifically identifies how the DGMP/EIS has been amended 

to "reflect that fishing activities and fishing vessel operation will be conducted in the manner specified 

in the Fishery Management Plan" in order to satisfy this condition, or specifically identifY alternative 

6 
Management zones 

measures that have been agreed upon between DEP, FWC and NPS to ensure the DGMPIEIS' 

consistency with the el!forceable policies of the FCMP. 

NPS Response: 

In order to address condition #2 cited above, the following text changes have been made throughout 

Final GMP/EIS, where appropriate (i.e. Fisheries section under Altemative B in Chapter 2). The text 

that is underlined and is in red is additional information that has been added and the text that has a 

strikethrough is information that has been deleted from the original DGMP/EIS. 

" ... the National Park Service would develop a separate fishery management plan. The plan would 

include a public involvement and environmental compliance process, and would be developed in 

partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and other federal and state agencies. In the interim, NPS would develop a 

memorandum of understanding with FWC that outlines the commitment of both agencies to 

collaborate in the management of fisheries within the national seashore and become cooperating 

agencies in the development of the fishery management plan. 

Once the fisheiy management plan is developed and completed it will address fishing activities 

within the national seashore in order to better protect park resources including valuable fisheries 

resources and to determine sustainable harvest levels found within boundaries of the national 

seashore. Impacts of vessel operations on fisheries resources will also be addressed. The National 

Park Service would use the best available science in order to make infonned decisions in the 

fishery management plan. 

Until the fishery management plan is approved, the National Park Service will coordinate with 

!h~ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission pursuant to the Memorandum of 

Understanding (discussed in the Interagency Agreements section of Chapter I and elsewhere 

throughout the document) prior to developing and implementing management actions that modify 

current management of fishing activities or fishing vessel operations. Management actions 

include but are not limited to new or modified use of management strategies that limit the use of 

internal combustion motors (e.g. pole and troll areas), or limit vessel speed (e.g. idle/slow speed 

zones), permitting requirements for fishing activities, access limitations, or area closures. Until 

the fishery management plan is approved, the National Park Service would continue to adopt the 

---------Flonda Flsli anaWIIdlTfeConservatwn Commission's nshmg regulaflons and actively monitor 

and patrol fishing activities in Mosquito Lagoon to ensure state regulations are met." 

CONDITION #3 

"On page 52 (Table 3: Indicators, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies), modifY the table 

as follows: 

• Under Potential Management Strategies for both Amount of propeller scarring and Influence of 

boat wakes on oyster reefs, modifY language to show that the strategies Expansion of pole/troll 

areas, increased idle or slow-speed zones, Mandatory permits, and Access limitations, if selected, 

will be developed through the Fishery Management Plan process. 

• Under Indicators for Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefs, delete the following language: 

"Change in oyster reef mortality (extent of visible dead shells) at individual reefs, both adjacent to 

primary boat corridors and in the national seashore's more remote waters, " and replace with the 

following language: "Indicators to determine change in oyster reef mortality will be developed in 

coordination with the FWC. " 

7 
Management Zones 

• Under Recommended Standard for Influence of boat wakes on oyster reefS, delete all language 

and replace with the following: "The recommended standard is to be determined in coordination 

with the FWC. " 

Please provide the FWC with additional information that specifically identifies how "Table 3: 

Indicators, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies" has been amended in the GMP in order 

to satisfY each bulle ted item included in this condition, or specifically identify alternative measures 

that have been agreed upon between DEP, FWC and NPS to ensure the DGMPIEIS' consistency with 

the enforceable policies of the FCMP. 

NPS Response: 

In order to address condition #3 cited above, the following text has been added to the body of the 

Visitor Management Use section in Chapter 2: 

"Please note that indicators and standards associated with propeller scarring and boat wakes may 

be modified or refined based on outcomes from the proposed fishe1y management plan." 

In addition to the above language, the following is an excerpt of Table 3: Indicators, Standards, and 

Potential Management Strategies from the Final GMP/EIS that replaces the text in the DGMP/EIS 

based on condition #3. The text that is underlined is additional information that has been added and the 

text that has a strikethrough is information that has been deleted from the original DGMP/EIS. 

*************** 

8 
Management Zones 

TABLE 3. INDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

General Assigned Recommended Potential Management Visitor Impact Indicators 

Topic Zone Standard Strategies 

Amount of Level of Recreation The recommended Greater efforts towards 

propeller scarring standard is to be education and awareness of 

scaning Backcountry determined in regulations and sensitive 

Note: exact collaboration with resources. 

metric to be the St. Johns Water 

determined in Management Increase in staff and greater 

collaboration District, FWC, the enforcement of regulations. 

with the St. U.S. Fish and Better posting of regulations, 

Johns Water Wildlife Service, including pole/troll areas. 

Management and other subject Better marking of shallows, and 

District,- area exgerts based other improved aids to 

ef on recent and navigation. 

I FleriaaFWC, upcoming baseline Expansion of pole/troll areas . ."'_ 

and the U.S. condition Increased idle or slow-speed 

Fish and assessments areas._! 

Wildlife (Dynamac 2008) Mandatory education and/or 

Service and permits . ."'_ 

other subject Access limitations (e.g., 

area exgerts regulations for sizes of boats) 

and/or area closures . ."'_ 

Influence of Change in Recreation No more than a 5% Greater effmts towards 

boat wakes on oyster reef increase in mmtality education and awareness of 

oyster reefs mortality Backcountry above the 2009 regulations and sensitive 

(extent of baseline for any resources. 

visible dead individual oyster Increase in staff and greater 

shells) at reef directlv enforcement of re~ulations. 

individual adjacent to any of Better posting of regulations, 

reefs, both the following including pole/troll areas. 

adjacent to primary boat Better marking of shallows, and 

primary boat channels: Old other improved aids to 

corridors and in Channel, navigation. 

the national Government Cut, Expansion of pole/troll areas . ."'_ 

seashore's Slippery Creek, and Increased idle or slow-speed 

more re1note Shotgun areas.~ 

waters Mandatory education and/or 

No additional permits . ."'_ 

Note: Problem mortality above the Access limitations (e.g., 

analysis would 2009 baseline for regulations for sizes of boats) 

be needed to any individual and/or area closures . ."'_ 

isolate visitor- oyster reef in the 

caused impacts national seashore's 

from naturally more remote waters 

caused oyster (any reefs not 

9 
Management Zones 

TABLE 3.1NDICATORS, STANDARDS, AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

General Assigned Recommended Potential Management Visitor Impact Indicators 

Topic Zone Standard Strategies 

reef mortality. directly adjacent to 

the primary boat 

Note: exact channels as noted in 

metric to be the above standard) 

determined in 

coordination Note: The 

withFWC recommended 

standard is to be 

determined in 

coordination with 

FWC 

Note: znd1cators and standards assocwted w1th propeller scarrmg and boat wakes may be mod1fied or 

refined based on outcomes from the proposed fishery management plan. 

*If adopted. the National Park Service will coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (discussed in the Interagency Agreements section of 

Chapter 1 and elsewhere throughout the document) prior to developing and implementing management 

actions that modifY current management offishing activities or fishing vessel operations. Once the fishery 

management plan is developed and completed it will address these management strategies. 

