Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Appendix B

The Public Involvement Process

The scoping process concerning the future management of the Lower 

Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges consisted of two 

meetings, two stakeholder workshops, and a comment packet. The first public 

scoping meeting was held on July 27, 1999. The participants (24) were invited 

as potential members of the comprehensive conservation plan stakeholders’ 

team. The second public scoping meeting on September 21, 1999, was widely 

advertised and the participants (approximately 40) represented user groups 

and the general public. The scoping meeting goals were to:

nPresent background information about the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and about the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National 

Wildlife Refuges, in particular;

nPresent the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the 

participating public;

nPresent the planning process required to develop the comprehensive 

conservation plan; and

nProvide opportunities for the public to share their thoughts about the 

refuge by sharing comments at the scoping meeting and by returning an 

individual comment sheet.

During the welcoming comments, the refuge managers presented a 

thorough and engaging overview of the refuges and the comprehensive 

conservation planning process. These presentations included a video on 

the National Wildlife Refuge System entitled, “America’s National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Where Wildlife Comes First,” and a slide presentation 

on both Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges. 

Comment sheets on which participants could individually respond to key 

issues concerning the future management of the refuges were passed out 

and explained. The refuge managers asked for the comment sheets to be 

returned by October 21, 1999.

After the presentations, the facilitator asked the participants to work 

in self-selected sub-groups. Three sub-groups were formed (at both 

meetings) and each group met for 50 minutes discussing the future 

management of the refuges. Each sub-group selected a recorder who wrote 

the major comments of each individual.

Attachment One is a summary of the major issues and concerns raised in 

both meetings. Attachment Two presents the unedited easel paper notes 

from the meeting on September 21, 1999, and Attachment Three contains 

the notes from the July 27, 1999, meeting. Since there was no attempt 

in the sub-groups to create consensus suggestions, some of the comments 

generated in the sub-groups were diametrically opposed to each other. 

During the final comments, participants appreciated the chance to hear 

the comments of others. Also during the scoping process, two stakeholder 

workshops were held. The first workshop was held on August 12, 

1999, with 26 participants representing the following groups: Fish and 

Wildlife Service; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Florida’s Nature Coast 

Conservancy; Save Our Suwannee; Cedar Key Garden Club; University 
58 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

of Florida; Cedar Key Historical Society; Development Advisory Services, 

Inc.; Cedar Key Chamber of Commerce; Nature Coast Canoe and Kayak; 

Suwannee River Chamber of Commerce; and the Suwannee River Water 

Management District. The purposes of the workshops were to develop 

vision statements for each refuge and to review a comment packet that 

would be distributed to the public.

Following the September public scoping meeting, another stakeholder 

workshop was held to discuss the range of reasonable alternatives that 

the planning team should consider. The 16 participants at this meeting 

created a framework for goals, objectives, and strategies to be developed 

within the comprehensive conservation plan. Stakeholders at this meeting 

represented the Fish and Wildlife Service; Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection; Save Our Suwannee; Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission; Cedar Key Garden Club; Suwannee River 

Chamber of Commerce; Suwannee Audubon Society; and the Suwannee 

River Water Management District.

The final mechanism used to gather public input was a comment packet 

(Attachment Four). This packet contained general information about the 

refuges; management statements to agree or disagree with; open-ended 

questions which allowed the respondent to elaborate on the values, issues, 

and concerns of the refuges; and a mailing request form and release. This 

packet was available at the public meeting (September 21, 1999), from the 

refuge office, and on the Internet at the refuge’s web site. A total of 250 

packets was distributed at the public meeting, at community meetings, and 

from the refuge office. It is unknown how many packets were viewed or 

printed from the Internet.

Forty-three comment packets were returned to the refuge office. Several 

of these were printed from the refuge’s web site. The data from these 

packets were analyzed and evaluated along with the comments from the 

public meetings and stakeholder workshops, and from letters received at 

the refuge office. All comments, whether written or oral, were given equal 

consideration during preparation of these comprehensive conservation 

plans. A planning update newsletter (Attachment Five) was developed and 

sent to all names on the mailing list (Attachment Six).

The following is a summary of what the public valued most about the 

refuges:

Value Statements

nDiversity of wildlife and habitats

n Quality of the ecosystem

nWater quality

n Natural, unspoiled, wild beauty

n Protection of plant and animal life and habitat, especially from 

development

n Serenity and isolation

n Public access

n Opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, especially hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography

nResearch opportunities

nEnvironmental education programs

nRefuge staff

n Partnerships
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Several key issues and concerns surfaced during the scoping process. 