*************** 

In closing, Canaveral National Seashore is committed to maintaining a positive and productive 

partnership with the FWC and other state agencies. We believe that the responses in this letter and those 

from our previous letter dated June 28, 2013, fully address the conditions for consistency as well as other 

technical comments submitted by the FWC and further strengthen the consistency of the Final GMP/EIS 

with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Florida Coastal Management Program. We are requesting 

----:tlmt-F'NG-previde-eenemrenee-en-this-appmaeh-in-the-ferm--ef--a-letter-t{}-the-Fleridfl-Bepartment-ef------

Environmental Protection to conclude our consultation process under the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

We look forward to working with you to preserve the exceptional fisheries resources of Canaveral 

National Seashore for the enjoyment of future generations. 

Sincerely, 

::~vf.!l£#7 

Superintendent 

Cc Shannon Wright, Northeast Regional Director 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

1239 SW 10"' Street Ocala, FL 34471 

Lauren P. Milligan, Environmental Manager 

Florida State Clearinghouse 

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399 

10 
www.dep.state.fl.us 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS BUILDING

3900 COMMONWEALTH BOULEVARD

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-3000

RICK SCOTT

GOVERNOR

CARLOS LOPEZ-CANTERA

LT. GOVERNOR

HERSCHEL T. VINYARD JR.

SECRETARY

February 4, 2014 

Ms. Myrna I. Palfrey, Superintendent 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington Avenue 

Titusville, FL 32796-3553 

RE: National Park Service – Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement for Canaveral National Seashore – Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida 

SAI # FL201108255934C 

Dear Superintendent Palfrey: 

The Florida State Clearinghouse has been notified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC) in the enclosed letter of the Canaveral National Seashore’s 

commitment to develop a Fishery Management Plan and update the Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS). Because of the National Park Service’s ongoing coordination with the FWC resulting in your December 19, 2013, response to the FWC’s 

comments and recommendations, we recognize that the conditions for the state’s concurrence 

with the GMP/EIS outlined in our January 17, 2012, letter are being met. 

We appreciate your efforts to partner with the FWC to address fisheries management issues. 

Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 

(850) 245-2170 or Lauren.Milligan@dep.state.fl.us.

Yours sincerely, 

Lauren P. Milligan, Coordinator 

Florida State Clearinghouse 

Office of Intergovernmental Programs 

Enclosure 

cc: Margaret Davidson, NOAA OCRM Acting Director 

Ben West, NPS Southeast Regional Office 

Chris Church, NPS Denver Service Center-Planning 

Nick Wiley, Executive Director, FWC 

Jessica McCawley, Director, FWC Marine Fisheries Management 

Scott Sanders, Director, FWC Conservation Planning Services 
Florida Fish 

and Wildlife 

Conservation 

Commission 

Commissioners 

Richard A. Corbett 

Chairman 

Tampa 

Brian S. Yablonski 

Vice Chairman 

Tallahassee 

Ronald M. Bergeron 

Fort Lauderdale 

Aliese P. "Liesa" Priddy 

Immokalee 

Bo Rivard 

Panama City 

Charles W. Roberts Ill 

Tallahassee 

Executive Staff 

Nick Wiley 

Executive Director 

Eric Sutton 

Assistant Executive Director 

Karen Ventimiglia 

Chief of Staff 

Office of the 

Executive Director 

Nick Wiley 

Executive Director 

(850) 487-3796 

(850) 921-5786 FAX 

Managing fish and wildlife 

resources for their long-term 

well-being and the benefit 

of people. 

620 South Meridian Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 

32399-1600 

Voice: (850) 488-4676 

Hearing/speech-impaired: 

(800) 955-8771 (T) 

(800) 955-8770 (V) 

MyFWC.com 

January 22, 2014 

Superintendent Myrna Palfrey 

National Park Service 

Canaveral National Seashore 

212 South Washington A venue 

Titusville, FL 32796 

Myma.Palfrey@nps.gov 

RE: Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

GMP/EIS) for Canaveral National Seashore, Brevard and Volusia Counties, 

Florida 

Dear Superintendent Palfrey: 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff met with you and Ben 

West, Planning and Compliance Division Chief, on December 13 to resolve the fisheries 

issues that led the FWC to object to the Draft GMP/EIS as outlined in our January 6, 

2012, letter to the Florida State Clearinghouse. We appreciate your willingness to work 

with us to update the GMP so that it is now consistent with our authorities under 

Florida's federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. Specifically, the 

National Park Service (NPS) has committed to work with the FWC under a 

Memorandum of Agreement to develop a fishery management plan that will guide 

fishing-related activities in a way that is consistent with our authorities under sections 

379.23, 379.232, and 379.2401, Florida Statutes. The plan's development will include 

frequent stakeholder input, which we believe to be essential for making durable 

management decisions. 

We look forward to continuing this collaborative effort with you and NPS staff to ensure 

that both of our agencies' missions are met. If you need further assistance, please do not 

hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 410-5367 or by email at 

FWCConservationPlanningServices@MyFWC.com. If you have specific technical 

questions regarding the content of this letter, please feel free to contact Jim Estes at (850) 

487-0554 or by email at jim.estes@MyFWC.com. 

Sincerely, 

Nick Wiley 

Executive Director 

nw/map/lg 

ENV 1-3-2 

Canaveral National Seashore 15511 012214 

cc: Ben West, National Park Service, ben west@nps.gov 

Lauren Milligan, Department of Environmental Protection, 

Lauren.Milligan@dep.state.fl.us 














Submitted via PEPC 

Correspondence ID: 22 

Organization: Volusia County Environmental Management 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft General Management Plan 

for Canaveral National Seashore. 

Vol usia County Environmental Management supports Alternative Bas presented in the plan, 

demonstrating a good balance between environmental protection and public use. We offer the 

following specific comments for your consideration in the plan revisions. 

Chapter 2, Pg. 52, Table 3- There is no mention of visitor impacts on protected species 

such as manatees, sea turtles, gopher tortoises, etc. in this section, and no mention of 

potential management strategies, such as visitor education on viewing/interaction 

practices, educational signage, etc. Management strategies in general are addressed in 

Appendix B, but viewing, signage and interaction is not specifically mentioned. A 

reference to Appendix B here would also be helpful. 

All Alternatives, Pg. 76- Will phasing out 24 hr. access to the boat ramp across from 

Parking Area 1 have a significant impact, socioeconomic and access wise, on the public? 

All Alternatives (?),Visitor Experience, Pg. 60- Are there plans to increase sign age, 

indicating National Seashore boundaries? Any strategies to demarcate National Wildlife 

Refuge and Space Center boundaries in order to reduce confusion? 

Alternatives Band D, Pgs. 76 and 96- The proposed poll/troll zone is listed as providing 

proactive resource protection for oyster beds, fish spawning, and seagrass beds. The 

poll/troll zone would also provide increased protection for manatees, sea turtles and fish. 

This is mentioned under Cumulative Impacts, Vegetation and Wildlife, Pg. 258, but it 

might be good to include a sentence in this section. 

Alternatives Band D, Pgs. 77 and 96 -Will there be adequate signage to denote the 

proposed pole/troll zone in the Shipyard Island area and also in the new slow speed zone 

at the Eldora State House, parking lot 7 and the first island to the west? How will the 

boating public become aware of the new speed zones? Who will be primarily responsible 

for enforcement of the zones? 

Has the possibility of extending the Volusia County Public Transit system shuttle bus 

into the National Seashore as alternative transportation been investigated for economic 

feasibility? 