The planning team reviewed the issues and concerns raised by the 

approximately 100 people who participated in the scoping process and 

in comments received in the 43 comment packets that were returned 

to the refuge office. This list was based on the team’s knowledge of 

the area, information gathered during the scoping meetings, and written 

comments submitted by the public. Following each statement is the 

Service’s response to the issue, concern, or recommendation.

Key Issues and Concerns Summary

Wildlife Habitat Management

WH1 Not enough is known about the wildlife or habitat of the refuges.

The plan addresses these deficiencies in the strategies developed 

for the wildlife and habitat management goals. These strategies 

outline a systematic approach for surveying and monitoring trust 

species and for evaluating refuge habitat management practices, 

such as forest thinning, restoration, and prescribed fire. The end 

result is a set of goals, objectives, and strategies to systematically 

collect and analyze data and tailor management programs to best 

meet the needs of the wildlife that use refuge habitats.

WH2 Staff is needed to monitor and manage habitat for endangered 

species, migratory birds, and resident wildlife.

Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 

1979, but only recently received staffing and funding to begin 

monitoring trust species and to evaluate refuge habitats. Cedar 

Keys National Wildlife Refuge is an unfunded and unstaffed 

refuge. Neither station has biological staff dedicated to developing 

a comprehensive biological program. These comprehensive 

conservation plans outline an aggressive wildlife and habitat 

monitoring, management, and evaluation program to address this 

need. This program can only be achieved if appropriate staffing 

and funding are received.

WH3 Staff should initiate research partnerships with U.S. Geological 

Survey and Suwannee River Water Management District to 

assist and expand water flow and water quantity impact 

studies on refuge habitat.

Within the comprehensive conservation plans, several strategies 

are identified to address this need. Dynamic partnerships with 

the Suwannee River Water Management District, the University 

of Florida, and other resource agencies would be developed 

and expanded. Partnerships throughout the 10,000-square-mile 

Suwannee River Basin would be fostered. The value of these 

partnerships lies in the increased opportunity to protect the 

Suwannee River ecosystem, the wildlife and habitats found within 

the basin, and to ensure water quality and quantity are protected.

WH4 Staff need to monitor and manage impacts of human use 

on wildlife and habitat.

While the public valued the opportunities to participate in 

wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuges, there was an 

overwhelming concern that public use be monitored and managed. 

One suggestion centered around clustering public use areas within 

the refuges in order to limit degradation of resources to 

certain areas. Other areas would remain natural, without the 

development of public use facilities. The plan clusters public 

use areas and improves the facilities available in these areas. 

However, the plan also allows for the development of trails and 

facilities in other areas if wildlife compatibility is addressed.
60 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Monitoring the impacts of public use will be accomplished through 

biological and habitat management programs. For example, an 

eagle’s nest is located on North Key. The beaches of this island 

are open year round and the nest is located near the beach. If 

beach use (including wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and fishing) disturbs the nesting pair, then the area around the 

eagle’s nest would be closed during the nesting season to ensure 

that wildlife use of the area has first priority.

WH5 Management activities should preserve and restore refuge 

ecosystems.

Many of the lands acquired to establish Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge were severely degraded or were intensively 

altered by land use practices. Thousands of acres of longleaf, 

native slash, and scattered loblolly pines were cut and replanted 

with genetically improved slash pine in plantations that were 

harvested on a 16- to 20-year rotation. In addition, thousands 

of acres of mixed pine/hardwood stands were converted to slash 

pine plantations. Intensive site preparation, which altered 

the understory vegetation, was needed to make these sites 

suitable for pine trees. Additionally, an extensive network 

of roads and ditches was developed to facilitate timber 

management. Finally, most of the forested land in the 

swamps and bottoms is second or third generation; there 

are only a few remnant stands of old growth timber.

The objectives and strategies listed under the habitat 

management goal outline a plan to restore native ecosystems. 

Strategies identified include reforestation with longleaf pine and 

wiregrass, silvicultural thinnings to reduce stand density and 

create more natural forest conditions, and prescribed fire to 

reduce woody stems and promote herbaceous understories which 

were historically present. The Forest Management Plan will 

address hardwood silvicultural management concerns as well.