Key Implementation Plans, Pg. 111- There is no mention of protected species 

management plans other than the Scrub-Jay Habitat Assessment in the Bill's Hill area in 

this section. Are management plans being actively implemented for manatees, sea turtles, 

gopher tortoises, etc.? A reference to Appendix B Management Strategies here would be 

helpful. 












Invasive Animal Species, Pg. 149 -There is no mention of potential aquatic invasive 

species such as the Green Mussel (Perna viridis), Charn.i Mussel (Mytella charruana), 

Titan Acorn (Pink) Barnacle (Megabalanus coccopoma), or the lionfish (Pterois 

volitans). Again a reference to Appendix B, Pg. 341 for general management strategies 

would be helpfuL 

West Indian Manatee (Florida Stock) Pg. 158- The population survey data quoted is 

from 2005, which is now six years old; there have been significant changes in the interim 

years. For instance, the current the high count for manatees is now 5,076 from the 2010 

synoptic survey. It is suggested that the manatee synoptic survey data be updated. 

West Indian Manatee (Florida Stock) Pg. 159 -The 2005 watercraft data from Volusia 

andBrevard Counties does not accurately reflect current watercraft mortality 

percentages, particularly from the most recent years. The Volusia County 2005 mortality 

figures represent an unusually high percentage of watercraft mortality to overall 

mortality at 36.4%, whereas the following years show 2006 at 14%,2007 at 31%, 2008 at 

27%, and 2009 at 13%. Conversely, the Brevard County 2005 mortality figures represent 

a lower· watercraft to total mortality ratio than in the following years, with the exception 

of 2009. Brevard County ratios are 2005 at 1 0.5%, 2006 at 25.3 %, 2007 at 18•Yo, 2008 at 

14%, and 2009 at 7%. It is suggested that the data be updated, and all death categories be 

included, not just watercraft. Using only watercraft to overall mortality ratios could 

result in misleading estimates. 

Visitor Experience, Pg. 181.- .There is no mention in this section of the Haulover Canal 

Manatee Viewing Area as being an important manatee viewing experience for visitors. 

Interpretive and Educational Programs, Pg. 188- There is only one paragraph given to 

interpretive and educational programs. In light of the important part education plays in 

informing students and the public at large about the environment and 

preservation/conservation, and in the creation of an attitude of being environmentally 

conscious stewards of the environment. it is suggested that more space be given to this 

subject. Particularly important is the inclusion of viewing and interaction guidelines for 

protected species, as well as for all flora and fauna found in Canaveral National 

Seashore. 

Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics, Pg. 310- There is no mention of the potential 

socioeconomic impact that phasing out commercial fishing by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service by 2018, or the elimination of the 24 hr. access to the boat ramp across from 

Parking Area 1 could have. 

Respectfully, 

Ginger Adair 

Environmental Management Director 
Submitted via PEPC 

Correspondence ID: 21 

Organization: City of Oak Hill 

Dear Sir: 

The City of Oak Hill appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft General Management 

Plan (GMP). A City Commissioner attended the open house in Titusville and a City official 

attended the open house presentation at the Brannon Center in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. 

The City and its Staff have read the draft GMP and participated in your public input sessions. 

The consensus of the Oak Hill City Commission after much local public discussion is that it does 

not support any of the described Alternatives contained in your draft GMP. 

A historical summary depicts the City of Oak Hill as a small coastal conmmnity that has thrived 

on fishing, shellfish gathering and all forms of aquaculture. The City of Oak Hill has seen its 

ability to maintain an economy based of the use of the Indian River/Mosquito Lagoon greatly 

diminished by the net-ban and other regulatory restraints. Additional restriction(s) of any 

nature will further reduce the City's sustainability as a coastal community dependent upon the 

free use of our natural resources. 

The Conmission cannot support any plan that continues the over regulation of the natural 

waterways without the production of an economic benefit to the City, its residents and the 

visiting fishing community. Increased regulations will result in economic problems for a city that 

has struggled ever since the net ban. 

Please accept this as a formal response from the City of Oak Hill City Commission in opposition 

to all Alternatives contained in the draft General Management Plan. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Lee Cook, Mayor 

421 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

AirNav 

2008 AirNav.com. 2008. Airport Information for NASA Shuttle Landing Facility. Available 

online: <http://www.airnav.com/airport/ KTTS> Accessed September 30, 2008. 

Belanger, T., H. Heck, and M. Andrews 

1997 “Final Report (Draft), Groundwater Flow Characteristics of the Mosquito Lagoon, FL.” 

Prepared for the Water Resources Division, National Park Service. Project Number 

CANA-N-027.000. 

Boudreaux, M. and L. Walters 

2006 “Mytella charruana: A New, Invasive Bivalve in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida.” The 

Nautilus 120:34-36. 

Boudreaux, M., Walters, L. and D. Rittschof 

2009 “Interactions between Native and Non-Native Barnacles and the Eastern Oyster 

Crassostrea virginica.” Bulletin of Marine Science 84:43-57. 

Brevard County Metropolitan Planning Organization 

2000 “Brevard County Year 2020 Long Range Plan Refinement.” 

2001 “Greenway and Trails Master Plan.” 

Brewer, David M. 

1991 “An Archeological and Ethnohistorical Overview and Assessment of Mosquito Lagoon 

at Canaveral National Seashore, Florida.” M.S. thesis, Florida State University. 

Brown-Peterson, N. and R. Eames 

1990 “Ichthyofauna Associated with Spoil Islands in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida.” 

Florida Scientist 53:226-238. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2003 Local Area Bearfacts, Regional Economic Accounts. Website accessed on March 5, 2006. 

<http://www.bea.gov/bea/ regional/bearfacts/countybf.cfm> 

2005 Detailed income, employment, and compensation tables by NAICS industry 2001-2003 

(CA05, CA25, CA06). CA25N—Total full-time and part-time employment by industry. 

Website accessed on March 30, 2006. <http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/ reis/2005 

CA05N — Personal income by major source and earnings by industry. Website accessed 

on March 15, 2006. <http://www.bea.gov/ bea/regional/ reis/> 

2006 SA04 State income and employment summary. Website accessed on April 6, 2006. 

<http://www.bea.gov/ bea/regional/spi/> 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Available online: 

<http://www. fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gNSDI/Classification WetlandsDeepwater 

HabitatsUS.pdf> Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 
APPENDIXES

422 

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) 

2008 Volusia County Storm Surge Atlas Category 1, 3, 5 Storm Tide Contours, Plate 4, New 

Smyrna Beach Area and Plate 5, Oak Hill to Volusia/Brevard County Line. Last updated 

17 December 2008. Available online: <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/ atlas.html.> 

Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 

Erwin, K. 

1988 “Volusia County Coastal Management Element, Volusia County Estuarine Water 

Quality.” 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

1980 “Caltrans Noise Manual.” March 1980. Available online: 

<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/research/ researchreports/1978-1980/80-07.pdf.> Accessed 

October 30, 2008. 

Federal Register 

1998 Evolved Expandable Launch Vehicle EIS. April 12, 1999, Volume 64(69) Pp. 17635-

17636 

2002 Environmental statements; notice of intent: John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL; 

International Space Research Park, Vol 67 (195). 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 

2012 Manatee Mortality Statistics, 2012. Available online: 

http://research.myfwc.com/manatees/search_summary.asp. Accessed May 9, 2012. 

n.d. Manatee Synoptic Surveys. Available online: 

http://myfwc.com/research/manatee/projects/population-monitoring/synoptic-surveys/

Accessed May 9, 2012. 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) 

2009 Key Identification Features of Cogon Grass. Available online: 

<http://www.cogongrass.org/ identification.cfm> Accessed April 3, 2009. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

2008a Florida Geologic Survey — Geologic Topics. Anastasia Formation Coquina. Available 

online at: <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/ geologictopics/rocks/anastasia.htm> 

Accessed September 30, 2008. 

2008b Air Resource Management Highest Readings by Year. Available online at: 

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/flaqs/ HighReport.asp> Accessed October 1, 2008. 

2008c Brevard County and Volusia County Air Quality Data. Available online at: 

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/flaqs/ county/brevard.htm> Accessed October 1, 2008. 

2008d Federal Consistency Intergovernmental Coordination and Review, Coastal Zone 

Management Act. Available online at: <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/ 

federal/index.htm> Accessed October 1, 2008. 

2008e Florida Beaches and Coastal Systems. Available online at: 

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/ programs/about.htm> Accessed October 1, 2008. 
Selected References 

423 

2009a Air Resource Management Web, Pollutants and Emission Sources, Carbon Monoxide. 

Available on line at: <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/ pollutants/carbon.htm> Accessed 

June 11, 2009. 

2009b Implementation of Clean Air Interstate Rule. Executive Summary SIP submittal No. 

2007–01. Available online: <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ Air/rules/recent/cair_executive_ 

summary.pdf > Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 

Florida Department of Natural Resources (Florida DNR) 

1990 “Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida.” Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 97pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute 

2008 2008 Nest Survey Results Do Not Change Turtle Nesting Trends. Available online: 

<http://www.floridamarine.org/ features/view_article.asp?id=27537> Accessed April8, 

2009. 

Gaines, M. 

2003 “Investigator’s annual report, National Park Service. Small mammal inventory for 

Canaveral National Seashore.” Permit no. CANA-2003-SCI-0002. 

Gardner, T. 

1991 “Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.” Florida Department of 

Natural Resources. 

Gilmore, R.G. 

1995 “Environmental and Biogeographic Factors Influencing Ichthyofaunal Diversity: Indian 

River Lagoon.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 57(1):153-170. 

Gilmore, R., Jr., C. Donohoe, D. Cooke, and D. Herrema 

1981 “Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters.” Harbor Branch Tech. Rep. 

No. 41. 

Gilmore, R. Grant, David A. Rydene, and Eric A. Reyier 

2000 “Presentation to Second Biennial Mosquito Lagoon Conference.” Titusville, FL. 

Grizzle, R.E., Adams, J. R. and L. J. Walters 

2002 “Historical Changes in Intertidal Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Reefs in a Florida 

Lagoon Potentially Related to Boating Activities.” Journal of Shellfish Research 21: 749-

756. 

Gunter, G. and R. Gunter 

1955 “Studies of Fouling Organisms of the Northwest Gulf of Mexico.” Publications of the 

Institute of Marine Science. The University of Texas 4(1):37–87. 

Hall, C., J. Provancha, D. Oddy, R. Lowers, and J. Drese 

2001 “Canaveral National Seashore Water Quality and Aquatic Resource Inventory.” NASA 

Technical Memorandum 2001-210261, Dynamic Corporation, Kennedy Space Center, 

FL. 
APPENDIXES

424 

Harris, L. 

2009 Florida Gulf Coast University. “Exotic Species in Florida: Australian Pine.” Available 

online: <http://www.floridaplants.com/ casuarina_equisetifolia.htm> Accessed 3 April 

2009. Report for “Issues in Ecology and Environment in Florida.” 

Harrison, K., T. Hamm, and J. Stiner. 

2004 2004 Marine Turtle Nesting Summary, Canaveral National Seashore. October 2004. 

Herrmann, T. and U. Klaus 

1996 Fluxes of nutrients in urban drainage systems: Assessment of sources, pathways and 

treatment techniques. Urban Storm Drainage 1996. Water Science and Technology 36:8-

9, 167-172. 

Holdsworth, M., C. Weaver, and J. Stiner. 

2007 2007 Marine Turtle Nesting Summary, Canaveral National Seashore. October 2007. 

Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program 

1996 The Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan. 

Melbourne, Florida. 

International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) on Global Environmental Change 

2008 “Some Guidelines for Helping Natural Resources Adapt to Climate Change,” by J. S. 

Baron, S. H. Julius, J. M. West, L. A. Joyce, G. Blate, C. H. Peterson, M. Palmer, B. D. 

Keller, P. Kareiva, J. M. Scott, and B. Griffith. IHDP Update 2: 46-52. 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

2007 “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” 

Edited by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. 

Tignor, and H. L. Miller. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY. 

Johnson, D. and N. Funicelli 

1991 “Spawning of the Red Drum in Mosquito Lagoon, East-central Florida.” Estuaries 

14(1):74-79. 

Johnson, D., N. Funicelli, and J. Bohnsack 

1999 “Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-take Fish Sanctuary within the Kennedy 

Space Center, Florida.” No. Am. Fish. Mgmt. 19(2):436-453. 

Jones-Lee, A. and G. Lee 

2005 Water Quality Aspects of Dredged Sediment Management. Water Encyclopedia: Water 

Quality and Resource Development, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. pp 122-127. Available online: 

<http://www.gfredlee.com/ Sediment/WileyDredging.pdf> Accessed online: July 6, 

2009. 

Kroening, S. 

2007 Assessment of Water-Quality Monitoring and a Proposed Water-Quality Monitoring 

Network for the Mosquito Lagoon Basin, East-Central Florida. Available online: 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5238/ pdf/sir2007-5238.pdf> Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 
Selected References 

425 

2008 “Assessment of Water-Quality Monitoring and a Proposed Water-Quality Monitoring 

Network for the Mosquito Lagoon Basin, East-Central Florida. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5238. 

Kupchus, S. and D. Tremain 

2001 Associations between Fish Assemblages and Environmental Factors in Nearshore 

Habitats of a Subtropical Estuary.” J. Fish Biol. 58:1,383-1,403. 

Leatherwood, S. and R. R. Reeves 

1982 “Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops Truncatus and other Toothed Cetaceans.” In: Wild 

Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics, pp. 369-414. J.A. 

Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 

1983 “Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins in Corpus Christi Bay and Coastal Southern 

Texas.” Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26:179-99. 

Little, S. and J. Stiner. 

2004 “2003 Marine Turtle Nesting Summary, Canaveral National Seashore.” 

Loehman, R. and G. Anderson. 

2009 “Understanding the science of climate change: talking points — impacts to the Atlantic 

Coast.” Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR-2009/095. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

McGurk, B., P. Bond, and D. Mehan 

1989 “Hydrogeologic and Lithologic Characteristics of the Surficial Sediments in Volusia 

County, Florida.” Tech. Pub. SJ89-7 St. Johns River Water Management District. 

Michigan State University, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Resources 

2001 National Park Service, Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending by Parks, Canaveral 

National Seashore. (Impact Reports). Website accessed on April 6, 2006. 

http://www.prr.msu.edu/mgm2/ 

Miller, W. L 

1979 Hydrologic and Geologic Data from the Upper East Coast Planning Area, Southeast 

Florida.” USGS Open File Report 79-1543. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Mulligan, T. J. and F. F. Snelson 

1983 “Summer-season Populations of Epibenthic Marine Fishes in the Indian River Lagoon 

System, Florida.” Fla. Sci. 46:252-275. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

2004 Research Park FEIS NOA: International Space Research Park. National Environmental 

Policy Act and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Federal Register. July 15, 

2004. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, Vol. 69(135):42461-42463. 