Management of refuge habitats on Cedar Keys National Wildlife 

Refuge is opposite to management of Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge. Cedar Keys Refuge has been protected from 

development since 1929, and four of the islands are designated 

as Wilderness Areas. Refuge habitats are pristine and for 

the most part, unaltered. With the exception of exotic plant 

removal, management of the islands has been “hands off.” 

The comprehensive conservation plans outline strategies for 

preserving these delicate coastal ecosystems without using 

intensive management techniques.

Public Use

PU1-LS Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge should continue 

to provide the public with compatible consumptive and nonconsumptive uses and access in a manner that minimizes conflicts 

between user groups and does not significantly impact habitat.

The comprehensive conservation plan specifically addresses this 

need by clustering public use areas and by establishing nonhunting areas in both counties. One of the major concerns 

expressed by user groups was safety during the hunting season. 

Currently, the Shell Mound and River Trail areas in Levy County 

are closed to hunting. These areas are used by an estimated 60,000 

visitors a year. The plan proposes closing the Shired Island and 

Fishbone Creek areas in Dixie County. These areas contain 194 

and 58 acres of uplands, respectively, but are mainly characterized 

as coastal marsh. An estimated 40,000 visitors annually use these 

two areas. A portion (16 acres) of the Fishbone Creek area 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

is leased to Dixie County Schools for environmental education. 

Additionally, Resource Project No. 10 calls for the establishment 

of environmental education facilities (e.g., pole shed, picnic tables, 

and restrooms) to be located in this area. Closing this area to 

hunting would ensure public safety and would minimize conflicts 

between user groups. Approximately 35,000 acres of suitable 

habitat will remain open to hunting. The remaining acreage is 

comprised of marsh and the closed areas referenced above.

PU2-LS Hunter groups requested better management and access for 

hunting activities on Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge.

As discussed above, approximately 35,000 acres of refuge habitats 

are open to hunting. To provide access to these areas, the refuge 

maintains 50 miles of improved limerock roads for public vehicle 

traffic and an additional 50 miles of secondary roads, which 

are open to bicycle and foot traffic. The public may also 

access the refuge via boat from the Suwannee River and 

its many creeks. Refuge staff believe that this extensive 

network of roads and river entry provide adequate access 

opportunities for hunters as well as other user groups.

A few hunters requested access to the refuge via 3- or 4-wheelers. 

A majority of the public, however, opposed this type of access. 

When the refuge was established, this activity was found to 

be an incompatible use. Further, hunters may access the refuge 

by automobile on primary refuge roads, by foot or bicycle on 

secondary refuge roads, or by boat from the river. Current hunting 

regulations provide for special all-terrain vehicle access by 

mobility impaired hunters. Those hunters that meet the criteria of 

“mobility impaired” can apply for a Special Use Permit that allows 

all-terrain vehicle use within designated areas of the refuge.

Hunter groups suggested that the hunting experience could 

be improved, as well as the overall game species health, 

by establishing food plots. Many hunters believed that game 

populations are low on the refuge because inadequate forage 

is available. While refuge managers support improving habitat 

conditions for all wildlife species, they do not support the 

establishment of food plots. The first concern of refuge 

management is safety. It is the staff’s opinion that hunters 

would be concentrated at food plots, thus increasing the risk 

of a hunting accident. Additionally, staff believe that habitat 

management techniques currently employed; e.g., forest thinnings 

and prescribed fire, stimulate growth of grasses and forbs, offering 

native forage. In the book entitled “Wildlife Management” Yarrow 

and Yarrow (1999), it states “Native foods should be inventoried, 

evaluated, and managed before investing in wildlife food plantings. 

In most cases, managing existing native wildlife plants constitutes 

a more practical and cost effective method of enhancing wildlife 

habitat.” Therefore, the staff feels it should inventory and evaluate 

what is present before establishing food plots. Finally, hunter bag 

reports are consistent from year-to-year and deer analyzed by the 

Southeastern Cooperative Disease Study Unit are healthy.

PU3-LS Other user groups requested more opportunities for passive 

recreational uses on Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge.