2006 MSL FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mars Science Laboratory 

Mission. November 2006. Available online: 

<http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/msl/index.htm> Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 
APPENDIXES

426 

2008a Kennedy Space Center Commercial Vertical Launch Complex Environmental 

Assessment Scoping Report. May 2008. <http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/ 

projects/documents/ CVLC_Final_Scoping_Report.pdf> Accessed online: July 6, 2009. 

2008b “KCS Constellation EA: Final Constellation Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement.” Available online: 

<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/peis.html> Accessed on: July 

6, 2009. 

2008c 2007 Shuttle Launch Archives. Available online at: <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ 

kennedy/shuttleoperations/archives/ 2005.html> Accessed September 30, 2008. 

2008d Workforce Transition Strategy, Initial Report, Space Shuttle and Constellation 

Workforce Focus, March 2008. Website accessed on April 28, 2008:

http://www.nasa.gov/ mission_pages/transition/home/index.html 

National Association of Counties 

2006 PILT payments (in dollars) for counties in Florida. Website accessed on April 25, 2006.

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm? 

Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/pilt_res.cfm&state=FL 

2008 PILT payments (in dollars) for counties in Florida. Website accessed on April 28, 2008.

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm? 

Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/pilt_res.cfm&state=FL 

2010 PILT payments (in dollars) for counties in Florida. Website accessed on March10, 2010. 

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm? 

Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/pilt_res.cfm&state=FL 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

1999 “Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, Volume II.” 

National Marine Fisheries Service Division of Highly Migratory Species, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1991a “Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle.” National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Washington, D. C. 

1991b “Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle.” National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Washington, D. C. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

1993 “Tide Tables, 1994. East Coast of North and South America.” U.S. Department of 

Commerce. National Ocean Service. Washington, DC. ‘ 

2004 “Climatography of the United States, No. 20 — Titusville, FL” 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior 

1971 “Turtle Mound,” by Frank F. Fryman. 

1976 “Canaveral National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources,” 

by John E. Ehrenhard. Tallahassee, Florida. 
Selected References 

427 

1978 “Ross Hammock Site,” by Lindsay Christine Beditz. 

1982 General Management Plan for Canaveral National Seashore, FL. 

1984 “Archeological Assessment of Proposed Access Road and Parking Sites (Package 

107),Apollo Beach, Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County, Florida,” by Rochelle 

A. Marrinan. Tallahassee, Florida. 

1987 Man In Space: Study of Alternatives. 

1988 “Archeological Overview and Assessment, Canaveral National Seashore (Draft), by 

David M. Brewer. Southeast Archeological Center. Tallahassee, Florida. 

1989 “Archeological Investigations of Packages 107 and 300(1), Canaveral National Seashore, 

Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida,” by Stephen C. Byrne. Tallahassee, Florida. 

1995 “Final Report on Archeological Investigations at the Seminole Rest Site,” by Elizabeth A. 

Horvath. Tallahassee, Florida. 

1996a “Regionwide Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area, National Park Service,” 

by Bennie C. Keel, John E. Cornelison, Jr., and David Brewer. Tallahassee, Florida. 

1996b “Seminole Rest,” by Lenard E. Brown. 

1997a “Old Haulover Canal,” by Laurence R. Guth. 

1997b “Resource Management Plan” by John Stiner. Copy available at national seashore 

headquarters. 

2001a Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making and Handbook. Washington, D.C. 

2001b National Register of Historic Places Inventory –Nomination/Registration Form, 

Moulton-Wells House, by Robert F. Newkirk. 

2001c Water Resources Management Plan: Canaveral National Seashore, by L.W. Walters, A. 

Roman, J. Stiner, and D. Weeks. 

 

2002 “Director’s Order 77-1, Wetland Protection.” October 2002. 

2003 “Scope of Collection Statement.” Canaveral National Seashore. (Final Draft). 

2007 Fire Management Plan. Canaveral National Seashore. 

2008a “Archeological Overview and Assessment of Canaveral National Seashore” by Robert 

Hellmann, Southeast Archeological Center. 

2008b Canaveral National Seashore Information. Available online: 

<http://www.nps.gov/cana/index.htm> Accessed 30 September 2008. 
APPENDIXES

428 

2008c “Canaveral National Seashore Superintendent’s Compendium.” Available online at: 

<http://www.nps.gov/cana/ parkmgmt/upload/compendium2008. pdf> Accessed 30 

September 2008. 

2008d Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay, Associations with Physical and 

Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management. Resource 

Evaluation Report, South Florida Natural Resource Center Technical Series. 2008: 1. 

2008e “Canaveral National Seashore Historic Resource Study,” by Susan Parker, edited by 

Robert W. Blythe. Cultural Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta. 

2009a Canaveral National Seashore Park Statistics. Accessed online: 

<http://www.nps.gov/cana/parkmgmt/statistics.htm> Accessed on: July 6, 2009. 

2009b “Environmental Factors.” Available online: <http://www.nps.gov/cana/ 

naturescience/upload/ Environmental%20Factors.pdf> Accessed on: June 25, 2009. 

2009c Nature and Science: Reptiles — Canaveral National Seashore. Available online: 

<http://www.nps.gov/cana/ naturescience/upload/Reptiles.pdf> Accessed June 8, 2009. 

2009d Nonnative Species. Available online: <http://www.nps.gov/cana/ naturescience/upload/ 

Non-Native%20Species.pdf> Accessed April 2, 2009. 

2010 National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy. National Park Service Climate 

Change Response Program, Fort Collins, CO. 

2012 National Park Service Green Parks Plan: Advancing our Mission through Sustainable 

Operations. Available online: http://www.nps.gov/greenparksplan. Accessed July 27, 

2012. 

n.d. Canaveral National Seashore. Available online at: <http://www.nps.gov/archive/cana/ 

pphtml/subnaturalfeatures10.html> Accessed September 29, 2008. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Public Use Statistics Office 

2006a Park Visitation Report, Gulf Islands National Seashore Summary for Jan-Dec, All Years.

Website accessed on March 16, 2006. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/ 

2006b December Monthly Public Use Reports 1992 to 2005. Website accessed on March 16, 

2006. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/mpur/Reports/reportlist.cfm 

n.d. Plan Process. Website accessed January 5, 2006. 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectid=12000 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

2008 “Web Soil Survey, Volusia County, Florida.” Available online: 

<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx> Accessed 30 September 

2008. 

Peters, D. J. and W. G. Nelson 

1987 “The Seasonality and Spatial Patterns of Juvenile Surf Zone Fishes of the Florida East 

Coast.” Fla. Sci. 50(2):85-99. 
Selected References 

429 

Phelps, G. 

1990 Geology, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Surficial Aquifer System in Volusia 

County, Florida. USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4069. 

Pritchard, P. C. H. 

1992 “Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea.” In Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, 

Volume III, pp 214-218. P.E. Moler (ed). University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Provancha, J. A., C. R. Hall, and D. M. Oddy 

1992 “Mosquito Lagoon Environmental Resources Inventory.” NASA Technical 

Memorandum 107548. The Bionetics Corporation. Kennedy Space Center, FL. 

Resource Analysts, Inc. 

1984 “An Architectural and Engineering Survey and Evaluation of Facilities at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida,” by David F. Barton and Richard S. Levy, 

Bloomington, Indiana. Prepared for National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, 

Archeological Services Branch. 

Rey, J. R. and Kain, T. 

1993 “Coastal Marsh Enhancement Project: Final Report to Indian River National Estuary 

Program.” Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory Publication. Vero Beach, FL. 

Schmalzer, P. A. and T. E. Foster 

2005 “Flora and Threatened and Endangered Plants of Canaveral National Seashore, 

Florida.” Report prepared by Dynamac Corporation for the NPS I&M Program. 

Schmidly, D. J. 

1981 “Marine Mammals of the Southeastern United States Coast and the Gulf of Mexico.” 

FWS/OBS-80/41. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Services. 

Science Applications International Corporation 

2005 “Alternative Transportation Concept Report, Canaveral National Seashore, North 

District.” 

Ste. Claire, Dana 

1992 True Natives: The Prehistory of Volusia County. DaytonaBeach, Florida: The Museum 

of Arts and Sciences. 

Seigel, R. 

2004 “Investigator’s Annual Report, National Park Service.” Continued studies on 

amphibians and reptiles of the Canaveral National Seashore. Permit no. CANA-2003-

SCI-0002. 4 pp. 

Sigua, G., J. Steward, and W. Tweedale 

1996 “Indian River Lagoon Water Quality Monitoring Network: Proposed Modifications.” 

Department of Water Resources, SJRWMD Technical Memorandum No. 12. 70 pp. 
APPENDIXES

430 

Sigua, G. G., J. S. Steward, and W. A. Tweedale 

1999 “Status of Water Quality in the Indian River Lagoon System: Spatial and Temporal 

Trends, Summary Report (1988–1994).” Division of Environmental Sciences, 

Department of Water Resources, St. Johns River Water Management District, Technical 

Memorandum 33. 

2000 “Water Quality Monitoring and Biological Integrity Assessment in the Indian River 

Lagoon, Florida: Status, Trends, and Loadings (1988–1994).” Environmental 

Management 25:199-209. 

Snelson, F. F. and S. E. Williams 

1981 “Notes on the Occurrence and Biology of Elasmobranch Fishes in the Indian River 

Lagoon System, FL.” Estuaries 4(2):110-120. 

Snelson, F. F., T.J. Mulligan, and S. E. Williams 

1984 “Food Habits, Occurrence, and Population Structure of the Bull Shark, Carcharhinus 

leucas, in Florida Coastal Lagoons.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 34(1):71-80. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 

1998 “Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management 

Plans of the South Atlantic Region.” South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1 

Southpark Circle, Charleston, SC. 

Stiner, J. 

2004 Communication between e2M and John Stiner of Canaveral National Seashore on June 

24, 2004, regarding commercial shell fishing and crabbing permits within the national 

seashore. 

Stevens, P. W. and K. J. Sulak 

2001 “Egress of Adult Sportfish from an Estuarine Reserve within Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, FL. Gulf Mex. Sci. 2:77-89. 

Steward, Joel S. and Ron Brockmeyer, Robert Virnstein, Pat Gostel, Patti Sime, and Joel VanArman 

2003 Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, 2002 

update. Palatka, FL (St. Johns River WMD) and West Palm Beach, FL (South Florida 

WMD). St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water 

Management District. 

Swain, H. M., D. B. Breninger, D. S. Busby, K. B. Clark, S. B. Cook, R. A. Day, D. E. De Freese, R. G. 

Gilmore, A. W. Hart, C. R. Hinkle, D. A. Mc Ardle, P. M. Mikkelsen, W. G. Nelson, and A. J. 

Zahorcak 

1995 “Introduction (Indian River Lagoon Biodiversity Conference).” Bulletin of Marine 

Science 57(1):1-7. 

Taylor, B., M. A. Yanez, T. J. Hull, and W. F McFetridge 

1991 “Engineering Evaluation of Ponce de Leon Inlet, Final Phase II Report.” Taylor 

Engineering, Inc., Jacksonville, FL. 

Team ZHA 

2002 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan. 
Selected References 

431 

Toth, D. 

1987 “Hydrogeology in Indian River Lagoon Joint Reconnaissance Report. J. S. Steard and J. 

Van Arman (eds.), St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water 

Management District. Palatka, FL. 

Tremain, D. M. and D. H. Adams 

1995 “Seasonal Variations in Species Diversity, Abundance, and Composition of Fish 

Communities in the Northern Indian River Lagoon, FL.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 57:171-192. 

Tremain, D. M., C. W. Harnden, and D. H. Adams 

2004 Multidirectional Movements of Sportfish Species between a No-take Zone and 

Surrounding Waters of the Indian River Lagoon, FL.” Fish. Bull. 102:533-544. 

University of Washington 

1996 1969 – Keystone Species Hypothesis. Available online at: 

<http://www.washington.edu/research/ pathbreakers/1969g.html> Accessed 30 

September 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

1990a DP-1. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1990 Data Set: 1990 Summary 

Tape File 1 (STF 1) – 100-Percent data. Website accessed April 4, 2006. 

http://factfinder.census. 

gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_program=DEC&_

lang=en.

1990b DP-2. Social Characteristics: 1990. Data set: 1990 Summary tape File 3 (SFT 3) Sample 

data. Website accessed on April 4, 2006. http://factfinder. 

census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPage 

Servlet?_ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_program=DEC&_lang=en. 

1990c DP-3. Labor Force and Employment Characteristics: 1990. Data set: 1990 Summary tape 

File 3 (SFT 3) Sample data. Website accessed on April 4, 2006. http://factfinder.census. 

gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_program=DEC&_

lang=en. 

1990d DP-4. Income and Poverty Status in 1989: 1990. Data set: 1990 Summary tape File 3 (SFT 

3) Sample data. Website accessed on April 4, 2006. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ 

DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&_program=DEC&_lang=en. 

2000a Census 2000 Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. 

Website accessed on March 30, 2006. http://censtats.census.gov/ pub/Profiles.shtml. 

2000b Census 2000 Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Website 

accessed on March 30, 2006.http://censtats.census.gov/pub/ Profiles.shtml. 

2004a General Demographic Characteristics: 2004. 2004 American Community Survey. 

Website accessed on March 30, 2006. http://factfinder.census. 

gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_lang=en&_ts=143547961449. 
APPENDIXES

432 

2004b Selected Economic Characteristics: 2004. Data Set: 2004 American Community Survey. 

Website accessed on April 14, 2006. http://factfinder. 

census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_lang=en&_ts=143547961

449. 

2005a CA1-3 Personal income and population summary estimates. Website accessed on March 

30, 2006. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/. 

2005b Ca1-3 Per Capita Personal income. CA1-3. Website accessed on April 4, 2006. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/ bea/regional/reis/. 

2005c CA1-3 Population. Website accessed on January 5, 2006. http://www.bea. 

doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/drill.cfm. 

2006 Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005. Website 

accessed on March 30, 2006. http://www.census.gov/ popest/counties/CO-EST2005-

01.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

1974 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. 

2008a “The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants.” Available online: 

<http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ greenbk/> Accessed October 1, 2008. 