There are six priority uses on national wildlife refuges as defined 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Of these, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and interpretation would be 

considered passive recreational opportunities. As mentioned 

previously, Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge has 
62 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

clustered public use areas in each county. At Shell Mound, 2 short 

walking trails and a 400-foot boardwalk are available. The River 

Trail is a 43-mile trail with a 400-foot boardwalk and observation 

platform on the Suwannee River. In Dixie County, 4 public use 

areas have been established. At Salt Creek, there is a boardwalk 

overlooking the salt marsh. Connecting Salt Creek and Shired 

Island, the Dixie Mainline Trail is a 9-mile driving, bicycle, or 

foot trail. Spectacular views can be seen from the observation 

platform on Fishbone Creek. Finally, on Shired Island and 

at the end of the Duck Pond Road, 3 short walking trails 

offer views of a small beach, coastal island habitat, and a 

natural pine forest, respectively. All of these facilities offer 

opportunities for passive recreation.

In the comprehensive conservation plan, several new public 

use facilities would be constructed and the areas mentioned 

above would be enhanced. The trails at Shell Mound would be 

marked with interpretive panels. At Dennis Creek, an observation 

platform would be constructed to offer marsh views. On the 

Levy County Loop Road, an observation platform would offer 

observers an opportunity to view an interior freshwater marsh 

and the wildlife therein. At Salt Creek, a loop trail through 

several different habitats is planned. Finally, kiosks housing 

refuge information and interpretive materials would be located in 

the public use areas to improve the visitor’s experience. These 

projects would enhance passive recreational opportunities on the 

refuge.

PU4-CK The public urged Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge to 

continue to provide only limited public uses to protect 

sensitive wildlife habitat.

The comprehensive conservation plan continues the provisions 

that guide public use on Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. 

Currently, all refuge island interiors, except Atsena Otie Key, are 

closed to public use for the protection of island flora and fauna. 

Additionally, there are healthy populations of venomous snakes on 

most of the island interiors. On Atsena Otie Key, the closest 

island to the town of Cedar Key, a kiosk, restroom, and short 

hiking trail provide visitors an opportunity to enjoy the natural 

environment and to learn about the natural and cultural history 

of the area. The beaches of all the islands, except Seahorse Key, 

are open year round for activities such as wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and fishing. Seahorse Key and a 300-foot 

buffer around the island is closed to all public entry from March 1 

through June 30, annually, to protect nesting colonial wading birds.

The number of tourists visiting Cedar Key has grown 

exponentially in the last 10 years. Refuge staff will closely 

monitor the numbers of people visiting the refuge islands and the 

impact this visitation may have on the refuge environment and 

wildlife. Additional closures and other protective measures may be 

employed to ensure the ecological integrity of these fragile coastal 

islands.

PU5 Staff is needed to expand environmental education and 

interpretation programs and increase involvement with public 

schools.

The comprehensive conservation plan outlines objectives and 

strategies to greatly improve our environmental education 

program and to expand partnerships with the schools, agencies, 

and organizations that are involved in environmental education in 

the area of the refuge. However, these objectives and strategies 

can only be met with additional staffing to develop these programs 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

and to nurture their growth. The comprehensive conservation plan 

calls for the employment of an outdoor recreation planner and 

a volunteer coordinator. These two positions would serve both 

refuges. In addition to these two positions, a cadre of volunteers 

would be trained to implement our environmental education 

program not only in the schools, but in civic organizations (e.g., 

scouts) as well.

PU6 Environmental education and outreach should include adult 

groups as well as youth groups.

While the focus of the environmental education program for the 

refuges will be involvement with school youth, the comprehensive 

conservation plan does include programming for adults. An 

outdoor recreation planner and volunteer coordinator would 

be employed to facilitate these programs. The plan calls for 

the establishment of quarterly activities, such as canoe tours, 

butterfly and wildflower walks, and birding trips. It also 

continues participation in community events and festivals, such 

as Naturefest and the Cedar Key Spring Arts and Fall Seafood 

Festivals. Adults would comprise most of the volunteers recruited 

by the volunteer coordinator. These volunteers would develop 

educational programs for the young and young at heart. 

PU7 The public thought staff and facilities should be increased, 

particularly for Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge and the 

Dixie County portion of the Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge.

Currently, Cedar Keys Refuge is unstaffed and unfunded. 

Management activities occur when staff and funding are available 

from Lower Suwannee Refuge. The comprehensive conservation 

plan identifies the staffing needs of Cedar Keys Refuge. Staff 

to be hired include a refuge operations specialist (assistant 

refuge manager) and a biological technician. A biologist 

and outdoor recreation planner would also be hired and 

shared between the two refuges.

At Lower Suwannee Refuge, all staff are based out of the Levy 

County compound and administrative area. The Dixie County 

portion of the refuge is more than 50 miles from the administration 

area. Because of a lack of staff presence on a daily basis, vandalism 

and littering are growing problems. If staff were stationed in 

this county, maintenance issues could be addressed on a daily 

basis. Staff could also forge relationships with the local people 

and work to establish ownership of the refuge by the local 

people, i.e., wanting to care for the refuge instead of trashing it.

A small administrative area is located in Dixie County. The 

compound currently includes a 5-bay pole shed, fuel tanks, 

and an abandoned, dilapidated trailer. The plan calls for the 

construction of an enclosed shop with a crew room and restroom 

facility. The maintenance worker stationed in Dixie County 

would work out of this office.

Finally, with the hiring of additional staff, a new office/visitor 

contact station is needed. The plan identifies two options: a multimillion dollar visitor center or a new administrative office with 

a display area. Professional staff from Cedar Keys and Lower 

Suwannee Refuges would be based out of this office. Technical and 

maintenance staff would be based out of the existing shop office 

and crew space. The current office would be converted to housing 

for volunteers, interns, and visiting researchers as outlined in the 

plan.
64 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

PU8 Staff should recruit student interns and more volunteers to 

assist with projects and research.

The comprehensive conservation plan addresses this need by 

1) hiring a volunteer coordinator and 2) by providing training 

opportunities for these individuals. It also calls for the formation 

of a Friends Group. This group would serve as another mechanism 

for recruiting volunteers.

Partnerships to Manage and Protect the Refuge

P1 The refuge should maintain and enhance partnerships with 

state, county, and community agencies; universities and 

educational institutions; user groups; natural resource based 

organizations; and other entities.

The comprehensive conservation plan outlines objectives and 

strategies to accomplish this need. Specifically, it calls for the 

hiring of additional staff to conduct day-to-day refuge operations. 

This would allow the project leader to devote more time to 

developing and expanding partnerships. Additionally, professional 

staff over biological and public use programs would also be 

involved in partnerships. Finally, several partnership projects are 

proposed. 

P2 Additional land acquisition and/or cooperative management 

agreements would improve the Service’s ability to protect existing 

and potential refuge resources.

The comprehensive conservation plan proposes an aggressive 

land acquisition program. The limiting factor in implementing 

this program is funding. An alternative to purchasing land is 

to establish management agreements or conservation easements 

with the landowners to bring in conservation partners like The 

Nature Conservancy or The Trust for Public Lands. It calls for 

creative solutions to the ever-growing problem of insufficient 

funding.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Attachment One

Summary of Public Scoping Comments

Summary of Appreciation and Suggested Changes Comments

Wildlife Habitat Management

n There is a need to conduct more research on species and habitats to enhance 

the native biodiversity and integrity of both refuges and to maintain traditional 

public uses.

n There is a need to preserve Cedar Keys Refuge for wildlife, except Atsena Otie 

Key.

n There is a need to assure that water of sufficient quality and quantity is available 

to maintain wildlife populations and habitats and to also restore and conserve the 

natural diversity, abundance, and ecological function of both Lower Suwaannee 

and Cedar Keys Refuges.

n There is a need to reduce the increasing number of exotic and invasive plant and 

animal species that are negatively impacting wildlife and habitat on both refuges.

n There is a need to assess the feasibility of re-introducing the black bear.

n There is a need to assess the feasibility of developing food plots after tree removal 

to improve the health of the animals and increase observation opportunities.

n There is a need to assess the feasibility of creating a management plan for wild 

turkeys.

Public Use

n There is a need to create more compatibility of uses throughout the year between 

hunting and environmental education and interpretation.

n There is a need for increased access to the Lower Suwannee Refuge for 

observation of wildlife and its habitat in a quiet environment and for active 

recreational uses.

n There is a need for Lower Suwannee Refuge to enhance its access for hunting.

n There is a need to expand the environmental education and interpretation 

programs.

n There is a need to develop outreach programs with the local communities, user 

groups, and the general public.

Partnerships

n There is a need for both refuges to develop more partnerships with state, county, 

and community agencies; universities and educational institutions; user groups; 

and natural resource based organizations.

n There is a need to hold more community functions to assist funding of both 

refuges.

Administration

n There is a need for more staff, student interns, and volunteers to implement the 

desired programs identified at the scoping meetings.

n There is a need for funding to implement the program and infrastructure needs 

identified during the scoping meetings.
66 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Attachment Two

Public Scoping Meeting (September 21, 1999)

Easel Notes (Unedited) of the Three Dialogue Sub-Groups

The listed recommendations were made for actions that individual 

participants would like to see continued, started, or stopped.

Group One

n Make feeding plots after removing trees to improve the health of the 

animals and increase observation opportunities.

n Create a controlled checkpoint for hunting access so you know who goes 

in and out. Utilize student volunteers.

n Increase law enforcement.

n Construct a Refuge Education Center.

n Provide more organized tours of refuge.

n Increase research and monitoring of water quality.

n Buy more lands and increase the size of the refuge.

n Maybe we should plant a wider variety of pines?

n Provide more hunting days.

n Provide fewer hunting days.

n Create a management plan for wild turkeys.

n Post designated hunting areas for visitors.

n Provide more information to public about refuge and its uses via the 

newspapers, radio, television, and Internet. Most of the public doesn’t 

know the refuge exists.

nDon’t over-inform the public so the refuge will not be overused. Wildlife 

should come first before the public.

nAdd more staff and funding, particularly Public Use Specialists, to work 

with schools and home schoolers.

n Use refuge lands to release “rehabbed wildlife.”

n Check toxicity level in birds to know health of habitat.

Group Two

n Maintain the natural habitat.

n Preserve Cedar Key Refuge for wildlife except Atsena Otie Key.

n Maintain and restore the natural drainage.

n Increase the natural plant program.

nRemove invasive and exotic species.

n Continue the excellent hunting program and expand if possible. Have a 

spring hog season. Pursue the introduction of black bear.

nAllow electric wheelchairs throughout the refuge.

n Increase law and citizen enforcement for actions like stopping noisy and 

speeding boats off the river.

n Increase litter control.

n Increase access around the cabin.

n Share money and staff between our refuges and other refuges so we can 

provide more species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Group Three

n Hold more community functions to assist funding of these two local 

refuges.

n Need more funds for this refuge for staff and programs. Need more law 

enforcement and education staff.

n More research on habitat to maintain fisheries and wildlife.

n Provide more education in schools on wildlife management and 

environment.

n Limit entry from river so we can have stricter enforcement of public 

property being abused next to refuge. More directions need to be 

provided to use wastebaskets, etc.

nExtend the general gun season to coincide with state regulation or the 

first of December.

n Hold hog hunting at the same time as small game hunting season.

n Burn refuge one side of the river at a time and allow hunting on the 

other side.

nDevelop wildlife feedplots.

n More doe tags.

n No introduction of black bear.

n Provide more and better signage at entrances; e.g., weapon uses such as 

bows, black powder, and guns not loaded in vehicles and on roads.

n Open up more inside access roads.

n Have fewer inside access roads.

n More bike trails.

n More river access to refuge by docks, walks, observation towers, etc.

n Make walks more compatible for people with disabilities and mark 

benches as to how far apart they are.

n Better maintenance of boat ramps.

nAdequately mark islands as to public access.
68 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Attachment Three

Public Scoping Meeting (July 27, 1999)

Easel Notes (Unedited) of the Three Dialogue Sub-Groups

Group One

Appreciate the refuges for the following:

n Can be alone in the woods.

n Love those wild flowers.

nRoad openings create greater access to wild fire.

nA place for wildlife conservation.

nDiverse habitat of flora and fauna.

n Lack of facilities.

n Presence of birds.

n Large area with public access.

n Greater photo opportunities.

n Conserved land with no development.

nEasy access.

n It is free.

Recommend the following changes:

n Pursue the introduction of black bear.

n Greater educational programs.

n More intense deer management for improved harvesting and habitat and 

herd quality.

n Better boat launching facilities

n No boat launching changes.

nA couple of non-hunting days every week during the hunting season.

n Better communications and exchange of information between agencies 

developing programs to attract researchers.

nRemove exotic plants.

n Increased state and federal funding.

n Publicity.

Group Two

Appreciate the refuges for the following:

nAppreciate the trails available at the present time (Lower Suwannee).

n Presence and protection of wildlife and habitat (both).

nAppreciate public access at Atsena Otie.

n Serenity and isolation of refuges.

nAppreciate the wildlife but like public access we don’t have the feeling 

that we are kept out.

nEnvironmental education like the fact that the university has access 

privileges to refuges and programs.

nAppreciate Water Management District with Atsena Otie.

nAppreciate Ken Litzenberger.

nAppreciate partnerships.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

nAppreciate interest of the Office of Greenways and Trails to coopereate 

interconnecting trails throughout Lower Suwannee.

n Size and diversity of refuge also uniqueness (both).

Recommend the following changes:

nWould like to see a trail down the Levy side.

nWould like to see Cedar Keys linked somehow to Lower Suwannee 

(ferry, water taxi).

n Need more marked trails on Lower Suwannee (interp. signs).

n Need designated campgrounds (limit number of people and sites) for 

Lower Suwannee.

nWould like to see compatibility of uses-primarily hunting versus trail/

walking/interpretation.

nEstablish a wildlife rehabilitative program.

nExpand/strengthen volunteer program (both refuges).

n Increase dollars for research (from grants, government).

Group Three

Appreciate the refuges for the following:

n The fact that it is there.

n Unspoiled beauty.

n Bio-diversity.

nEspecially the lack of people.

n General health of the refuge.

n Open for hunting and fishing.

nRemoteness.

n Habitat diversity.

nWater quality and quantity.

nArtistic and photographic paradise.

n Quality of seafood (yummy) shellfish and finfish, etc.

Recommend the following changes:

n Need botanist.

n Need biologist.

n Need more staffing!!!

n Need visitor and interpretive center.

n Partnership with Aquatic Preserve.

n Partnerships with other state and local agencies.
70 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Attachment Four

Comment Packet

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife 

Refuges that will guide their management for the next 15 years. We would 

like to know the issues and concerns about the refuge that are important 

to you.

This Comment Packet is divided into three sections: Background 

Information, Comment Sheet, and Mailing Request Form. These materials 

will provide you with information concerning the refuge and planning 

process. If you would like to give us your ideas, please complete the 

Comment Sheets. Use additional sheets if the space provided is not 

adequate to fully address your ideas and concerns. If you wish to be on our 

mailing list, please complete the Mailing Request Form. You may return 

some or all of the sections to the refuge mailing address found inside or 

outside the packet. This packet may be reproduced.

Background Information

National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitat. As a part of 

its major responsibility for migratory birds and fish, endangered species, 

and certain marine mammals, the Service manages the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The System began in1903 when President Theodore 

Roosevelt designated Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in 

Florida, as a bird sanctuary.

The System, now consisting of more than 500 refuges, is a “network of 

lands and waters managed for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (Refuge Improvement Act of 1997). In the 

management of the National Wildlife Refuge System:

nWildlife has first priority.

nRecreation uses are allowed as long as they are compatible with wildlife 

conservation.

nWildlife-dependent recreational activities will be emphasized.

Refuge Environment. Established in 1979, the purpose of Lower Suwannee 

National Wildlife Refuge is to “develop, advance, manage, conserve, and 

protect fish and wildlife resources.” The refuge encompasses nearly 53,000 

acres of bottomland hardwoods, upland pine forests, salt and freshwater 

marsh, and oak hammocks. The refuge flanks 20 miles of the lower reaches 

of the Suwannee River and fronts more than 20 miles of the Gulf of 

Mexico. It provides habitat for migratory birds, wading birds, threatened 

and endangered species, and several species of special concern, such as the 

gopher tortoise and swallow-tailed kite. 

Refuge Vision. The watershed and estuary of the Lower Suwannee National 

Wildlife Refuge contain valuable water resources and fish and wildlife 

habitat. The refuge will be managed for the conservation of fish and 

wildlife and their habitat, with special emphasis on the protection and 

restoration of wetland and upland communities. Educational, research, 

and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities will be available, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

insofar as they are compatible with refuge health and preservation. 

Management will partner with local, state, and federal agencies, 

community organizations, and individuals to ensure the protection and 

conservation of the vast Suwannee River ecosystem for current and future 

generations.

The refuge’s diversity of wildlife species, coupled with excellent access 

roads and public use structures, provides opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Refuge Environment. Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge was established 

in 1929 as a ”refuge and breeding ground for the birds and wild 

animals.“ The refuge contains 13 islands and nearly 800 acres. Four of 

the islands, Snake, Deadman’s, Seahorse and North Keys, are designated 

wilderness areas. Atsena Otie Key is owned by the Suwannee River Water 

Management District, but managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

as part of the refuge. The lighthouse at Seahorse Key is leased by the 

University of Florida for marine research and environmental education. 

The forested habitat contains live oak, red bay, cabbage palm and laurel 

oak. The lower elevations of the islands, comprising nearly 40 percent of 

the refuge, are subject to frequent flooding and dominated by salt marsh 

and mangrove trees. The most significant wildlife resource is the colonial 

wading bird rookery found on Seahorse Key. Other birds that nest on the 

islands include pelicans, bald eagles and osprey. 

Refuge Vision. The Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge is a group of 

fragile coastal islands that contain significant natural and cultural 

resources. The refuge will be managed for the conservation of wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, with special concern for migratory and breeding birds 

and threatened and endangered species. Management will protect cultural 

resources and support environmental education, research and where 

appropriate, other compatible uses. Management will partner with local, 

state and federal agencies, community organizations and individuals to 

ensure the protection of these resources for present and future generations.

Public use opportunities are limited because the refuge is relatively 

small and inaccessible and can only sustain limited public use if it is 

to be maintained for the purpose for which is was established. The 

refuge provides critical habitat for ibis, herons, and egrets; habitat that 

is disappearing rapidly throughout Florida. The beaches of the islands, 

except Seahorse Key, are open year-round for compatible activities such 

as wildlife observation, photography, fishing, environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Comprehensive Planning. A planning team, consisting of persons from 

government agencies, state universities, conservation organizations, and 

community groups, has been assembled to assist in this comprehensive 

conservation planning effort. They will:

n Gather information about the refuge environment;

n Identify problems affecting the refuge;

nEvaluate the impacts of various management alternatives; and

nRecommend a plan of action to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In keeping with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will look at, and seriously consider, all 

reasonable alternatives in the development of the plan. The planning team 

will actively seek public input in the preparation of the comprehensive 

plan. To carry out the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun 

a six-step planning process:
72 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

Step 1. Gather information on the refuge environment 

Step 2. Hold a public meeting to identify issues and concerns

Step 3. Identify management alternatives, and evaluate their effects

Step 4. Prepare and release a draft comprehensive plan and environmental 

assessment

Step 5. Hold a public meeting on the draft plan and environmental 

assessment

Step 6. Prepare the final comprehensive conservation plan

Involvement Opportunities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is looking for 

your ideas concerning the future management of Lower Suwannee and 

Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges. Please give us you ideas at a 

public meeting on September 21, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tommy Usher 

Center. The Center is located at 506 SW 4th Avenue (CR 345), Chiefland. 

This meeting will give you an opportunity to learn more about the refuge 

and express your ideas about issues, concerns, and needed management 

programs.

This packet will be given to everyone who attends the public meeting 

or requests a copy from the office. If you cannot attend the meeting, 

your comments will still be considered if you complete the comment sheet 

and mail it to: Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 16450 NW 31st Place, Chiefland, FL 32626.

The packet provides:

n Background information on the refuge, the refuge system, and the 

planning process

nA way to share your concerns, ideas, and thoughts on refuge 

management

nAn effective way to make certain your thoughts will be taken into 

consideration

The comment sheet should be returned to the refuge no later than

October 21, 1999.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
74 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
76 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B

MAILING REQUEST FORM

To place your name and address on our mailing list, we must have your written permission. The reason for this 

is that federal government mailing lists must be released to the public upon request. If you wish to receive future 

information about Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment, please complete the information below and return the form to:

Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

16450 NW 31st Place

Chiefland, FL 32626

Yes, I wish to be on the mailing list to receive future information about the comprehensive 

conservation plan for Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges. I understand 

that the names and addresses on federal government mailing lists must be released to the public 

upon request, under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act of 1974.

Signature_____________________________________________ Date_______________________

First Name __________________________________ Last Name________________________________

Mailing Address:_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

City________________________ State _______________ Zip______________

If you are acting in an official capacity as the representative of an organization, please compete the following 

two items:

Organization:______________________________________

Title:_____________________________________________

Note: After you have completed the Comment Sheet and / or Mail Request Form, simply fold it in 

half (with the return mailer on the outside), and tape or staple it together. Attach the proper postage 

and drop it in the mail. Your comment sheet must be received by October 21, 1999. Thank you for 

your comments.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Attachment Five

Planning Update
78 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
80 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B
82 Lower Suwannee - Cedar Keys

The Public

Involvement

Process

APPENDIX B