2008b “Technology Transfer Network Air Quality System.” Available online at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/> Accessed October 1, 2008. 

2009a “AirData Monitor Values Report, Carbon Monoxide, for Orange County, Florida.” 

Available online at: <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

monvals.html?co~12095~Orange%20Co%2C%20Florida> Accessed June 16, 2009. 

2009b “Clean Air Status and Trends Network, Indian River Lagoon Station IRL141.” Available 

online at: <http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites/ irl141.html> Accessed June 11, 2009. 

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

1980 “Noise Fundamentals Training Document Highway Noise Measurement.” September. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

2004 National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. Available online: <http://www.fws. gov/wetlands/> Accessed on: 

July 6, 2009. 

2008 “Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Brevard 

and Volusia Counties, Florida.” Southeast Region. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

1999 National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for 

the U.S. Atlantic Coast. E. Robert Thieler and Erika S. Hammer-Klose. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Woods Hole, MA. 
Selected References 

433 

2001 “Water Resources Management Plan, Canaveral National Seashore, Florida.” See 

Walters, L. W. et al. 

2004 “South Florida Information Access: Lithostratigraphic Units.” Available online: 

<http://sofia.usgs.gov/ publications/maps/florida_geology/ units.html> Accessed on: 

September 30, 2008. 

2008 “Current or Recent Projects with Tasks in the National Park System.” Available online: 

<http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/ nps/nps_project_list.shtml> Accessed 

September 29, 2008. 

Volusia County Government 

2009 South East Volusia Spray Operations. Available online at: http://www. 

volusia.org/mosquito/searea.htm Accessed on: April 6, 2009. 

Volusia County Metropolitan Planning Organization 

2005 Volusia County 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. 

Walters, L., P. E. Sacks, M. Y. Bobo, D. L. Richardson, and L. D. Coen 

2007 “Impact of Hurricanes and Boat Wakes on Intertidal Oyster Reefs in the Indian River 

Lagoon: Reef Profiles and Disease Prevalence.” Florida Scientist 70(4): 506-521. 

Walters, L., S. Garvis and P. Sacks 

2012 “Mosquito Lagoon Oyster Habitat Mapping Project.” Final report, National Park 

Service Project: CESU H5000070400. Canaveral National Seashore, FL, 47 pp. 

Woodward-Clyde Consultants 

1994a “IRLNEP (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Project), Physical Features of the 

Indian River Lagoon. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Melbourne, FL.” 

Final Technical Report. Project number 92F274C. Tampa, FL 

1994b “Status and Trends: Summary of the Indian River Lagoon.” Indian River Lagoon 

National Estuary Program, Melbourne, FL. Final Technical Report. Project number 

92F274C. Tampa, FL. 

Wyrick, G. G. 

1960 “The Ground Water Resources of Volusia County, Florida.” USGS RI 22. U.S. 

Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. 
434 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

NPS Denver Service Center

Chris Church, Project Manager (2010–2011). 

B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science, 4 years 

with the National Park Service. 

Larissa Read, Natural Resource Specialist 

(2009–2011). B.A. in Biology and a M.S. in 

Environmental Science; 5 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Kerri Cahill, Visitor Use Technical Specialist. 

Ph.D. in natural resource recreation 

management; M.S.P. in natural resource 

planning, 7 years with the National Park 

Service. 

Craig Cellar, Project Manager (2009–2010) 

(retired). BA History and Anthropology; 36 

years with National Park Service. 

Michele D’Arcy, Project Manager (2007–2009). 

BS Landscape Architecture; 28 years as a 

Landscape Architect with National Park 

Service. 

Margaret DeLaura, Project Manager (2003–

2007) (retired). 

Rick Alesch, Project Manager (2003). 

Landscape Architect, 32 years with 

National Park Service. 

Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resource Specialist 

(2003–2007) (retired). MA History; 36 years 

with National Park Service as a historian. 

Gretchen Ward, Cultural Resource 

Specialist(2009–2010). B.A. History, B.A. 

Anthropology, M.A. Archeology; 21 years 

with National Park Service. 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Glenda Heronema, Visual Information 

Specialist, NPS Denver Service Center 

Phil Thys, Visual Information Specialist, NPS 

Denver Service Center 

June McMillen, Writer-Editor, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Myrna Palfrey, Superintendent 

Carol Clark, Superintendent (former) 

Vince Dideo, Facility Manager (retired) 

Brian Dietz, Facility Manager 

Laura Henning, Chief of Interpretation 

Eric Lugo, Chief Ranger 

Bob Newkirk, Superintendent (retired) 

Bob Shannon, Administrative Officer 

John Stiner, Chief of Resource Management 

Southeast Regional Office 

David Libman, Park Planner 

Rich Sussman, Chief of Planning 

Amy Wirsching, Community Planner 

Staff, Southeast Archeological Center 

NPS Harpers Ferry Center 

Jack Spinnler, Interpretive Planner (retired) 

CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS 

e2M 

John Stetson, Project Manager 

NPS Denver Service Center 

Pat Kenney, Branch Chief, Planning Division. 

Greg Cody, Technical Specialist, Cultural 

Resources. 

Erin Flanagan, Community Planner 

Jan Harris, Branch Chief, Planning Division. 

Mary McVeigh, Community Planner (retired). 

Matt Safford, Natural Resource Specialist. 

Paul Wharry, Technical Specialist, Natural 

Resources. 
435 

INDEX 

A

air quality, iv, v, vi, 129, 170, 171, 278, 279, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 285, 360 

American Indian, 9, 15, 20, 64, 110, 111, 182, 215, 339 

American Indians (see Native Americans), 339, 366 

Apollo Beach, v, 3, 10, 48, 49, 53, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 

74, 75, 79, 83, 85, 86, 89, 93, 95, 96, 99, 106, 107, 

114, 115, 120, 130, 164, 170, 179, 189, 190, 191, 

192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 215, 223, 

224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 

241,244, 245, 247, 249, 252, 254, 256, 260, 263, 266, 

267, 269, 272, 274, 276, 277, 281, 283, 284, 293, 

299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

324, 325, 425 

B

boating, iii, 3, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 43, 46, 52, 55, 56, 

60, 62, 70, 79, 80, 90, 91, 101, 106, 191, 196, 261, 

267, 271, 298, 299, 323, 324 

C

Camping and campgrounds, iii, 11, 16, 19, 43, 53, 54, 

55, 57, 66, 90, 177, 184, 191, 192, 195, 210, 258, 261, 

267, 276, 283, 287, 298, 324, 361 

carrying capacity, 51, 301, 303, 305 

Castle Wind, 3, 9, 10, 21, 66, 69, 76, 79, 89, 99, 121, 

122, 173, 182, 183, 184, 185, 194, 224, 226, 228, 

233, 235, 242, 245, 253, 255, 264, 267, 269, 274, 

276, 281, 283, 300, 301, 302, 308 

climate change, iv, 17, 18, 57, 112, 113, 139, 143, 148, 

184, 196, 214, 219, 220, 329, 336, 372, 423 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 29, 44, 46, 62, 70, 

430 

cultural resources, i, iii, iv, v, xii, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 

27, 36, 37, 41, 43, 51, 56, 62, 70, 81, 83, 93, 111, 119, 

183, 185, 198, 219, 220, 269, 286, 295, 307, 309, 

310, 339, 366, 367, 368, 371, 372 

E

Eldora Hammock, 3, 10, 64, 66, 69, 72, 75, 76, 79, 80, 

86, 89, 90, 96, 99, 100, 116, 121, 122, 126, 128, 190, 

193, 194, 197, 200, 201, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 

233, 234, 236, 238, 242, 245, 247, 250, 252, 253, 

255, 256, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267, 269, 272, 274, 

276, 277, 281, 283, 285, 293, 302, 303 

environmental justice, 216 

erosion, 14, 18, 56, 108, 109, 110, 126, 128, 137, 138, 

139, 140, 144, 147, 160, 184, 196, 199, 223, 224, 

225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 

240, 242, 246, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 287, 292, 295, 356 

exotic species, 27, 28, 323, 354, 355 

F

fire, 3, 4, 10, 26, 29, 44, 55, 57, 66, 75, 86, 96, 103, 143, 

145, 146, 147, 162, 163, 166, 168, 184, 194, 198, 

199, 200, 212, 223, 238, 287, 306, 323, 354, 360, 370 

Floodplains and flooding, iv, v, 108, 126, 137, 138, 

142, 143, 184, 196, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 

236, 237, 249, 359 

H

Hiking, iii, iv, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 43, 60, 72, 80, 90, 93, 

100, 119, 253, 258, 265, 268, 270, 275, 276, 278, 

282, 283, 298, 301, 302, 304, 307, 309, 310, 324 

I

interpretation, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 29, 43, 45, 46, 60, 63, 

64, 66, 70, 72, 75, 81, 83, 86, 89, 93, 96, 100, 105, 

115, 116, 124, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198, 212, 238, 

264, 267, 270, 298, 365, 366, 371 

K

Klondike Beach, 3, 10, 53, 63, 65, 74, 85, 95, 164, 189, 

192, 196, 223, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 236, 

238, 241, 243, 247, 249, 252, 254, 256, 260, 263, 

266, 269, 274, 276, 277, 281, 282, 284, 299 

L

lagoon waters, 69, 79, 89, 99, 128, 250, 252, 254, 261, 

267 

M

manatees, 4, 9, 147, 148, 149, 157, 164, 165, 188, 196, 

239, 261, 265, 267, 302, 304, 308, 310 

N

National Environmental Policy Act, iii, 114, 115, 219, 

220, 286, 339, 366, 423 

National Historic Preservation Act, 27, 111, 116, 219, 

286, 339, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366 

National Register of Historic Places, 110, 111, 116, 

183, 184, 185, 186, 193, 286, 287, 290, 292, 294, 

295, 362, 363, 364, 366, 425 

Native Americans, 3, 27, 111, 339, 362, 365, 366 

natural resources, iv, 10, 14, 19, 36, 37, 45, 60, 63, 80, 

90, 100, 103, 108, 111, 114, 120, 136, 139, 183, 198, 

214, 219, 222, 319, 359, 364, 366, 371, 372, 432 

O

orientation, iii, 3, 37, 41, 42, 46, 63, 66, 69, 71, 73, 80, 

81, 83, 90, 92, 93, 100, 102, 125, 192, 193, 198, 298, 

299, 300, 324 
APPENDIXES

436 

P

parking, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 42, 44, 47, 53, 

56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 

80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 

103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 120, 121, 123, 

126, 127, 128, 179, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 

199, 200, 201, 220, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 

232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 

244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 

255, 256, 260, 261, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 

289, 293, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 315, 324, 

325, 357, 367, 372 

Playalinda Beach, 3, 10, 25, 53, 63, 64, 65, 73, 74, 84, 

85, 93, 94, 95, 106, 107, 119, 164, 170, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 223, 226, 227, 

229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 238, 241, 244, 247, 

249, 252, 254, 256, 260, 263, 266, 269, 274, 276, 

277, 279,281, 282, 284, 289, 299, 300, 302, 304, 306, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 314, 324 

pole/troll areas, 10, 54, 60, 70, 72, 79, 80, 91, 100, 101, 

123, 127, 227, 229, 242, 243, 247, 253, 256, 261, 

264, 265, 268, 270, 271, 275, 278, 299, 324, 325 

S

sea turtles, 9, 14, 21, 22, 52, 56, 64, 110, 147, 148, 149, 

155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 190, 198, 199, 261, 

264, 265, 268, 270, 323, 360 

Section 106, 111, 129, 130, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 

291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 339 

Seminole Rest, iii, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 

28, 60, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 80, 83, 86, 90, 94, 100, 105, 

106, 111, 116, 117, 123, 174, 179, 181, 182, 183, 

184, 185, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 

215, 220, 235, 236, 239, 246, 248, 256, 261, 264, 

267, 270, 278, 283, 285, 289, 290, 292, 296, 300, 

302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 310, 325, 425 

soils, 57, 108, 109, 128, 137, 138, 143, 144, 168, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 252, 279, 319, 356 

Stuckey, 3, 26, 60, 69, 71, 80, 82, 86, 90, 92, 100, 107, 

121, 123, 126, 127, 181, 227, 228, 231, 233, 235, 

236, 243, 246, 248, 253, 255, 256, 264, 266, 268, 

270, 275, 276, 277, 278, 282, 283, 284, 285, 289, 

307, 309, 310, 373 

T

threatened and endangered species, i, 14, 20, 60, 110, 

120, 143, 160, 164, 214, 259, 354, 355 

traffic, 11, 13, 18, 23, 56, 61, 73, 75, 96, 109, 145, 169, 

178, 180, 184, 187, 188, 196, 200, 261, 267, 268, 

271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 287, 

301, 302, 368 

trails, 3, 10, 18, 24, 25, 45, 60, 66, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 

80, 81, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 96, 99, 100, 101, 119, 121, 

123, 124, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 223, 226, 

235, 236, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 253, 254, 

255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 

268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 285, 289, 293, 296, 299, 300, 301, 

302, 304 

Turtle Mound, 3, 4, 9, 10, 21, 66, 75, 86, 96, 115, 120, 

126, 128, 165, 173, 174, 177, 183, 184, 185, 191, 

192, 194, 223, 226, 227, 244, 252, 254, 260, 266, 

269, 276, 283, 302, 308, 424 

U

user capacity, xii, 35, 51, 52, 58, 314, 315, 317 

V

vegetation, iv, v, 3, 4, 9, 18, 51, 56, 57, 73, 106, 109, 

110, 111, 126, 127, 128, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 

143, 144, 148, 152, 169, 172, 184, 214, 224, 226, 

228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 

243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 253, 254, 255, 

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 

266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 292, 293, 319, 354, 

364, 372 

vehicles, 28, 69, 80, 90, 100, 109, 110, 129, 144, 145, 

189, 190, 191, 193, 224, 240, 250, 251, 262, 273, 

274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 298, 301, 

303, 304, 324 

viewsheds, 354 

visitor experience, i, iii, iv, xii, 12, 16, 18, 20, 37, 41, 

44, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 73, 114, 115, 116, 

130, 196, 201, 219, 222, 271, 272, 298, 299, 300, 

301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 313, 314, 315, 317, 

319, 361, 367, 368, 369 

visitors with disabilities, 3, 11, 86, 96, 189, 190 

visual intrusions, 75 

W

water quality, 14, 15, 30, 31, 63, 72, 83, 93, 108, 128, 

138, 139, 142, 196, 199, 237, 238, 239, 242, 245, 

249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 323, 357 

Canaveral National Seashore 

 Florida

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior