HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 08 - Conservation r
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CONSERVATIOrJ ELEMr~NT
Pre~arsd by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
r
January 9, 19~0 COVSERVAT~ON
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 1
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES 8- 1
Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 2
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5
Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8
Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 11
Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 14
Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 14
Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 16
Upland Vegetative Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 16
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 19
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 20
Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened,
or of Special Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 21
POTENTIAL FOR CONSERVATION, USE, OR PROTECTION
OF NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 25
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 25
Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 28
Commercially Valuable Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 28
Areas of Soil Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 28
Vegetative, Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 29
Hazardous Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 30
WATER USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 31
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 31
Demand for Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 32
Projected Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 33
Water Conservation and Protection . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 36
CONCLUS ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3 7
GOALS, OJBECTIVES, AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 53
APPENDICES
1, Dock and Commercial Value of Major Commercial
Fish Species Landed, 1984 . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 1
2, Major Commercial Fish Landed, in Pounds,
1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 1
3, Species of Finfish Landed, Value and •
Weight, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 3
4, Species of Shellfish Landed, Weight, Value
and Price Per Pound, 1984 . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 3
i
5, Animals Common to the South Florida Flatwood
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 4
6, Animals Typical of the Sand Pine Scrub
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 4
7, Animals Cammon to the Cabbage Palm Hammock
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 5
. 8, Ar.imals Common to the Cabbage Palm Flatwood
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 5
9, Animals Common to the Wetland Hardwood
Hammock Communi.ty . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 6
10, Animals Common to the Freshwater Marsh
and Pond Ecological Community 8- A- 6
11, Common Wildlife Species in the Cypress
Swamp Ecological Community . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 7
12, Animals Cammon to the Slough
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 7
13, Bird Species Recorded on Ft. Pierce
Chri s tmas Bi rd Count . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 8
14, Endangered and Threatened Species and
Species of Special Concern, Rnown or
Suspected to Occur in St. Lucie
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 15
15, Maj or Colonial Waterbird Rookeries 8- A- 19
16, Potable Water Demand in St. Lucie
County, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 20
17, Public Potable Water Demand in St.
~ ' Luci e County, 19 8 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 21
18, Agricultural Water Use in St. Lucie
County, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 21
19, Projected Potable Water Demand,
1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 22
20, Projected Citrus and Agricultural
Water Demand, 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 22
21, Projected Domestic and Industrial
Water Use, 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 23
22, Draft Obj ective, Policies, and
Pri nciples of the St. Lucie
County Public Wellfield
Protection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - A - 24
1
ii
LI ST OF FI GURES
Fiaure Paae
1 Vegetative Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3
2 FDER Water Quality Classifications in the
Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County ...8 - 9
3 General Soil Map, St. Lucie County Area .....8 - 12
4 Generalized 100 °ear Flood Plain . . . . . . . .8 - 15
5 Approved Shellfish Harvest Areas in the
Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County 8 - 17
LI ST OF T~,BLES
Tabl e Pacre
1 General Soil Map Units Within St. Lucie
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 13
~ ; 2 Current Water Demand by User, 1985 . . . . . . .8 - 33
3 Projected Water Demand by User, 1990-2000 ....8 - 35
4 Percentage of Total Consumption and Percent
Change by Us e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3 6
,
t )
iii
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Conservation Element is to promote the
conservation, appropriate use and protection of the large variety
of natural resources within St. Lucie County (Rule 9J-5.013,
Florida Administrative Code). This Element provides the data and
analysis n2cessary to support this purpose. The Goals,
Objectives and Policies are designed to establish the long-term
course of action and implementation activities for conservation
programs throughout the County.
St. Lucie County is located along the upper reaches of Florida's
southeast coast. The County comprises approximately 600 square
miles in area, with 513 square miles within the unincorporated
areas under the authority of the St. Lucie Board of County
Commissioners. The balance of the County consists of the
incorporated municipalities of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and
St. Lucie Village.
St. Lucie County may be characterized as slightly rectangular in
shape. At its widest points, the County measures 24 miles
east/west and 29 miles north/south.
Major roadways bisecting the County include, I-95, the Florida
Turnpike, SR AlA, SR 70 (Okeechobee Road), SR 713 {Kings
Highway), SR 714 (Port St. Lucie Boulevard), CR-b8 (Orange
Avenue) and CR-615 (25th Street). These roadways provide vital
ground connections to the neighboring counties of Martin (south),
Okeechobee (west) and Indian River (north).
The 1985 estimated population for the County was 116,Q00. By the
year 2015, the estimated population of St. Lucie County will be
318,650. This represents a 174% increase over the 30 year period.
Typical of most coastal communities, the majority of this
development is expected to take place in the eastern sections of
the County, most notably the City of Port St. Lucie.
SECTIQN 2. INVENTORY AND ?,NALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES
St. Lucie County includes a broad spectrum of both inland and
coastal natural resources: freshwater and saltwater wetlands; the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River and associated creeks and
tributaries; the Indian ~tiver Lagoon estuary; a variety oi
January 9, 199Q 8- 1 CONSERV~TION
terrestrial habitats; the Savannas, a freshwater wetland and
upland ecosystem west of a sand ridge (Atlantic Coastal Ridge),
formerly a coastal dune; and the diverse wildlife associated with
these areas. Figure 8-1 depicts th~ wetland and upland
vegetative communities present in the unincorporated areas of the
County as of 1986 (South Florida Water Management District, Land
Use and Land Cover data, 1986), as well as some of the other
natural features discussed below.
A. Surface Waters
The most significant riverine system in St. Lucie County is the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The headwaters for the North
Fork are the Five Mile Creek and Ten Mile Creek tributaries,
which join to form the North Fork southwest of Ft. Pierce. Tr~e
North Fork j oins the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin
County and flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lucie
Inlet. Other major tributaries and embayments of the North Fork
ara Long Creek, Mud Cove, Kitching Cove, Winters Creek, Blakeslee
Creek, and Howard Creek.
From a point just north of the West Midway Road bridge in central
St. Lucie County, the North Fork has been designated an Aquatic
Preserve by the State of Florida (Chapter 258.39(12), Florida
Statutes). In 1984, the Florida Department of Natural Resources,
charged with the management of aquatic preserves, prepared and
adopted a management plan for this area (FDNR, 1984). The
objectives of this plan are to preserve, manage and, where
necessary, restore the unique resources of the North Fork system.
The surface waters in the western portions of the County are
generally sloughs with dense swamps and poorly defined
watercourses. The best defined are Cypress Creek, Cow Creek, and
Van Swearingen Creek, all in southwest St. Lucie County.
There are three major drainage and flood control canals
maintained by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
in St. Lucie County. These are Canal C-23, along the Martin
County line; Canal C-24 passing ~hrough the south-central portion
of t~e County; and Canal C-25, located in the north-central
portion of the County. In addition to these primary canals, the
headwaters of Ten Mile Creek have been channelized as the Header
Canal. Secondary canal systems have been installed throughout
the County for agricultural and urban development which drain
into the primary canal systems.
All but one very small area in the southwestern portion of the
County is drained by the primary and secondary canal systems.
The Canal C-25 system empties directly into the Indian River
Lagoon nearly opposite the Ft. Pierce Inlet. The other
drainage systems eventually drain into the North Fork basin. The
Coastal Management Element provides additional information on the
phys i ograpni c~as r~s whi ch are drai ned by thes e canal s.
January 9, 1990 8- 2 CONSERVATION
_ - ~ ~
~ ' ~ VEGETATIVE COMMU~IITIES
I - ~G o,~ 3~ ~
- ~:y ~ _ - _ ~ ~y ~ ~
o - ~~i' - , ~
~ J;~ ,~,1- _ ~3' , ~ .
t~
~
( ~ -l I V _ ` ~ ~ V1lETLANDS
\ Jj.'-]1~ ' o
~'~~(t`{.'v ~~E ( ~ ~ :tlj v'~~ "
~1~ ~ .y~?y! ~
~ ~i3~~ ~ ~ ~ _ 0
f~ ~ ha t ~ j:~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
ti'
4, ~ i ^ u ~ ~ a;
~~~a ~ _ ' , n~ UPLANDS ~
Id~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
c~o , -
~
_ - m ,
„E l
I . i
~+c r ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ fIfACE- .
„~i ~r e ~ q . .y [ ~ Y , .
" ~`p ~ ' P .f1~ D6 ~ y ~ , ~ : c~ ~
' ~ b { ~ s
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi _ . a . .
I]v c, ~
L E ~ - I ' ' V~^' €f ~~ll
C ~i -4_~~~ , • .
s~~ ~ ~ ~ :1 ~ - _f _ ' ~ ~ a ~ ~ N
° _ - - w_
s' - ° ~ ;
, ~
~ ~~v ~ _ - • - . 3. `~~Fry - ~
( - ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~I ~ Y~~ ~ I _ . . .
/ _ ~ ~ zs ~ p ~ '~'1 ~ ~ ~ ~y- ~
l _ 4 ~
~ ~ ' "st
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 M ~~F'. _~tv
~ ~ .
6
. ~~c~~ ~ F~~ = . ~ ~ ~ ~
° ~1 . j `
' F Q ~ ~f
' ~ " ~ - l.:~~ ~ ~ . . _ ~ . . c
le~0 k7 ~ ~ _ ~ ~e:. ~ ~y' ~
~
.i .ti ~ _ r 'E A~..~ ~'e . , ~ P .
~ ~ ° ~ L~ ~ ~'~1 - ~ - ~
~~~a - ~ ~ _ f
€ .
~ ~ . ~ < e .
, . _ ~ w
. , ,
• - ~ t
r E ~ ~
~ ' J ~ ~ ~ _ ' IRTS_L4L[E' `E -
~ 1= ~ e i, ~ ~ ~ _ ' ~ . ~0~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~tl.~
I `~~'i~,`, ;g _ 9[' 1~~`^ ~~6~%~a gute 8-1• ~ities in the tmincorpomted
~ ~ ~`'3a`' t ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ a~eas of St. Lucie CamtY•
:
2 Ja~ ~ ~ ~r-+~
~ ~ ~ F`if ( $ ~ ~~f I
Y.. ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ; ti~.a ~
k . ~ _ . , ~ ~ , ~ _ . ~
' - , .~,y,
~ ~ -i-, ~ . .
, 6 9 Miles
. < < < , ~ i; ~ ~ 3
Source: South Flnrida Water Managarent District [.and Use And Iand Cover Map (1986)
Scale
8-3
The Indian River Lagoon, a brackish body of water, is a system of
three interconnected estuarine lagoons situated between the
mainland portions of a six county region and a series of low
barrier islands that fror_t the Atlantic Ocean (St. Johns River
Water Management District and South Florida Water Management
District, 1988). The lagoon extends about 250 kilometers (155
miles) from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia Cour.ty south to
Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County with an average depth of three
(3) feet and a width that varies from a half mile to five and
one-hal f mi 1 es . I n St. Luci e County, the 1 agoon' s bi ol ogi cal
processes and water ancl sediment quality are influenced by the
tidal flushing action of the Atlantic Ocean through the Ft.
Pierce Inlet, as well as by wind driver. circulation and
freshwater discharges. The western bank of the lagoon is
characterized by a steep bluff south of Ft. Pierce. `rhis area
was once a part of the coastal dune of an earlier ocean
shoreline. North of F't. Pierce, the coastal bluff is
considerably farther away from the estuarine shoreline. This
coastal bluff slopes gradually to the lagoon and, as seen in the
Coastal Management Element, contains a mix of urban development
uses as well as wetland areas. Along the eastern shore of the
lagoon lies Hutchinson Island, a low coastal barrier island.
Slopes along the island are very gradual. There are dense
mangrove swamps (which are discussed in further detail in the
Coastal Management Element) and many small islands, arid
embayments such as Big Starvation Cove, St. Lucie Cut, Wildcat
Cove, Bear Point Cove, Middle Cove, Blind Creek, and Big Mud
Creek.
Part of the Indian River Lagoon has been designated an Aquatic
Preserve by the State of Florida from the southern limits of the
City of Vero Beach in Indian River County to the Jupiter Inlet in
northern Palm Beach County, exclusive of that area within the
municipal limits of Ft. Pierce (Chapter 258.39(8) and (9),
Florida Statutes). The Florida Department of Natural Resources
prepared and adopted a management plan for this aquatic preserve
in 1985 (FDNR, 1985). The specifics of this management plan are
reviewed in greater detail in the Coastal Management Element.
Water quality in the Indian River Lagoon has been discussed in
detail in the Coastal Management Element. In general, water
quality improves south of the City of Vero Beach and from the
western shore to the eastern shore. Nutrients generally
increased away from inlets and, along with fecal coliform
bacteria, turbidity, and color, during the wet season in
residential canals, drainage canals, and marinas with closed
basins. The drainage canals were particularly high in nutrients
and fecai coliform bacteria, although the worst water quality was
found a~ound sewage ~reatment plants (:nunicipal, resort, and
mobile home par~s). Residential canal~ and closed marir.as were
low in oxygen.
Ther2 are only two significant r.atural laxes in eastern St. Lucie
County, Lake ~dan which is located in the Savannas State Reserve
January 9, 1990 8- 4 CONSERVATION
and Mile Lake just west of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River,
in the southern part of Port St. Lucie. Major agricultural
reservoirs that have been constructed in the western portion of
the County are the Mi nute Pdai d( al s o known as Cl oud Lake
Strazzulla, and Indrio Reservoirs.
There are also scattered throughout the County numerous sand and
rock excavation pits that serve as artificial deep water
habitats.
B. Wetlands
wetland communities within the County were first identified from
the South Florida Water Management District's Land Use and Land
Cover maps {1986 data) and are shown in Figure 8-1 above.
Additional information regarding the type of wetland community
was extracted by identifying underlying soils which are
indicative of ecological communities. This information was
obtained from reports by the Soil Con~ervation Service (SCS,
1980; 1987). Major wetlands in St. Lucie County include or are
associated with:
* The North Fork of the St. Lucie River, Five Mile Creek,
Ten Mile Creek and other tributaries;
* The I ndi an Ri ver Lagoon;
* The Savannas ar~d Lake Eden;
* Mile Lake;
* Cypress Creek;
* Cow Creek;
* ~Ian Swearingen Creek;
* Minute Maid, Strazzula, and Indrio Reservoirs; and
* St. Johns Marshes.
The freshwater and estuarine wetlands associated with the coastal
area (i. e. , those along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and
the Indian River Lagoon) are described in greater detail in the
Coastal Managagement Element. This section describes the inland
wetlands within the County by focusing on the following areas:
Savannas; Northeast Area; I-95 - Turnpike Corridor; and the
Agricultural Area.
1. Savannas
The Savannas are a freshwater wetland system located west of the
Atlantic Coastal Ridge, extending north and south of Ft. Pierce
{see Figure 8-1 above). Originally, it is believed, that the
Savannas formed a continuous system which stretcned the length of
the County which was disrupted by the construction of Ft. Pierce
and the introduction of several drainage activities. Much of the
system south of Ft. Pierce has been purchased by tne State of
Florida under the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL)
program. There are three (3) distinct ecological communities
associated with the Savannas (SCS, 1987), generally located west
to east:
January 9, 1990 8- 5 CONSERVATION
* South Flor~da Flatwoods (or pine flatwoods);
* Freshwater Marsh and Pond; and
* Sand Pine Scrub.
The South Florida Flatwood ecological community is typically
scattered with pine trees and an understory of saw palmetto and
grasses. Water movement is very gradual to natural drainage
ways, marshes and ponds. The Freshwater Marsh and Pond
ecological community is an open expanse of grasses, sedges,
rushes and other herbaceous plants which have soils that are
usually saturated or covered with surface water for at least two
months during the year. These areas are usually dependent on
upland runoff for recharge, however, the Virginia Avenue Canal
also discharges into tha Savannas State Reserve. Pine and wet
prairie wetlands are common where the flatwood and herbaceous
plant communities overlap. The Sand Pine Scrub ecological
community is easily identified by even-aged stands of sand pine
or by thick scrubby oak growth. There is usually a dense
understory of oaks, saw palmetto, and other shrubs. Water
movement is rapid through the soils which are deep, sometimes
st.rongly sloping, which is characteristic of the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge.
2. Northeast Area
This area is bordered on the west by I-95, the north b~ the
Indian River County line, the east by U. S. 1, and the south by
Midway Road (County Road 712), exclusive of Ft. Pierce (see
Figure 8-1). Forested and non-forested wetlands are scattered
within this area; the more moderately sized wetlands ar~ found in
the North Savannas area north of the airport, and along the Five
Mile Creek and Ten Pdile Creek watersheds. The flatwood, and
marsh and pond communities are prevalent in the northern part of
this area. The soils around the creeks support the Wetland
Hardwood Hammock ecological community which has an evergreen
appearance since it is dominated by laurel, live and water oaks,
and cabbage palm (SCS, 1987~. Generally, these hammocks are
flooded by inundating rainfail. This community also ekists
within some of the scattered wetlands.
3. I-95 - Turnpike Corridor
This north-south corridor generally runs along Interstate I-95
from two miles north of Canal C-25 to the South County Line (see
Figure 8-1 above). It ranges in width from about one to four
miles. In most places, I-95 is the eastern boundary; however,
the Turnpike and Glades Cut-Off Road form this boundary in the
central portion of the corridor. The Future Land Use Element
projects increased urban development within this corridor.
The only areas wi~h appreciable tracts of wetlands are in the
central and southern parts of the corridor. The Ten Mile Creek
watershed supports the Wetland Hardwood Hammock ecological
community as ~.escribed above for the Northeast Area. Pine and
January 9, 199Q 8- 6 CONSERV~TIGN
wet prairie wetlands also exist ~n the central portion but are
most predominant in the southern portion (SFWMD, LULC, 1986), and
most likely made up of the South Florida Flatwood, Cabbage Palm
Hammock, and Slough ecological communities (SCS, 1980; 1987).
The cabbage palm hammock community is easily identified by the
occurrence of thick stands of cabbage palm with a few scattered
oak. It occurs most often on slightly elevated areas within the
slough and pine flatwood communities. The slough community also
occurs mostly within the flatwood community and usually serves as
drainageways for water during periods of heavy and prolonged
rainfall. It appears as an open expanse of grasses, sedges, and
rushes in areas where the soil is ~aturated during the rainy
season and is relatively long and narrow and slightly lower in
elevation than the surrounding flatwoods or hammocks. In the
southern portion the Freshwater Marsh and Pond ecological
community is also interspersed among ~he flatwoods, hammocks, and
s 1 oughs .
4. Agricultural Area
The agricultural area, for the purposes of this section,
generally covers the western half of the County with the
Northeast Area and I-95 - Turnpike Corridor the eastern boundary
(see Figure 1 above). Pine and wet prairie wetlands exist in the
southeastern portion of the agricultural lands east of Glades
Cut-Off Road, similar in community makeup to those in the I-95 -
Turnpike Corridor (pine flatwoods, sloughs, cabbage palm
hammocks, and marshes and ponds).
In the northeastern portion, a mix of forested. and non-forested
freshwater wetlands are indicated by land cover (SFWMD, LULC,
1986). Portions of these wetlands make up the Strazzula, Mi nute
Maid, and Indrio Reservoirs which historically were part of the
St. Johns River Marsh. Much of the remaining wetlands are
indicative of the marsh and pond, slough, pine flatwood, and
cabbage palm hammock ecological communities (SCS, 1980; 1987).
In the northwestern portion, there is also a mix of forested and
non-forested wetlands similar to the northeastern portion of the
agricultural area. There is also a large area of forested
wetlands along both sides of the Turnpike near the Indian River
County Li ne, predomi nantl y cypres s( SFWMD, LULC, 19 8 6), whi ch may
still be part of the St. Johns River Marsh. This area is
indicative of the Cypress Swamp ecological community,
interspersed with pine flatwood and slough communities (SCS,
1980; 1987). Bald cypress is the dominant vegetation and is
often the only tree which occurs in significant numbers. Pond
cypress occurs in cypress heads and domes which are usually four_d
in flatwoods and prairies, which may be the dominant spscies in
this area.
The central western area includes three general types of wetlands
(SFWMD, LULC, 19$6). Mixed forested wetlands are found both
north and south of State Road 70 {Okeechobee Road) including
January 9, 1990 7 CONSERVATION
areas around Cow Creek and Cypress Creek. They are predominantly
cypress swamps. Non-forested wetlands, mostly north of State
Road 70, are supportive of sloughs, and marshes and ponds (SCS,
1980; 1987). There are also areas of both forested and non-
forested wetlands together which are indicative of either pine
flatwoods or cypress with marshes and ponds. Throughout these
wetlands, cabbage palm flatwoods or hammocks may be present.
In the southwestern area, forested and non-forested wetlands are
scattered including some stands of cypress (SFWMD, LULC, 1986).
C. Surface Water Quality
A detailed analysis of water quality is presentad in the Coastal
Management Element and a summary of the Indian River Lagoon's
water quality is summarized in Section 2.A. above. Within St.
Lucie County, two areas of the Indian River Lagoon have been
designated Class II Waters (Shellfish Propagation and Harvesting)
(Figure 8-2). These two areas are: 1) east of the Intracoastal
Waterway centerline from the vicinity of Middle Cove south to the
Martin County Line, and 2) from the Indian River County Line
south to Garfield Point [Chapter 17-3.161(2)(c)(56), Florida
Administrative CodeJ. Al1 other surface waters are assigned
Class III Waters (Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of Fish
and Wildlife).
In addition, several areas within the County have been classified
as Outstanding Florida Waters. These waters are within the:
* Ft. Pierce Inlet State Recreation Area;
* Indian River Aquatic Preserve - Vero Beach to Ft.
Pi erce;
* Indian River Aquatic Preserve - Jensen Beach to Jupiter
I nl et;
* North Fork, St. Luci e Aquati c Pres erve; and
* Savannas State Reserve.
D. Ai r
1. Data
The definition of total suspended particulates (TSP) includes all
particulate material released into the atmosphere. Typical
sources include dust from open fields and construction and smoke
from open burning or industrial processes. Pollen is also a
component of the particulates, but is generally seasonal and
represents only a small proportion of the total particulate
matter.
The FDER currently maintains three stations in Ft. Pierce for the
measurement of the County's TSP. Data have been tabulated for
January 9, 1990 8- 8 CONSERVATION
~
Intracoastal Waterway Channei
,
_ T:.~,3._-4:
- - ~
a,~ ...s • ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Class li Waters
OK ' : 4'.::ti ~
- •::y::.::~:~?~=:?t:`5.:
~
~e,~ ~ a C I a s s I I 1~1/a t e r s
~::~:~:~::`:1:::::.
vIxIN
S ~ 1
~
~ ~::':~3:::::; ~ .~t
ec INDRI?':::;:;:::::;;;::
1NDRI0 ROAD ~
~ . . .
`
, \ :::~~Z
~ F:%,~c;'.i~:•::•.:~~~_w~.`•~
a _
' ~ ~iv+~asc
m~t
~
7
O ~ f~
. ; 7u+~ O
~ ~ O ti~~' PEPPEP,
o PARK
o
9
~ ~
ST LUCIc ^
~a~ 57. IULIE 9lF'~. 9 \P
~ . ~ P ~
C
~ ~
w ~ FORT PIERCE
" a°~ INIET
ANGLE - _ ` ~P o
~~9 ~ ~se~ ~ P ~
F,~
co ~~SE.~~
Q ~ AVE. D ~
I
~
Figure 8-2 -~IIt Water Quality Classifications in the Indian Riv~- i.agoon, i
St. Lucie County (FDER, 1985)_ '
8 - 9
~
s< L
~.L.~ ~ ~
\ ~`~~i<~ ~ ~
:
% ~ " Q
a ~ ;
_ i ,.....-a
~A :~y~;s~ c\!~ Class 11 Waters
~ I
ii
y ~ I
~ ~ Ciass lll Waters ~
, ~
~ ~
, ~ ~ ~
~ : a
~ ~
r ~
~
y' i . 2 ~ c~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, ;d,_
~
;zr,
"'7'r::1::J1::
,1•..;...:"'::.:•::.:::
v
Y/ WEATHC~~~
N ~
~ ::;t~~.
EIOR[D
~
G~
r .'::'r!.. .
• '~s
.:'~ci= ~
y'
r' ~
r: o
~ ~ f
i~r+~ca+~
Q ~
:.,C'=~~:::::.':::'
~ ~
C I fL • ~
A O
° ~
i ~i f`~ ~ ~
:
~ ~
Y~ITON _ ' " _
~ . ~
~ ~ ;:~~:i
~
~ EDEH
'
::ti: _ ~
4
j Figure 8-2 - F~~ Water Quality Classifications in ~he Indian i
~ River Lagc~on, St_ Lucie County { F7~ER, 1985
~ ;
1 ~ 'J o ~ ~ \\J ~ ~ U ~
~ ~ ~J '
i ~
n~ r i%1 .
I~ s~W
ii
I
$ - l~
these stations for the years 1979-1985. These stations are
located at the Ft. Pierce P7ater Treatment Plant, the old Police
Station at 435 North 7th Street, and the intersection of Selvitz
Road and Glades Cut-off Road. The station at the Water Treatment
Plant showed the primary ambient air quality to be standard with
an annual geometric mean of 75 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)
in 1979. The station at Selvitz Road and Glades Cut-off reported
that the secondary ambient air quality standard (maximum of 150
ug/m3, not to be exceeded more than once per year) was exceeded
in 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. Additional stations in St. Lucie
County were not monitored in 1981 and 1982. However, these
stations did not show excesses of standards during the period for
which data were provided. A more current report indicatecl a
significant upward trend in TSP between 1982 and 1986 including
an exceedance of the 24-hour standard in 1986 (FDER, 1987).
Sulfer dioxide was measured at five stations in Ft. Pierce and
nitrogen dioxide at one station (the old police station) until
1982. All measurements for these parameters were well within the
ambient air quality standard.
E. Soils
A soil survey has been published for St. Lucie County by the Soil
Conservation Service {SCS, 1980). This detailed survey contains
maps covering virtually all of the land areas of the County at a
scale of 1: 20, 000. In addition, the County has a database of
soil classifications within 10-acre grid cells. Figure 8-3
presents a general soil map of St. Lucie County which shows broad
areas that have distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and
drainage. Each map unit consists of one or more major soils.
Soils within any one unit differ from place to place in slope,
depth, drainage and other characteristics that affect management.
Table 8-1 lists the general area where the soil units are found,
the soil units, and their percentage of the survey area.
Most of the soils in Table 8-1 have severe limitations for
development activities including excavations, dwellings and small
commercial buildings, roads and streets, recreational
development, drainage, septic tank absorption fields, and sewage
lagoon areas {such as percolation ponds). These limitations
include slope, wetness, cutback caves, seepage, slow percolation,
cemented pan, ponding, excess humus, floods, subsidence, and low
strength. Even with proper site modification some limitations
can not be overcome and additional site development usually
includes fill.
Sand is the predominant soil texture (in relatior. to the
proportions of sand, silt and clay) within the upper horizons for
most of the soils. Loamy soils (sand with silt and clay) are
more prevalent in lower horizons. Several soils (Kaliga, Myakka,
Samsula, and Terra Ceia) ara predominantly muck in the upper
horizor.s.
January 9, 1990 8- 11 CONSERVATION
f e p i ~ a a s r e a s o u e r r I~
R „ ~ _ ~ _ _ 5~ , ~ _ 12_ P~ „ t GENERAL SOIL TYPES
, ~
~ ~ 8 6 8 5 3 5: ~E~E~o
I ^ ~ fl. lrle-S~leI111N41~~~ ~rl~n: k~.l~ M.el ~e ilN~y ~el~
7 l / g ~ R . a.,,., w,~, ~w
, 6 , w R
wns a ~~c ia uoas. ~~s. uo « enmos
Y N ( m u 2 f~lerM~Me~i~elwl: 4w11 lerel U pll~ tlNlp. /sll 4~I~e1 W
Ixll t~~ wll~ twt 1.re ~ ar~ ~WY ~bull: we wll~
e~..11 tk~wi. wi aavll~ re I.~Y klw ~ JeN1 N w IK1ei. ~re
9 _..u,~, ,n.~,..~.~,
z ~ 5 3 ~ :.k,.,~_..,:
. - ( ~.~....~:,ku,,,~..,~,,.~~,..~a ~
I ~ 9 D~ P 4 I..iryer~nr~K.i.wa: ~e..l~ Ierc1. r~~r v.li.e w~1~ U.t r< iw~
7 K
~nywt: tk 4M1 w1~e11 1s.eNll ~KntN h Plue~
5 «lln-1YwuJpp: k~rll~ml. IY tal~el ull~: 14
} ~ 7 n g 8 A ' ` , ,.rt
t NS~I N F ~~J/ i. M 41r ~ Iqt1 N In[k~
I I r,~ ~~V ~ s t I! A~"+ u
' ~ 6 ~.w...,nm: w,i~ i~i. k~~k, wn.: ~..wn i. d.~ ~
o I ~ tWl I~ Ile 7yn Nrt W le~ In Ye lwe ~~rt a I~ Iry Nl~in ~
~ ^l7 heY ~1 N ldes
. r_4uL... e - .I m~u r nc vuNS. w~vcs. Mo Kn Kr ucu nu~ wt 4alur m rowoni
~ I r- 8 7 9 d,.~,K
6 ~ z ~,.~,.~..n..,~a.: ~.,r p,.~~ w,,,: ~ ,~w,~ „
6 - ,.4~~,..~~w,.~~.,<<.,~~~,,,.,~.~..,.~,~
i 9' P ~..r u. i... w~
~ PHQBCS 8 w.wime,: r.ii ~~.i. wir t.i.e w~i.: u. b.r .r.vii i,
QAA~:tE ~YEKUE EYIEKfN NUI~ ~ bpU R p Lthet > 1~ kt~tm 1eptM ~l Ll W b N~in
4 ~ I ;x 9~: k,.~>,.~,...,p..~,.,,~,.,~,.:~k,a,,,,,~,,.a
5 5 8 ~ ,o n., p..,. ,y~
.R.,.~<,,,,.~: ~ .w~~~
. 8 nrnim~ 11 n...w~~m-n... oic w.tr ro.~r a~~M+ ~au.: en: ~
.~e n.~~ ~M.~. r+.e w.e .~iri< W~.. w~w w~i~
A I . s Z mu ar n¢ nw ws
7 ~ ~ 12 ~dw m~wa.iiN ~.~.<t«...~i: ~~ir i..ei w n~ir .~ain.
,
i ~i 8 jY ~6 5 ~ 4~~,;. ~~rm,;:.~ r~~:r,~'~:~
, :
~ Q W Me IW Nvr~i r,tn~J In tk lwn p~M1
I I
I ~C~I~tGrzr ~9 \
I ~
n I 5 6 ~ 56^ ~
' 5
p I8 ' i
' I ~ 6 '
a , ~
7 5 ~
~ , 4 7 g ~ 5 .
. ~ ~ - ~ 6 3 P
y I ~ S l
~ 3 5 5 wnsu ~ ~
o , ~ 8 , ~ ~
P
- y ' 's
so wrc* sMMKr ~ i
I 3 9 7 ~ ~
I 7 mce s rx ne. ~
i 1 ~ c.i, ,
1 O 8 V R ~I E'
6
a General Soils Map
; 3 ~~u~~ s 10AP SP. SUCYS
~ R
I ~U;'~1 6 ~ 3 6 ~1~~~~ (~O~J~~~
~ 1 - ~ 8 3 , ffs~Aa~a
:
l 4 _ ~ sw~r~ : FIGURE 8 - 3
-
A :l [ P }e ~ P . ~ 9 l
m e p r i a , a u u t v S70ftCi~ S~II SURVE~ Of~ Si iDCiE "6JNTi', FLOAID~
U-5_ Sqi~ f-0NSCP,vAi16m SEPUICE, 19~9
8 - 12
Table 8-1. General soil map units within St. Lucie County
including general area and percentage of survey area,
1980.
Area Unit Soils %
#
Sand Ridges 1 St. Lucie, Satellite, Welaka l. 5
Vari ant
Low Ridges, 2 Salerno, Hobe, Waveland 1. 4
Knolls, and 3 ~9avel«:~u, Lawnwood 16. 4
Flatwoods 4 Basinger, Myakka, Lawnwood 2.7
5 Nettles, Ankona, Pepper 20.0
6 Wabas s o, Wi nder 6. 4
Swamps , Mars hes 7 Pi neda, Wabas s o, Ri vi e ra 21. 8
and Very Wet Areas 8 Winder, Riviera 24. 5
Subj ect to Ponding 9 Chobee l. 4
or Flooding 10 Samsula Variant, Myakka Variant 1.1
11 Fluvaquents, Terra Ceia 1.0
12 Pompano Variant, Kaliga Variant, 1.8
Canaveral
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1980
The Soil Conservation Service (1980) classifies individual soils
with regard to water and wind erosion. The water erosion factor
indicates low to moderate susceptibility to water erosion for
all the soils within the soil units in the County. However, they
are all classified either extremely erodible (sands) or very
highly erodible (loamy sands) with regard to their resistance to
wind erosion. Although the latter factor is directed to
resistance in cultivated areas, it follows that these
characteristics would apply during urban construction without
proper precautions.
Areas of known erosion in St. Lucie County include the dikes
along drainage canals and beaches, and in agricultural areas
when proper management practices are not followed. Significant
erosion in agricultural areas generally occurs when cropland is
allowed to lie fallow for exter_ded periods of time and is
particularly noticeable in fallow vegetable fields, pastures, and
the furrows of citrus orchards. Beach erosion is addressed in
detail in the Coastal Management Element; generally, the most
serious problems have been attributed to storms and the
interruption of littoral drift by the jetties at the Ft. Pierce
Inlet.
The Soil Conservation Service has developed Best ~Ianagement
January 9, 1990 8- 13 CONSERVATION
Practices (BMPs) for the different soil series to prevent or
reduce erosion and, for organic soils, oxidation. Many of the
BMPs are procedural rather than structural and can be
accomplished at low cost. Procedural BMPs include developing
land in phases so that it is not all denuded at the same time,
alternating development phases to leave vegetated windbreaks
and/or floways, leaving vegetated buffer zones along.
watercourses, plowing/discing at right angles to the prevailing
winds, and rotating stock to prevent overgrazing. Structural
approaches include retention/detention of stormwater, grassed
swales and floways, dust/cohesion control chemicals, and early
replacement of vegetative cover.
F. Fl oodpl ai ns
Figure 8-4 depicts the flood hazard boundaries within the
unincorpor~ted areas of the County as prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 1984). Figure 8-4 only shows
the flood hazard areas in the eastern part of the County because
FEMA has not conducted studies in the western part of the County.
Areas subject to flooding during the 100-year flood {Zone A)
occur along the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean, along both sides
of the Indian River Lagoon, in the Savannas, and along the North
Fork of the St. Lucie River (NFSLR) and its major tributaries.
There are a few smaller areas subject to the 100-year flood in
isolated low areas, especially near the coast. Areas of 100-year
, coastal flood with wave action (Zone V) extend into the Indian
River Lagoon along its western side. Storm inundation maps are
provided in the Coastal Management Element. Most of the County
outside of Zone A lies between the limits of the 100-year and
500-year floods (Zone B). Areas of minimal flooding (Zone C)
occur primarily along the high dune ridges on Hutchinson Island
and just west of the Indian River Lagoon. A history of flooding
and an assessment of damage potential are presented in the
Drainage Sub-element along with an analysis of remedial actions
for correction or mitigation of flooding problems.
The floodplain of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River is a
fairly pristine natural resource made up of wetlan~ls which not
only provide high quality wildlife habitat but also valuable
storage of floodwaters. The State's wetland regulations may
limit the amount of dredging and filling within the floodplain.
However, protection of these and other functions can probably be
best accomplished through acquisition. As will be seen in
Section 3.A, approximately 1,200 acres of wetlands and uplands
along the river may be purchased which would allow for needed
conservation and resource managemer.t in this area.
G. Mi neral s
Sand and shell rock mining generaliy occurs within or near the
Atlantic Coas~al RidgB and in the western parts of the County.
January 9, 1990 8- 14 CONSER~IATION
I Y 9 1 I l F 1 . ( F ! 9 U [ 1 t , ~ I~
~ .~.,.T, ^ - _ ` , ~ - ~ LIZED
~ GENERA
. ~ .
( I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` _ . ~a , ' ` 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
, ~
r i _r -
r ~ _
i5 F`
~ - i I ~a D . ~I ~
~ ~ ~~Y ~I100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN i
' ~ , ~ ~ ~
..,a ~y~
~ ~ ~ _ :,,.o~..~~.~
~ ~ t _ ~ ~
~ '
_ I = 4, ~IOTE: FOR AODITIONAL INFORM/~TION
~
j ~ ON ~(HE LOCATION OF THE 100 YEAR FL~9D
~ I ~ pLAIN, PLEASE REFER TO FEMA ' 1984 '
~ , . I ; =3 ~
~ ! ~ 1, ~ _ FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS FOR _ ;
,
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
c i - - k ST. LUCIE COUNTY
, x ~
~ ° + ~ ~
° ~=--°==-t ~ A ~
_ 'I
~ - ~
y ~i J - - ~ ' ~ ;
" ~I S i
~ ~ ~ '
ry ` .
' : '
' ~ ~ F ~
~ I . GK. . f .
~ t
„ +~w ;
~ i
_ . ;
. . ' . ~ ~ ~ rt~l f . I
R i I
1
/ ~ ~ 1 I
. ~ i _ T S . 4UCSE , ~i \t` ~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ r j ~J u. Lb l~J lh 7~ ls lh ~l~J I~U u u ~ 11
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~
I - ~ ~ ~ ff~~RF.~d ~
j ( ~ ~ m, .
~ ` 'I
~ ~ ` withm !
~ ~ ~,.~,Y - q ligure B-4. F~ly~°°d y~y~~} ~19f
N Si ( F' [ . _ _ . :9 f - LLL
St. LUCiC CAIIDtY (FII'~'~
h ~ a r ~ e I~ < ~ u s ~ , .
~ _
B - 15
Peat deposits are found in the marshes of the western portion of
the County. Becausa of the abundance of fill materials in
Florida and the large costs of tr_ansporting them, they are only
valuable on a local scale and are generally mined near the site
of their eventual deposition. One exception is the mining of
silica sand which is shipped to rhe Bahamas from the Port of Ft.
Pierce.
As will be seen in Section 2.I, most of the County's Sand Pine
Scrub community lies on or along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, a
unique ecological community that provides habitat to many
endangered and threatened plants and animals as well as the
valuable function of groundwater recharge. This community has
been subject to heavy development pressure throughout South
Florida and has been completely eliminated in most areas south of
the County. To prevent this from happening in the County, it
will be necessary to implement strategies to protect, conserve
and appropriately use this natural resources.
H. Fisheries
The surface waters of St. Lucie County support a wide variety of
fish species which are valuable resources for both commercial and
sport fishing. Appendix 1 presents the 1984 commercial catch of
the top ten species in St. Lucie County which was valued at
nearly five (5) million dollars. Appendix 2 presents the 1984
commercial catch of the top ten species landed in terms of
weight, nearly five (5) million pounds. A complete listing of
the finfish landed within County waters in 1984 including value
and weight is provided in Appendix 3.
An active saltwater and freshwater sport fishery also exists in
St. Lucie County which is an an important element in attracting
tourists to the area. The major saltwater sport fish include
sailfish, snook, dolphin, white and blue marlin, tarpon, speckled
trout, cobia, grouper, snapper, croaker, shark, sheepshead, and
drum. Freshwater sport fish include largemouth bass, black
crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish, and speckled perch.
Harvesting of shellfish within the Indian River Lagoon is
approved within a portion of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic
Preserve (Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce) from the Intracoastal
Waterway to the eastern edge of the barrier island; it is
presently prohibited in the remainder of tre Indian River Lagoon
(Figure 8-5). Shellfish taken from St. Lucie County waters in
1984 included hard-sh~ll clams, conch, blue crabs, spiny lobster,
and oysters as seen ir_ Appendix 4.
I. Upland Vegetative Communities
Upland vegetative com:~nunities were first identified from the Land
Use and Land Cover Maps prepared by the South Florida Water
January 9, 1990 8- 16 CONSERVAT~ON
~ ' /
/
~ ~ _
[/17iE
a \ Approved Shelif ish
°
~ ~
a ~ Harvesting Area
j r~ ~ ~
VjKIN i
1~~ S 1
i
o ~ ~
~
INDRIO
1NDRI0 ROAD ~
o
~ GNfR1D /r
f flY+ K1
~
~ C~
~
7
~ O ~ I
u+~ v o
~ ~ ti`~~ PEPPEP,
y o~ 1 PARK
1, ~ 4
D
SZ LUCiE I
6a~ ST. tucrE e~v+;. , 4~ ~
, ~P
C P ~
W ~ FORT PIERCE
Y aQ~ INLET
ANG~E //J~ _ %
'pp ' ~0~0 ~ P~P ~ O
q ~ c~
~ F~
~ ~~5~~1
~pS~ ~ {t.
a~
~ ~ AVE. D
_ ~
I
~
Figure 8-S ~~~-sh f-~aL~v~st ~r~ in tt~e Irxli.an River
I Lagoon. St. Lucie Ccxulty_ { SJi~d~ff~ and SFF~~, 1987 '
8 - 17
Management Di s tri ct ( SFWP+iil, LULC, 19 8 6) ( s ee Fi gure 8-1
Additional information about the type of community was extracted
by identifying underlying soils which are indicative of
ecological communities. This information was obtained from
reports by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1980; 1987). A
detailed inventory of upland vegetation in the coastal area was
presented in the Coastal 1~4anagemer~t Elemer~c. This section
describes the upland commur.ities within the County by focusing on
the following areas: Savannas, Northeast A~e~, I-95 - Turnpike
Corridor, and the Agricultural Area. As it is in nature,
ecological communities tend to overlap, therefore additional
information on many of the communities identified :~elow is found
in the description of wetlands above (Section 2.B).
1. Savannas
Forested uplands in the Savannas north oi ~'t. Pierce are
dominated by pine flatwoods; both pinz flatwoods and sand pine
scrub exist south of the City generally adjacent to the wetlands
within the Savannas State Reserve (SFWMD, LULC, 1986). The pine
flatwoods are supportive of the South Florida Fla~wood ecological
community (SCS, 1980; 1987). The community is on nearly level
land. Water movement is very gradual to the natural
drainageways, swamps, marshes, and ponds associated with this
community. The natural vegetation of this community is typically
scattered with slash pine, South Florida slash pine, and live
oak. The understory includes sawpalmetto and grasses. The Sand
Pine Scrub ecological community occurs on nearly level to
strongly sloping land, as found on or along the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge. It is easily identified by the even-aged stands of sand
pine or by the thick scrubby oak growth. When the sand pines are
dominant there is usually a dense understory of oaks,
sawpalmetto, and other shrubs. Ground cover under the trees and
shrubs is scattered and large areas of light colored sand are
often noticeable.
2. Northeast Area
The Northeast area is bordered by the Indian River County Line
(north), I-95 (west}, Midway Road (south), and the coastal area
(east). The predominant upland community is pine flatwood
although it is only scattered throughout the area (SFWMD, LULC,
1986). The larger stands are found northwest and south of the
St. Lucie County International Airport and in the Five Mile Creek
and Ten Mile Creek area. Mixed forested uplands are also
scattered throughout this area (SFWMD, LULC, 1986~. Generally,
the cabbage palm hammock community is scattered in a iine that
rur.s north from the Orange Avenue - I-95 area. Its thick stands
of cabbage palms and few scattered oak can be picked out ~asily
among slough and p~ne flatwood communities (SCS, 1987). Sand
pi ne s crub i s al ong L'. S. 1 i n s everal pl aces ~orth of Ft. Pi erce,
and pine flatwoods are found south of State Road 7o (SCS, i980;
1987).
January 9, 1990 8- 18 CONSERVATION
3. I-95 - Turnpike Corridor
This corridor is generally adjacent to and west of I-95 and
ranges from one to four rniles in width running north-south for
all but the northern four miles of tne County. Fairly large
areas of pine flatwoods are found throughout the corridor (SFWMD,
LULC, 1986). Those in the northern part of the corridor are
predominantly supportive of the South Florida Flatwood ecological
community although some Slough and Cabbage Palm Flatwood
communities also occur (SCS, 1980; ?987). This cabbage palm
community is often near coastal areas, major drainageways and
lakes, and is mixed with wetlands. Water moves very gradually to
and through the natural drainageways and wetlands. ThA pine
flatwoods in the southern part of the corridor are evenly mixed
with the sloughs.
Mixed forested communities are also scattered as far south as
Glades Cut-Off Road where the largest areas occur (SFWMD, LULC,
1986). This lower area is mostly supportive of pine flatwoods;
moving north a mix of pine and cabbage palm flatwoods becomes
prevalent (SCS, 1980; 1987).
4. Agricultural Area
All of the following general groups of forested uplands occur in
the ~gricultural Area (SFWMD, LULC, 1986):
* Coniferous (pine flatwoods or other coniferous trees);
* Non-coniferous (palms, oaks, commercial forests, or
exotics); and
* Mixed forested.
Pine flatwoods are predominant north of Orange Avenue Extension,
made up mostly of pine and slough ecological communities; some
cabbage palm communities may also exist in this area (SCS, 1980;
1987). Non-conifzrous and mixed forested uplands are predominant
between Orange Avenue Extension and State Road 70. Cabbage palm
hammocks with pine and oak are predominant in areas where the
mixed forested species were identified (SFWMD, LULC, 1986); the
soils in old fields that are becoming forested are supportive of
the pine and slough communities (SCS, 1980; 1987). Palm and oak
were also identified in the non-coniferous areas (SFWMD, LULC,
1986).
Coniferous and mixed forested uplands are predominant south of
State Road 70 (SFWMD, LULC, 1986). Cabbage palm hammocks mixed
with either pines or oaks are especially prevalent in the
southwest corner although some also occur near Cypress Creek.
Both pine flatwood and sand pine scrub are found througnout this
area.
January 9, 1990 8- 19 CONSERVATION
J. Wildlife
This section provides an overview of the wildlife within St.
Lucie County. Although an extensive inventory is not available,
ecological communities support particular kinds of wildlife and
characteristic species will be presented in Appendices 5- 12
(SCS, 1987). As seen in the descriptions of wetlands and
uplands, both land forms may be mixed together; distinctions are
not often clear and some wildlife will be found in more than one
community. Fisheries and birds have been inventoried in some
detail and will be described separately.
1. Wildlifa within Upland Ecological Communities
The South Florida Flatwood community is filled with diverse and
numerous wildlife populations (Appendix 5). Many larger animals
are found in areas where the flatwoods join other communities;
these ecotones provide nesting sites, den sites, food and cover.
Animals found in the Sand Pine Scrub community are adapted to
high temperatures and droughty conditions (Appendix 6). The
wildlife food production is low and the dense vegetation provides
good escape cover for animals such as the white-tailed deer. The
palmetto and various species of oaks provide food when they are
fruiting including the gopher apple.
The Cabbage Palm Hammock community provides resting cover for
both migratory and resider.t wildlife and serves as refuges during
wet conditions (Appendix 7).
As for the pine flatwoods, ~he Cabbage Palm Flatwood community
also provides habitat for a diverse and numerous wildlife
population and where it joins other communities, especially
wetlands, larger animals may be found (Appendix 8).
2. Wildlife within Wetland Ecological Communities
The Wetland Hardwood Hammock community is one of the most
productive and diverse wildlife habitats. In addition to the
animals listed in Appendix 9, it is good habitat for turkey and
furbearers and, being moist most of the year, reptiles and
amphibians. It is poor for quail and dove and fair for many
songbirds.
The Freshwater Marsn and Pond community provides excellent
habitats for many wildlife species tAppendix 10). Numerous birds
and waterfowl use this community year-round for wintering.
The Cypress Swamp community is very important as wildlife refugs
and turkey roosting areas (Appendix 11). It is well suited for
waterfowl and wadirg birds and aquatic animals may be found in
large numbers. Although the permaner.t residerts of the cypress
heads are relatively few, much oF the wildlife in flatwoods is
January 9, 1990 8- 20 CONSERVATION
dependent on these ponds for breeding purposes.
The Slough community is also host to a diverse wildlife
population and many animals occur where the it joins flatwoods
and hammocks (Appendix 12).
K. Bi rds
Section 2.J described the wildlife commonly associated with the
specific ecological communities in the County including bird
life. Additional informatipn on actual birds seen within the
County is presented in Appendix 13, a summary of the Ft. Pierce
Christmas Bird Count which has been conducted for twenty-nine
(29) years. This data onl.y applies to wintering birds and other
species which may breed or pass through the area may not be
represented.
Of the total 229 species recorded, 120 species (52%) were
observed at least 20 of the 29 years including the following
which are listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special
concern (herein referred to as "listed species"):
* little blue heron;
* tricolored heron;
brown pelican;
* wood stork;
* southern bald eagle;
* American kestrel; and
* sandhill crane.
Eighty (80) species, or 35%, were observed no more than 10 of the
29 years including the following listed species:
* reddish egret;
* roseate spoonbill;
* Florida snail kite;
* peregrine falcon;
* American oystercatcher;
* least tern; and
* Florida burrowing owl.
Other listed species known or suspected to occur in the County
but which have not been observed in the annual bird count include
the Audubon crested caracara and red-cockaded woodpecker. The
red-cockaded woodpecker, however, has been spotted or is
suspected to occur within the boundaries of several newer large
scale developments within the I-95 - Turnpike Corridor. Listed
species will be discussed in the next section.
L. Species Listed as r~ndangered, Threatened, or of Special
ConcErn
January 9, 1990 8- 21 CONSERVATION
Endangered and threatened species are those plants and animals in
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered,
respectively, as designated by both the federal government
(Endangered Species Act of 1973) and the State of Florida
(Chapter 372.072, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 39-27, Florida
Administrative Code). The State also lists species whose
survival potential is of special concern.
~ndangered and threatened species and species of special concern,
referred to herein as "listed species", that are known or
suspected to occur in St. Lucie County by reason of distribution
and habitat are listed in Appendix 14 (Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, 1988).
The following plants and animals are not listed ~n P.pper_dix 14:
* Native species of bromeliads, cactus, ferns, orchids,
and palms, all of which are considered threatened by
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, except those specifically exempted or listed
under other categories;
* The extensive lists of plants and animals that are
under review for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, but have not yet been proposed for listing;
* Migratory bird species that occur but do not breed in
the County and are listed because of loss of breeding
habitat; and
* Species of whales and dolphins that may occur in the
offshore waters of the County.
Listed species are frequently dependent upon a particular habitat
and reductions in the habitat are frequent causes of listing. It
is impossible to manage a listed species without protection of
the required habitat. Particularly important habitats for listed
species in St. Lucie County are the dunes and beaches, mangroves
and coastal marshes, freshwater marshes, and sand pine scrub.
Specific vegetative communities, environmentally sensitive areas,
and other tracts of land supporting listed species are currently
being identified and will be documented on manually constructed
maps. This information will be incorporated into the Geographic
Information System in the future.
Critical habitats have been designated within St. Lucie County
for tne Florida snail kite (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
pers onal communi cation, 198 9) and the West I ndi an manatee ( SJRWriD
and SFWMD, 1987). These are areas of ~articular importar.ce for
the continued existence of the species and are not meant to imply
that the species occur nowhere else in the County. In fact, the
Florida snail kite is regularly seen in the Savannas which has
not beer. designated critical habitat but a wiidlife preserve.
January 9, 199~ 8- 22 CONSER~IATION
There are various causes for a species being listed. Some
species have never been common. Some species are threatened
because of commercial exploitation and collecting pressure. The
Hand Fern and Eastern Indigo snake fall into this category. Some
species are vulnerable because they are restricted to a limiting
resource or habitat. Lakela's mint and the red-cockaded
woodpecker are representatives of this cateaory in St. Lucie
County. The most serious threat to the continued existence of
many listed species is the alteration of their habitat by man.
It is impossible to discuss all of the factors which affect each
listed species in St. Lucie County, but several of the more
conspicuous factors will be discussed.
Many of the listed plant species are threatened because of
collection pressure. The ferns, coontie, orchids, cactus, and
bromeliads are especially vulnerable to collection. The fragrant
prickly-apple is restricted to a very small range on private land
and could be eliminated were the location widely known.
Another major threat to many of the plant species is loss of
habitat to development. Species such as Catesby's lily, Lakela's
mint, and Curtiss' milkweed occur in flatwoods or sand pine scrub
that are prime areas for development. Several beach and dune
species, such as sea-lavender, beach creeper, and inkberry, are
also subject to loss of habitat to development.
The beaches of east central Florida, including St. Lucie County,
are an important breeding ground for s~veral species of sea
turtle. The leatherback, green, and loggerhead sea turtles have
all been recorded breeding on the beaches of St. Lucie County in
recent years. The nests of these turtles are highly vulnerable
to natural predators and to disturbance on the beaches. In
recent years, projects have been established in many sea turtle
nesting areas to monitor and protect the nests of sea turties and
encouragirg results have been obtained. Another threat to the
hatchlings is the increasing light pollution that accompanies
development along beaches and causes disorientation as they
attempt to find the ocean after birth. The County's sea turtle
ordinance restricts the hours and months that artificial light
can shine on the beach area, however, it is becoming apparent
that interior lights (mostly from existing development) are a
major cause of hatchling disorientation.
The gopher tortoise, although locally common in St. Lucie County,
is a species of specia7_ concern statewide (FGFWFC, personal
communication, 1989). The gopher tortoise is important because
its burrows are frequently inhabited by other animals, some of
which occur nowhere else and some of which are themselves listed
species. Among the listed species that occur with gobher
tortoises, though not necESSarily exclusively, are the r^lorida
gopher frog, Eastern Indigo snake, and Florida mouse. Guidelines
for the relocation of gopher tortoises nave been prepared wnich
are used when devalopment is imminent and all reasonable
January 9, 1990 8- 23 CONSERVATION
possibilities to accommodaLe the species onsite have been
exhausted (FGFWFC, 1988).
Many colonial waterbirds are common in St. Lucie County as seen
from Appendix 15 and use a variety of wetlands for feeding and
roosting. Field staff from the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control
District has observed many species traveling back and forth from
the marshes in the western part of the County to the marsnes on
Hutchinson Island (personal communication, 1989). Breeding
colonies of great egret, great blue heron, little blue heron,
tri-colored heron, and wood stork were documented in St. Lucie
County in 1987 (FGFWFC, 1989}, Brown pelicans and snowy egrets
also nest within the County (FGFWFC, 1982).
Bald eagles are seen regularly ir~ St. Lucie County, and at least
one bald eagle nest is documented in the County. Pairs of bald
eagles are highly variable in their tolerance of human activity
around the nest.
The red-cockaded woodpecker nests only in mature pines and almost
exclusively in those with red-heart disease. Nests in northern
Florida are generally in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris but
slash pine (Pinus ellioti) is also used in south Florida. The
woodpeckers frequently have non-breeding helpers within a family
unit referred to as a"clan". A clan requires large areas for
its home range. An average of 200 acres per clan has been
reported. Logging practices that remove all the old trees have
severely endangered this woodpecker. Red-cockaded woodpecker
clans have been located in St. Lucie County, generally in areas
that are slated for development. At the time of this writing at
least one active colony is known in St. Lucie County and it is in
an area of active developmeni.
The Florida scrub jay, which was added to the federal Threatened
Species list recently {U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personnal
communication, 1989), is restricted to scattered and isolated
patches of scrub oak habitat much of which has been cleared for
urban development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986). It is
known to inhabit several areas within the County (Florida Game
and Freshwater Fish Commission, personal communication, 1989). A
sizable population exists within the Savannas State Reserve. It
has also been documented north of Ft. Pierce near Indrio Road and
U. S. 1 and on and adj acent to the St. Lucie County International
Airport.
The American oystercatcher nests on broad sandy beaches but
suitable habitat is rare and restoration and protection of
sutable nesting areas are necessary to halt their decline
(FGFWFC, 1982).
Mar.atees are still common in the Indian River Lagoon as evident
from a FDNR survey conducted every other week during 198b (FDNR,
1987). The survey was limited to an area that extended from
about three miles north of the Ft. Pierce Inlat to three miles
January 9, 1990 8- 24 CONSERVATION
south of the inlet. Many of the manatee congregate at the
Municipal Power Plant and to a lesser extent in the canals and
coves north and south of the inlet. It is general knowledge that
manatee also frequent the North Fork Uf -che St. Lucie River.
It has been estimated that the Florida manatee population totals
1,200, approximately half on each ccast {Jones, 1986). Mortality
has increased between 1974 and 1985 totaling 1,023 deaths with a
high of 131 in 1984. Nearly twenty-two (22) percent of the deaths
over this period were attributed to boat-barge collisions, the
largest identifiable cause af death. In 1988 there were 133
known deaths, nearly a third (43) from collisions, an all time
high (Lamphear, 1989). Since it is believed that deaths exceed
births on Florida's east coast, the population may reach a point
where it declinss steadily (Jones, 1986). Nct only shculd
collisions be reduced but also the loss of habitat, particularly
seagrass beds which is the manatees preferred food (Lamphear,
1989).
The County is working with the State in establishing idle and
slow speed zones, exclusive of the Intracoastal Waterway, in
certain waters inhabited by manatees on a regular or continuou~
basis.
Several listed species have adapted to urban areas. The least
tern, a summer resident, historically nested on beaches but have
begun to utilize gravel rooftops, parking lots and other such
landscapes in the County where beaches have been disturbed
(FGFWFC, 1982). Burrowing owls which prefer high sandy ground
have begun to utilize open ground such as on airports and
campuses. Expansion of such land use activities, however, often
results in eliminating suitable habitat.
SECTION 3. POTENTIAL FOR CONSERVATION, USE OR PROTECTION OF
NATUR.AL RESOURCES
Proper resource management - which addresses the protection,
conservation and appropriate use of natural resources - is
necessary in order to reduce threats from development, whether it
is residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, or
agricultural. Common impacts include the filling or drainage of
wetlands and ~loodplains, pollution of groundwater and surface
water, beach erosion, and loss of upland habitats. In turn,
these impacts can af~ect both human life and wildlife. The
purpose of this section is to address various means for the
County (along with other entities) to manage its natural
resources for the benefit of all users.
A. Water Resources
1. Surface Waters
January 9, 19°0 8- 25 CONSERV~TION
St. Lucie County has a variety and abundance of freshwater and
saltwater resources including the Atlantic Ocean, Indian River
Lagoon, and North Fork of the St. Lucie River and associated
tributaries. These surface water resources are primarily used
for commercial and recreational ac~ivities (such as fishing,
boating, swimming, and shellfish harvesting). They are also used
as conveyances or receiving bodies for stormwater discharges from
all types of land development (residential, commercial, and
agricultural). Nonpoint source pollution from stormwater
discharges is the biggest t::reat to the quality of surface waters
as seen in the Coastal Management Element. Additional problems
stem from excess freshwater discharges and the loss of natural
shoreline vegetation from development.
The potential for conservation, appropriate use and protection
of water resources has been enhanced through state and local
initiatives during this decade. State management plans have been
adopted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources for both
aquatic preserves within the County (Indian River Lagoon and
North Fork of the St. Lucie River) which contain policies and
guidelines for resource protection and use (FDNR, 1984; 1985).
Continuation of the following Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan (SWIM) initiatives should enhance the quality of
the lagoon and river: 1~ identification of alternatives for
improvement of the quality of stormwater discharges from Moores
Creek, the Virginia Avenue Canal, Five Mile Creek, and Ten Mile
Creek; and 2) aerial photogrametry of the Five Mile Creek and Ten
Mile Creek basins. Following up on the first project would
result in the construction of a stormwater treatment facility
from a list of alternatives including detention, retention,
littoral vegetated buffers, grass swales, exfiltration devices,
porous pavement, or development regulations (Coastal Technology
Corporation, draft report, 1989). The second project will result
in a detailed technical inventory which will benefit drainage
projects, including the development of a master plan, and the
geographic information system (GIS) which the County has recently
instituted. The SWIM Act (Chapter 373.451, Florida Statutes)
also empowers the South Florida Water Management District to
acquire lands for preservation although there are no proposals
for acquisitions within the County at this time.
Another difficult probiem for the Indian River Lagoon and St.
Lucie Estuary is the quantity of freshwater discharges to these
waters from the South Florida Water Management District's C-23,
C-24, and C-25 canals. As noted in the Coastal Management
Element numerous changes in marine biota rlas occurred by
prolonged or high volume fresh water discharges. Ongoing
District studies are evaluating the effects of puising discharges
to reduce these impacts yet maintain flood nrotection
requir~ments. Another potential study by the Distr~ct is the
feasibility of a reservoir in the western portions of the Ccur_ty
which woul~ be directcd to improving water conservation and
January 9, 1990 8- 26 CONSERVATI~JN
recharge and reducing excess freshwater flows to surface waters.
A current acquisition initiative, if completed, for at least
1,200 acres of natural areas within the North Fork of the St.
Lucie River corridor would greatly enhance the potential for
conservation and protection of this resource. The project would
include an initial purchase by the private non-profit Trust for
Public Lands (TPL, 1988). '~ith the appropriate support from the
County and City of Port St, Lucie, the State would then purchase
the lands under the Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) or
Save Our Rivers programs. Local support would include fiscal
contributions and management and use agreements with the State.
2. Wetl ands
St. Lucie County also has a variety and abundance of freshwater
and estuarine wetlands. The latter are primarily mangrove
forests along the Indian River Lagoon shoreline and southern
reach of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. Most of the
lagoonal wetlands have been impounded to assist mosquito control
activities; other uses include recreation {parks) and
conservation (open areas), as well as research (Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institut~). Residential uses also occur in
wetlands when appropriate permits are obtained. The major
problems over the years have been the elimination of tidal
exchange upon construction of impoundment dikes; and loss of
wildlife habitat, water recharge areas, stormwater filtering
capability, and flood water storage areas from dredge and fill
activities to create uplands and associated stormwater managment
facilities.
Freshwater wetlands are scattered tnroughout the County. One of
the largest contiguous areas is found in the Savannas State
Reserve which includes over 3,600 acres of uplands and wetlands
purchased by the State under the Environmentally Endangered Lands
program and managed by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources for conservation and recreation. Remnants of the North
Savannas still exist north of the City of Ft. Pierce. The only
other large contiguous areas east of the I-95 - Turnpike Corridor
exist along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, Five Mile
Creek, and Ten Mile Creek. Large contiguous wetlands are
especially prevalent in the western portions of the County's
agricultural areas. The loss of the wetlands and their benefits
(noted above) from dredge, fill, and drainage activities are the
major problems with freshwater wetlands.
The potential for conservation, use or protection has increased
appreciably during this decade particularly with the passage of
the Warren S. Henderson Act of 1984 (Chapter 403.91, Florida
Statutes) and the more recent adoption o~ State rules for
mitigation (Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code) and
isolated wetlands {Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code).
Howevar, more work is needed on trie State ~evel to address the
use of wetlands in their natural state for stormwater management
Januarv 9, 1990 8- 27 CONSERV~TION
instead of the creation of deep water hanitats which most likely
do not provide the same benefits as natural wetlands.
Acquisition as a conservation mechanism is also used for
wetlands. Utilizing the CARL program and coordination with the
Trust for Public Lands and the South Florida Water Management
District, it may be possible to purchase an additional 1,200
acres as part of the Savannas State Reserve (FDNR, 1988).
Cooperation between the State and County has led to the increased
tidal exchange in the mosquito impoundments while maintaining
mosquito control functions.
Wetlands conservation, appropriate use or protection can also be
achieved locally through the development of incentives that are
tied to densities, setbacks, easements, or acquisition.
3. Groundwater
As will be seen in Section 4 of this element, the County's water
needs are met by both the shallow and deep aquifers. Known
pollution problems with the shallow aquifer come from groundwater
contamination by hazardous substances and poor quality recharge.
The initiation of a public wellfield protection program by the
County, Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village, and South
Florida Management District should effectively reduce the
potential threat of groundwater contamination, as will the
continuation of the abandoned well plugging program by the County
and District.
B. Fl oodpl ai ns
Much of the development in St. Lucie County has occurred in the
100-year floodplain which is expected to continue. Appropriate
flood protection measures and restrictions are in place for only
part of this development. The threat of property or personal
damage is particularly high on Hutchinson Island and along the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River and its tributaries. Some of
these problems should be addressed by updating the County's
drainage regulations. The information obtained from the aerial
photogrametry project (referenced above), as well as the
associated benefits received through Surface Water Improvement
and Management initiatives should also help. Flooding and
drainage problems and ways to address them are more thoroughly
described in the Drainage Sub-element. Additionally,
establishing floodplain management regulations would not only
improve the flood storage capability of floodplains but also help
to conserve or protect their function and value as wildlife
habitats.
C. Commercially ~laluable Minerals
The value of ths sand, shell, and other fill materials on a local
January 9, 1990 8- 28 CONSERVATION
basis varies depending on need and location. Sand mines are
required to have a plan of reclamation prior to excavating
reclaimed mines may be used for urban development, recreation, or
stormwater treatment, however, additional measures are needed to
reduce the impacts of mining activities on wildlife habitats and
,adjacent properties. Another issue that needs to be addressed is
the conflict between the need for building materials and
preservation or conservation of the sand pine scrub habitat. It
may be possible to balance competing interests by identifying the
least disturbed habitats for preservation and allowing mining in
those areas that are already heavily disturbed. Assistance from
the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is possible in
that the agency has identified the remaining scrub habitat in the
County as well as its quality (FGFWFC, 1988).
D. Areas of Soil Erosion
The soils in St. Lucie County are subject to both wind and water
erosion when exposed through urban and agricultural activities.
This can result in greater costs by increasing requirements for
fill and pollution control for urban development, and soil
enhancement (such as nutrients) and soil retention mechanisms for
agricultural development. Associated pollution problems may
include the increase in turbidity and muck seen in the estuarine
waters of the County (see Coastal Management Element).
These problems can be addressed through coordinated efforts with
the Soil Conservation Service, especially in regard to the
implementation of best management practices, the consideration of
topographic, hydrologic, and vegetative cover factors in site
review processes, and the regulation or prohibition of activities
such as the use of off road vehicles within environmentally
sensitive areas.
E. Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Endangered Species
The various upland vegetativ~ habitats throughout the County are
subject to intense urban and agricultural development. One of the
more sensitive and unique habitats is the sand pine scrub
community which lies along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Since it
is on high, dry ground, it is especially attractive for
development. Indeed, most development takes place in all types
of upland habitats, especially in light of the emphasis wetlands
protection has received this decade. The Savannas State Reserve
includes several unique upland habitats and is the only area
within the County that is formally designated for conservation.
The major problems with uncontrolled development in upland areas
are the loss of wildlife habitat and associated plants and
animals, including many species listed as endangered, threatened,
or of special concern; the loss of their soil and water
retention, shading, and buffering capabilities; ar.d the loss of
their aesthetic qualities. All of these factors can affect the
January 9, 1990 8- 29 CONSERTJATION
economic values of the land. Other problems stem from the
physical damage caused by off-road vehicles and the dumping of
trash, garbage and other waste within thase communities. Of
particular concern is the damage from off-road vehicles within
dune and sand pine scrub communities.
There are many ways to conserve or protect unique vegetative
communities and associated wildl~fe yet maintain appropriate
levels of use for urban and agricultural development. These
include better coordination with and use of State and Federal
agencies during development rev~.ew processes, the establishment
of criteria to identify environmentally sensitive habitats and
incentives for property owners to conserve and manage them (as
for wetlands above), the identification and establishment of
public programs for acquisition and management of the more
valuable habitats, and the prohibition or regulation of
activities (such as the use of off-road vehicles) in sensitive
habitats.
Conservation, use or protection of fisheries on a local scale can
best be handled through cooperation and support of State
initiatives to improve the estuarine environment (such as the
current Surface Water Improvement and Management projects on
water quality and seagrasses), as well as through local
initiatives such as public education on the value of habitat
protection, effective enforcement of existing habitat protection
regulations (such as the County's Mangrove Protection Ordinanca),
and establishment of new mechanisms (such as shoreline
stabilization or buffer r.equirements).
r^. Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substances pose a potential threat to the surficial
water supply in St. Lucie County. Improper disposal or
accidental spills of even small amounts of hazardous substances
can contaminate large quantities of groundwater in a relatively
short time since the water table is usually high and upper soil
horizons are permeable. Potential threats exist within
residential, commercial, and industrial areas as well as at
existing and closed landfills. Rnown pollution problems include
groundwater contamination near some of the Ft. Pierce Utility
Authority water supply wells and direct contamination of some of
these wells from gasoline and organic solvents, respectively.
There are various means to reduce the threat of contamination.
State initiatives include, but are not limited to, legislation
directed at hazardous waste management (Chapter 403, Part IV,
Florida Statutes) and wellfield protection (Chapter 1b3, Part II,
Florida Statutes).
Regar~ing the former, the County prepared a hazardous waste
management assessment in 1986 which ider_tified large and small
hazardous waste generators, the type, amour_t and source of
January 9, i990 8- 30 CONSERV~TION
wastes, and their current management practices (St. Lucie County
Planning Department, 1986). Tne iniormation obtained is verified
every year for twenty (20) ~~rcent of the generators by the St.
Lucie County Public Heaith Un?t (PHU). The County also
identified two potential areas for locating a hazardous waste
storage and transfer faci.l~ty. A related County program which
addresses potential genera~tors, that was not required by the
legislation, has also been implemented c~operatively between the
PHU and the County. This ~ragram requires an applicant for an
occupational license to be interview~d by the PHU. If the
p.roposed business involves hazardous substances, the PHU performs
an onsite inspection to determine if proper management of the
substance has been addressed, prior to issuance of the license by
the County.
The County's public wellfield protection initiative began in the
fall of 1987. As will be seen in Section 4.D of this element, an
interim ordinance has been adopted (by all the local governments
within the County) and land uses and cones of influence around
major public wellfields are being identified in the development
of a permanent ordinance.
SECTION 4. W~,TER USE
A. Water Resources
1. Surficial Aquifer System
The Surficial ~quifer System is the source for most of the
potable water needs in the County (SFWMD, 1987). Although
irrigation water, canal water and saline estuary water contribute
to recharging the surficial aquifer, rain is the most significant
recharge source. The ability of the surficial aquifer to produce
water, i. e. , its transmissivity, is considered low to moderate
[ 10, 000 to over 100, 000 gallons per day per foot {gpd/ft) and
water supply wells have low yields compared to similar wells in
Martin and Palm Beach Counties. The production zones for the
major producers extend from forty (40) to one hundred and forty
(140) feet below sea level (SFWMD, 1988, Technical Publication
88-4). Outside of public water suppl~ service areas, potable
water is obtained from shallow domestic water supply wells
(SFWMD, 1987). Average daily withdrawals for general water use
permits have been restricted in the south Savannas and Jensen
Beach area to 10,000 gallons per day to prevent significant
lowering of the water table in these areas. Water quality of the
surficial aquifer is considered good although boor quality
recharge water can come from salty Floridan *aater (through
abandoned wells or canal systems), wasze dis~osal sites, and
saltwater intrusion.
January 9, 1990 8- 3i CONSERV~TION
2. Floridan Aquifer System
The Floridan Aquifer System is the primary source of irrigation
groundwater (SFWMD, 1987}. Its ~uulyty is considered poor
containing moderate to high concentrations of dissolved salts.
Use of the Floridan is so extensive that restricted use areas and
well operation requirements are necessary to prevent adjacent
user conflicts. The top of the sy~tem ~-anges from 350 feet to
650 feet below sea level from north to south. Transmissivities
range from less than 50,000 gpd/ft to over 300,000 gpd/ft which
is considered highly transmissive. The hydraulic head, or how
far the water will rise in a well to a level above the top of the
aquifer, ranged from less than 32 feet to more than 46 feet above
sea level in 1984. Recharge comes from rainwater which
percolates into the system ir Polk Cour.ty (east of Hillsborough
County) and flows down-gradient to southern and central counties
of Florida where it is mixed with relic seawater. At present,
the northwestern part of the County is a restricted allocation
area. Another restriction is the prohibition of pumps for any
well installed and operational after 1974. Water quality in the
upper portion is considered fair to poor containing more than 250
milligrams per liters of chlorides. In some zones the dissolved
salts are low enough to be used for irrigation; or, in other
areas, to make desalinization economical as on North Hutchinson
Island. Producing zonas with good transmissivities and low to
moderate levels of dissolved salts may be good places to store
and recover excess freshwater, instead of allowing excess
freshwater to be discharged to surface waters.
B. Demand for Water
This analysis of potable water use is based on the following
utilities which, as will be seen bslow, meet most of the potable
water demand in St. Lucie County:
* Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority;
* General Development Utilities;
* Spanish Lakes MHP;
* Spanish Lakes Country Club;
* Holiday Pines Service; and
* Bryn Mawr.
1. Current Potable Demand
Of these six (6) utilities, approximately 95% of the total annual
water demand was met by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (73.6%)
and Genaral Development Utilities {21.3%) (Appendix lb). The
combined reported use ior the six {b) systems for 1985 was
approximately 3. 95 b~ llion gallor.s, an average of 10. 827 million
gallons per day. Of this total, potable commarcial and
industrial use accounted ~or 13. 6% and 0. 4 0, respectively. The
average daily demand was 14$ gallor~s ~e~ capita. The SFWMD
estimated that an additior_al 43,625 people utilized domestic
January 9, 1990 3- 32 CONSERVAT~O?~'
private wells with an annual use of 2.34 billion gallons, or 6.4
million gallons per day. Total annual potable water use in the
County in 1985 was nearly b.28 billion gallons, an average of
almost 17.23 million gallons p~r day.
Appendix 17 presents the public potable water use in St. Lucie
County in 1987. Of the utilities permitted to withdraw 100,000
gallons per day, these six utilities accounted for ninety-eight
(98) percent o~ the daily withdrawals (18.066 million gallons per
day}. Approximately 94% of this total was supplied by Ft. Pierce
Utilities Authority (68.9%) and General Development Utilities
(25.1%). As can been seen from Appendices 16 and 17, the total
use for these systems increased by 67% between 1985 and 1987 to
6594.2 million gallons per year (or nearly 6.b billion gallons).
Population served was not available for 1987 and therefore per
capita use could not be estimated.
2. Current Agricultural Demand
Appendix 18 presents water use for agricultural irrigation in St.
Lucie County for 1985. The average daily application on the
78,837 acres of irrigated cropland was 2,693 gallons, for a total
annual use of nearly 77.5 billion gallons, an average of 212.28
million gallons per day. Citrus irrigation accounted for 96% of
the agricultural water use in St. Lucie County; surface waters
were used to meet 79% of the total citrus water use, groundwater
for the remainder.
3. Current Industrial Demand
Industrial water use for 1985 was reported to be 2.25 million
gallons per day (SFWMD, 1985 data), or 821.25 million gallons
annually, exclusive of the industrial demand met by public
potable supplies.
4. Summary of Total Current Water Demand
Table 2 provides a summary of the 1985 water demand for public,
non-public, agricultural, and industrial uses based on the above
information, which totaled 231.76 million gallons per day, or
nearly 84.6 billion gallons for the year.
Table 8-2. Current water demand by user, 1985 a.
Ground Surface Total
Daily Annual
Agricultural 44. 58 167. 70 212. 28 77, 482. 3
Public 10. 83 10. 827 3, 951. 9
January 9, i990 8- 33 CONSERVATION
Domestic 6. 40 6. 40 2, 336. 0
Industrial 2.25 2.25 821. 3
T~TAL 64. Ob 167. 7G 231. 757 84, 591. 5
aWater use is in million gallons.
Source: South Florida Water Managemant District, 1985 data
C. Proj ected Demand
Projected demand for potable, domestic, agricultural, and
industrial water use ia based cn historical trends for average
use and increases in agricultural acreages and population.. Water
use projections are at best indicators of future use due to
certain assumptions that are made below and the potential for
large scale changes in any of the four users.
1. Projected Public Potable Water
Appendix 19 presents the projected demand for potable water for
St. Lucie Cour.ty for the years 1990, 1995, and 2000. Potable
water was estimated as the product of the projected County
population and average per capita daily demand. Based on
historical consumption data for St. Lucie County per capita
consumption is expected to decline through the year 2000. Total
averag~ annual potable water demand is projected to reach nearly
10.9 billion gallons by the year 2000, an increase of 175% and
94% over 1985 and 1987, respectively.
2. Projected Agricultural Water Use
Appendix 20 presents the projected demand for water for
agricultural use for the years 1990, 1995, and 2000.
Agricultural water demand was estimated as the product of the
projected irrigated crop acreage and the current average
irrigation rate of 2, 693 gallons per day per acre, and the
historical citrus acreage increase of 26.2% from 1966 to 1985
(SJRWMD and SF'v1MD, 1987), an average of 1. 38% per year, or a
total increasa of 16, 700 acres to 71, 637 acres in 1985. Total
average annual ci~rus water demand is expected to reach nearly
86.5 billion gallons by the year 2000. Assuming citrus continues
to account fer 96% of total agricultural demand, total average
annual agricultural water demand would reach approximately 90.1
billion gallons, an increase of 16% over 1985.
3. Projected Domestic and Ind~strial Demand
A~pendix 21 preserlts ~he estimated domestic and industrial water
use for 1990, 1995, and 2000. Demand for each category was
projected by assuming that their proportion of total current
water use (Table 2} will remain cor_star_t through 2000. In 1985,
January 9, 19 90 8- 3~ CONSERVr~TI ON
domestic (2.76%) and industrial (0.97%) water use accounted for
3.73% of the total water use, therefore, agricultural and public
water use accounted for 96.27%. Based on projected agricultural
and public water use, the relative proportions ~f domestic and
industrial were calculated to be approximately 2. 9 and 1.0
billion gallons, respectively, in the year 2000, a 24% increase
for both users over 1985.
4. Summary of Projec~ed Water Demand
Table 8-3 presents a summary of the projected agricultural,
public, domestic, and industrial water use for 1990, 1995, and
2000. Total water use is estimated to reach nearly 105 billion
gallons for the year 2000, a rata of over 287 million gallons per
day, which would be approximately 24% more than in 1985.
Review of Table 8-3 indicates that the increase in water use by
2000 is attributable to public consumption which accounts for an
ever greater percentage of total consumption, with an equal
lessening of agricultural use as seen in Table 8-4. This is
mostly due to the assumptions that 1) the agricultural irrigation
rate ~er acre remains the same, and 2) the percentages of total
consumption for domestic and industrial uses remain the same.
Nevertheless, public consumption will account for greater
percentages of total consumption based on these projections.
However, the percent change in public consumption would decrease
over the fifteen (15) year time period, due to the estimated
reduction in per capita use by the public (Appendix 19).
Table 8-3. Projected water demand by user, 1990-2000a.
1985b 1990 1995 2000
Daily Annual Daily Annual Daily Annual Daily Annual
Agricul.1 212.28 77,482.3 215.21 78,551.7 230.47 84,122.7 246.82 90,089.0
Public2 10.827 3,951.9 21.845 7,973.4 26.068 9,514.8 29.770 10,866.1
Domestic3 6.40 2,336.0 6.80 2,482.0 7.36 2,686.4 7.93 2,894.5
Industrial3 2.25 821.3 2.39 872.4 2.58 941.7 2.79 1,018.4
TOTAL 231.757 84,591.5 246.245 89,879.5 266.478 97,265.6 287.31 104,868.0
aWater use is in million gallons.
bFrom Table 8-2.
~Projected figures from Appendix 2C.
ZProjected figures from Appendix 19.
3Projected figures from Appendix 21.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department, 1989
January 9, 1990 8- 35 CONSERVaTION
Table 8-4. Percentage of total consumption and percent change
by us e.
1985 1990 1995 2000
% of % of 3 % af % % of o
Total Total Change Total Change Total Change
Public 4. 67 8. 87 +4.2 9. 78 +0. 91 10. 36 +0. 58
Agri. 91. 60 37. 40 -4. 2 8n. 49 -4. S1 85. 91 -0. 58
Domestic 2. 76 2. 76 2. 76 2. 76
Industrial 0. 97 0. 97 0. 97 0. 97
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Degartment,
1989
Therefore, the increase in public consumption would be
attributable to the inherent increase associated with the greater
populations expected in the target years, since per capita use is
targeted to decline.
D. Water Conservation and Protection
Since the Surficial Aquifer System is the source for most of tne
potable water nesds in the County (while the Floridan meets most
of the County's irrigation needs), the two (2) issues of quality
and quantity need to be addressed locally in order to provide for
existing and future needs. Much of the County' s initiative in
these areas have stemmed from the encouragement, support and
initiative of the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) which is charged by the State to promote the
conservation, development and proper use of surface and
groundwater (Chapter 373.013, Florida Statutes).
Since 1987, ~he County has worked toward developing a countywide
wellfield protection program. With the assistance of SFWMD the
County has begun to inventory existing land uses around the major
public water supbliers (those that are permitted to withdraw
100,000 gailons per day) and define the cones of influence arour~d
these wellfields. In May, 1989, t~e County adopted an interim
wellfield protection ordinance to reduce the risks of
contamination in the vicinity of these wellfields. Meanwhile,
tha St. Lucie Countv T~Tellfield Protection Committ~e (wiLh
representa~ior_ from each 1oca1 aovernment w~.thin the County,
January 9, 1 Q 9~ 8- 3 6 CONSER~'ATi ON
state agencies, and business and conservation interests)
continues to work on a permanent ordinance, as well as other
aspects of a wellfield protection program.
Other initiatives of the Caunty include continued support of the
SFWMD's efforts to plug abandoned free-flowing artesian wells and
the adoption of a water conservation ordinance. The former
program not only helps prevent a loss of water resources but also
contamination of the surficial aquifer. The ordi nance requires
the County to implement Sr^WMD guidelines if the District declares
an emergency water shortage ir. the County.
Another water conservation measure the District and County should
consider is the economic and environmental feasibility of a
reservoir in the western p~rtion of th~ County. This could help
reduce the loss of excess freshwater flows to the Indian River
Lagoon and North Fork of the St. Lucie River which would not only
conserve water but reduce the impacts to these surface waters
(which are described in the Coastal Management Element).
CONCLUSI ON
The inventory and analysis presented in this element not only
provides a data base from which to build on, but also to support
the protection, conservation and appropriate use of the natural
resources of St. Lucie County. As noted in the introduction to
this element, the follo*aing goals, obj ectives, and policies will
establish the long term course of actions and implementation
activities necessary to meet resource management initiatives and
requirements.
January 9, 1990 8- 37 CONSERVATION
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL 8.1: THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
SHALL BE PROTECTED, APPROPRIATELY USED, OR
CONSERVEDIN A MANNER WHICH MAXIMIZES TBEIR
FUNCTIONS, AND VALUES.
Objective 8.1.1: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact land
development regulations which require the
protection of air quality including measures
to reverse the upward trend in total suspended
particulates.
Policy 8.1.1.1: Annually compare existing air quality with
FDER standards and confer with the FDER on the
source(s) of air quality violations and the
proper abatement methods.
Policy 8.1.1.2: The development of County land development
regulations shall address requirements for
fuel-saving or fuel-reduction techniques such
as providing retail land uses near residential
areas, promoting cluster type developments,
requiring vegetation buffer strips between
arterials and residential developments, and
promoting car-pooling, public transit,
bicycling, and walking.
Policy 8.1.1.3: The development of County land development
regulations shall address requirements to
reduce the amount of total suspended
particulates from construction activities. At
a minimum, construction practices such as
seeding, wetting, and mulching which minimize
airborne dust and particulate emission
generated by construction activities shall be
undertaken within five (5) working days of
completion of clearing work.
Objective 8.1.2: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact land
development regulations which require the
conservation, appropriate use, and protection
of surface waters.
Policy 8.1.2.1: The development of County land development
regulations shall address comprehensive
stormwater management including the following:
a. the use of stormwater detention and/or
retention;
May 14, 1991 8- 38 CONSERVATION
b. streambank and shoreline buffer zones;
c. general design and construction standards~
for onsite stormwater management;
d. best management practices for urban and
agricultural development; and
e. standards for new discharges to
Outstanding Florida Waters.
Policy 8.1.2.2: St. Lucie County shall use the South Florida
Water Management District's Model stormwater
ordinance as a resource during the development
of the new stormwater regulations.
Policy 8.1.2.3: St. Lucie County shall evaluate the use of the
following mosquito control techniques during
the development of the new stormwater
regulations:
a. maintenance of any required littoral
areas and upland buffers;
b. a one (1) foot, or other appropriate,
buffer between the bottom of stormwater
ponds and the water table; and
c. fish ponds for use during low water
periods.
Policy 8.1.2.4: St. Lucie County shall request from the South
Florida Water Management District with
appropriate administrative and/or fiscal
support, a project which evaluates the
economic and environmental feasibility of a
reservoir in the western parts of the County.
At a minimum, the project should consider
reductions of freshwater inputs and stormwater
pollutants to the surface waters within the
County, as well as conservation of water
resources. -
Policy 8.1.2.5: Request reviews and comments from the Ft.
Pierce Watershed Action Committee and the St.
Lucie Watershed Action Committee on
appropriate stormwater management initiatives
for unincorporated areas which may impact or
be beneficial to other areas within the
watersheds.
May 14, 1991 8- 39 CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1.3: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact land.
development regulations which require the
protection and maintenance of the natural
functions (flow and storage) of the 100-year
floodplain.
Policy 8.1.3.1: The land development regulation shall include
the use of programs to protect or maintain
floodplains, such as reduced parking,
conservation easements, cluster site planning
and micrositing of buildings.
Policy 8.1.3.2: By December 31, 1993, the County shall develop
a floodplain management handbook to improve
implementation, monitoring and enforcement
within floodplains.
Policy 8.1.3.3: By December 31, 1995, the County shall conduct
a study of floodplains most appropriate for
acquisition. The study shall include
potential local, state and federal acquisition
mechanisms including potential fiscal
mechanisms. The study shall be presented to
the County Commissioners for recommendation of
acquisition under appropriate programs.
Policy 8.1.3.4: Request reviews and comments from the Ft.
Pierce Watershed Action Commi.ttee and the St.
Lucie Watershed Action Committee on
appropriate floodplain management initiatives
for unincorporated areas which may impact or
be beneficial to other areas within the
watersheds.
Objective 8.1.4: By August 1, 1990, the County shall eaact land
development regulations which require the
conservation and protection of wetlands.
Policy 8.1.4.1: The land development regulations shall require
the following information on site plans for
new development:
a. The location and extent of wetlands
located on the property; and
b. Measures to assure that normal flows and
quality of water will be provided to
maintain wetlands after development.
Policy 8.1.4.2: The land development regulations shall provide
criteria for:
May 14, 1991 8- 40 CONSERVATION
a. the evaluation of proposed wetland
alteration for permitted uses;
b. the mitigation of wetlands alteration
which include, but are not limited to,
the restoration of disturbed wetlands,
creation of additional wetlands, or
enhancement of functions and values
provided by existing habitats.
Policy 8.1.4.3: The land development regulations shall require
a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer zone of
native upland and transitional vegetation
along rivers, creeks, and estuaries, to be
maintained from the landward extent of state
waters or from Mean High Water of the rivers,
creeks, and estuaries; whichever is greater.
However, setbacks for the North Fork of the
St. Lucie River shall be governed by those set
outin the Land Use Element.
Policy 8.1.4.4: The land development regulations shall require
a buffer zone of native upland edge (i.e,
transitionalj vegetation to be provided and
maintained around wetland and deepwater
habitats which are constructed or preserved on
new development sites. The buffer zone may
consist of preserved or planted vegetation but
shall include canopy, understory, and ground
cover of native species only. The edge
habitat shall begin at the upland limit of any
wetland or deepwater habitat. As a minimum,
ten square feet of such buffer shall be
provided for each linear foot of wetland or
deepwater habitat perimeter that lies adjacent
to uplands. This upland edge habitat shall be
located such that no less than 50 percent of
the total shoreline is buffered by a mi.nimum
width of ten feet of upland habitat.
Policy 8.1.4.5: The County shall cooperate with the Florida
Department of Enviranmental Regulation,
Florida Department of Natural Resources, South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on their
dredge and fill permitting responsibilities by
providing comments where appropriate on any
applicable County wetland regulation.
Policy 8.1.4.6: The land development regulations shall include
the use of programs to protect or maintain
wetlands, such as reduced paving, conservation
easements, cluster site planning and
micrositing of buildings.
May 14, 1991 8- 41 CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.4.7: The County shall provide appropriate
administrative support in the acquisition of
additional wetlands as part of the Savanna~
State Reserve.
Policy 8.1.4.8: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
regulations which prohibit the use of off-
road vehicles in areas identified as
environmentally sensitive wetlands pursuant to
Objective 8.1.12. For the purposes of this
policy, the Savannas State Reserve shall be
considered environmentally sensitive.
Policy 8.1.4.9: The County shall continue to identify and
analyze wetland areas which should be
considered environmentally sensitive. This
process should be completed by August 1, 1990.
By December 31, 1993, a final study shall be
prepared including recommendations for the
protection, appropriate use and conservation
of these areas based on criteria which
consider the administrative and fiscal
constraints of the County. Potential
mechanisms shall include acquisition,
restriction or prohibition of activities, and
incentives required by Policy 8.1.4.6. The
study shall identify those areas where
particular mechanisms would be most
appropriate, as well as possible cooperative
efforts with other public and private entities
for implementation of this policy. The study
shall be presented to the County Commission
for consideration of the recommendations
which, if adopted, shall be incorporated into
this Comprehensive Plan as an amendment.
Objective 8.1.5: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact land
development regulations which require the
conservation, appropriate use and protection
of the quality and quantity of groundwater.
Policy 8.1.5.1: St. Lucie County shall continue to design a
wellfield protection program based on the
following policies which were approved in
concept by the County Commission ?n 1988 and
the "Draft Objective, Policies, and Principles
of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield
Protection Program" attached herein in
Appendix 22:
a. Assure adequate and safe water supplies
to present and future citizens of the
County;
May 14, 1991 8- 42 CONSERVATION
b. Comply with Federal and State regulations
in the best interests of the County and
its future growth and development; ~
c. Avoid crisis water supply situations
through careful groundwater resources
planning and conservation;
d. Identify and protect the functions of
public wellfield areas,including recharge
of those areas, and provide incentives to
keep the present and future public
wellfields compatible with the needs
expressed in a. above;
e. Ensure that new development is compatible
with existing local and regional water
supply capabilities; and
f. Protect present and ' future public
wellfields against depletion and
contamination through appropriate
regulation, incentives, and cooperative
agreements.
Policy 8.1.5.2: St. Lucie County shall adopt a permanent
wellfield protection ordinance by August 1,
1992, to replace the interim wellfield
protection ordinance that was adopted on May
1, 1989. Identified cones of influence shall
be presented to the County Commission to be
included as an amendment to this Comprehensive
Plan by August 1, 1990.
Policy 8.1.5.3: St. Lucie shall cooperate with federal and
state agencies in monitoring groundwater
levels and quality.
Policy 8.1.5.4: St. Lucie County shall request from SFWMD,
with appropriate administrative and financial
support, a project to identify recharge areas.
Upon completion of such a study, identified
recharge areas shall be presented to the
County Commission to be adopted as an
amendment to this Comprehensive Plan along
with policies to protect the functions ofthese
areas, such as maximizing stormwater retention
to minimize drainage from recharge areas.
Policy 8.1.5.5: St. Lucie County shall continue to utilize the
St. Lucie County Weilfield Protection
Committee in the development of the public
wellfield protection program, as well as in
water conservation efforts.
May 14, 1991 8- 43 CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.5.6: St. Lucie County shall continue to cooperate
with SFWMD to properly seal unpermitted
active drainage wells and abandoned free-•
flowing artesian wells.
Policy 8.1.5.7: St. Lucie County shall request from the SFWMD,
with appropriate administrative and financial
support, a project to identify potential
potable water supply areas. Upon completion of
such a study, identified areas shall be
presented to the County Commission to be
adopted as an amendment to this Comprehensive
Plan along with policies to protect the
functions of these areas, including the
existing wellfield protection regulations.
Objective 8.1.6: By 1993, the County shall adopt a
comprehensive management plan that will
protect and conserve the natural functions of
soils which includes at a minimum, the
following policies and regulations.
Policy 8.1.6.1: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact land
development regulations which require the
consideration of hydrologic, topographic, and
vegetative cover factors in the site plan
review process of proposed developments.
Policy 8.1.6.2: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
regulations which prohibit the use of off-road
vehicles in areas identified as
environmentally sensitive to soil erosion
pursuant to Objective 8.1.12. For the
purposes of this policy, the Savannas State
Reserve, Atlantic Coastal Ridge, and dunes on
Hutchinson Island shall be considered
environmentally sensitive.
Policy 8.1.6.3: Assist the St. Lucie County Soil and Water
Conservation District in those activities
directed at minimizing soil erosion.
Policy 8.1.6.4: St. Lucie County shall request assistance from
the Ft. Pierce Watershed Action Committee and
the St. Lucie Watershed Action Committee on
appropriate initiatives to control soil
erosion for unincorporated areas which may
impact or be beneficial to other areas within
the watersheds.
Policy 8.1.6.5: By 1993, the County will initiate a data
collection program to acquire water quality
and turbidity information at five year
intervals, as it relates to soil erosion.
May 14, 1991 8- 44 CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1.7: By August 1, 1990, the County shall continue
to regulate mining to ensure the conservation,-
appropriate use, and protection of minerals.
Policy 8.1.7.1: By August 1, 1990, the land development
regulations shall include criteria developed
as a result of a continuing monitoring and
evaluation program of the County's drainage
systems, wetlands, and other surface waters
through participation in the Ft. Pierce and
St. Lucie Watershed Action Committees and
Development Review Committee. This
information will be applied toward addressing
mechanisms to maintain the functioning of
drainage systems, wetlands, and surface waters
that existed prior to resource extraction.
Policy 8.1.7.2: The land development regulations shall include
locally determined criteria for buffers which
address sight, sound, and airborne particulate
matter between resource extraction activities
and adjacent existing and future land uses.
The airborne particulate matter criteria shall
also address trucking operations offsite.
Policy 8.1.7.3: The land development regulations shall include
locally determined criteria which specifies
suitable conditions for reclamation. This
criteria shall address the potential for
landforms which are capable of supporting
diverse and beneficial land uses, time limits
on implementation of reclamation, revegetation
to minimize wildlife habitat lost as a result
of resource extraction, shoreline treatment
for water bodies created by the resource
extraction which address appropriate safety
and environmental considerations.
Policy 8.1.7.4: The land development regulations shall
encourage the use of recycled roadway
materials where practicable to conserve sand
and other extraction materials.
Policy 8.1.7.5: The land development regulations shall include
criteria developed through the on - going
monitoring and evaluation program which
addresses the conservation, appropriate use
and protection of areas identified as
environmentally sensitive to mining activities
pursuant to Objective 8.1.12. For the
purposes of this policy, the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge and sand pine scrub habitats shall be
considered environmentally sensitive.
May 14, 1991 8- 45 CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1.8: By 1995, the acreage of publialy owned or
otherwise protected (through private
ownership) natural upland habitat preserve~
lands in the County shall be increased by at
least ten (10$) percent. The acreage of
publicly owned or othexwise protected (through
private ownership) natural preserve lands in
the County shall continue to be increased in
regular increments of remaining native
habitats in the subsequent years of this Plan,
through ongoing program refinements and
updates designed to meet the upland native
habitat preservation goals in the Treasure
Coast Regional Policy Plan. The County shall
through its land development regulations
provide for native plant species
diversification through requirements for usage
of such species in landscaping.
Policy 8.1.8.1: The land development regulations shall require
that all nuisance and invasive exotic
vegetation (e.g. Brazilian pepper, Australian
pine and Melaleuca) be removed at the time of
development or redevelopment of a site and,
where appropriate, replaced with native or
drought tolerant species that are adapted to
existing soil and climatic conditions.
Policy 8.1.8.2: The land development regulations shall include
criteria for the protection of endangered and
threatened plant and animal populations and
the conservation of the native habitat,
including intact canopy, understory and ground
cover; upon which these populations depend for
survival. Possible mechanisms would include:
a. Assisting in the application of and
compliance with federal and state
regulations;
b. Consulting with appropriate federal and
state agencies during development reviews
when endangered or threatened species may
be onsite;
c. Establishing management programs with
incentives for private landowners to
protect or conserve habitats, such as
reduced parking, landscaping, or credit
for park and recreation impact fees;
d. Using conservation easements, cluster
site planning and micrositing of
buildings.
May 14, 1991 8- 46 CONSERVATION
e. Assisting the state in developing an
education program to promote the
preservation of endangered and threatened-
species.
Policy 8.1.8.3: The land development regulations shall provide
for an environmental impact statement process
in which concerns for habitat preservation and
species protection are to be addressed for
projects greater than ten acres.
Policy 8.1.8.4: The land development regulations shall include
criteria which allow utilization of Transfer
of Development Rights (TDRs) or other flexible
methods of land development transfer that
would direct development from nonsuitable
lands to those most suitable for active use.
Policy 8.1.8.5: The land development regulations shall include
criteria which support all development,
including the conversion of land for
agricultural purposes, which proceeds in a
manner compatible with the conservation of
wildlife and natural systems.
Policy 8.1.8.6: The land development regulations shall require
the use of native or drought tolerant
vegetation adapted to existing soil and
climatic conditions in landscaping.
Policy 8.1.8.7: St. Lucie County shall include within its Land
Development Regulations criteria and standards
for the protection/creation of the remaining
native plant communities within the County.
For the purpose of this plan, native plant
communities shall be preserved as defined in
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
Regional Policy Plan, Regional Policy
10.1.2.2.,"...preserved in viable condition
with intact ground cover, understory and
canopy."
Policy 8.1.8.8: The land development regulations shall
prohibit the use of off-road vehicles in
environmentally sensitive wetland and upland
areas identified pursuant to Objective 8.1.12.
Policy 8.1.8.9: By January 1, 1991, the County shall conduct a
preliminary study to identify existing native
habitat including ecological communities which
should be designated environmentally
sensitive, in addition to any already
identified in this Comprehensive Plan. By
August 1, 1991, a final study shall be
prepared including recommendations for the
May 14, 1991 8- 47 CONSERVATION
protection, appropriate use and conservation
of these areas, and the administrative and
fiscal constraints of the County. Potential•
programs shall include acquisition,
restriction or prohibition of activities, and
incentives such as reduced paving,
conservation easements, cluster site planning
and micrositing of buildings, transfer of
development rights, fee simple acquisition,
and zoning. The study shall identify those
areas where particular mechanisms would be
most appropriate, as well as possible
cooperative efforts with other public and
private entities for implementation of this
policy. The study shall be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners for
consideration as an amendment to this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 8.1.8.10: Clearing of a specific development or
redevelopment site or sites shall not commence
until the developer is ready to construct the
building or buildings to be located on the
site, unless approved by the Community
Development Department.
Policy 8.1.8.11: By January 1, 1991, the County shall establish
a County Land Acquisition Selection Committee
whose function shall be to utilize the work
products identified in Policy 8.1.8.9 to
formulate a master acquisition list of lands
having native habitat including those sites
comprised of ecological communities that are
environmentally unique with the objective of
developing a program to ensure the
preservation of a minimum of twenty-five
percent of the remaining native upland habitat
with the highest priority being those
classified as endangered or threatened as well
as those properties having habitats that are
facing destruction as a result of urban
development and which reeognizes relationships
to those areas of native habitat already under
public and/or private preservation, with a
final report to be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners six months following
initial appointment.
Policy 8.1.8.12: The County shall by July 1, 1991, establish a
Land Acquisition Finance Committee whose
function shall be to develop a recommendation
as to how to fund the master acquisition list
including the timing, size and nature of the
overall funding mechanism found to be
necessary to carry out the program with a
May 14, 1991 8- 48 CONSERVATION
final report to be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners six months following
initial appointment. •
Policy 8.1.8.13: Th~ Land Acquisition Funding Task Force shall
consider the following as potential financing
options including general obligation bonds,
revenue bonds, impact fees, ad valorem taxes,
special taxing districts, grant programs and
any other possible revenue source.
Policy 8.1.8.14: The Board of County Commissioners shall
consider approval of an acquisition and
financing program as an amendment to the
Capital Improvements Element and to any other
appropriate portion of the Plan during the
second plan revision process of Calendar 1991.
Policy 8.1.8.15: The land development regulations shall provide
that existing on-site native upland habitat.be
incorporated into required site plans as a
part of open space areas, required landscaping
or as a part of minimum yard areas so that as
much of the identified habitat as is
practicable is maintained.
Objective 8.1.9: By December 31, 1993, the County shall develop
a hazardous waste management program for the
proper recycling, storage, collection, and
disposal or transfer of hazardous materials
and wastes.
Policy 8.1.9.1: The County shall establish a storage transfer
facility for household and small quantity
generators of hazardous wastes.
Policy 8.1.9.2: The County shall develop emergency response
plans to handle accidents involving hazardous
materials or wastes.
Policy 8.1.9.3: The County shall institute a recycling program
which includes public education on the
beneficial use of hazardous wastes using
publicized lists of approved recyclers and by
subscription to the Southern Waste Information
Exchange.
Policy 8.1.9.4: The County shall continue to support State
sponsored Amnesty Days to collect hazardous
wastes in the County; and shall evaluate the
need for scheduling local Amnesty days.
May 14, 1991 8- 49 CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.9.5: The County shall implement an employee
training program to properly identify and
inspect wastes before they enter the landfill-
and implement an inspection or screening
pragram to exclude hazardous items such as
drums, tanks from unknown sources, waste
pesticides, or chemicals from spill cleanups.
Policy 8.1.9.6: The County shall participate with the FDER and
other local governments in the region to
develop a regional hazardous waste transfer
and storage facility and collection network,
if appropriate.
Policy 8.1.9.7: The County shall seek funding from FDER's
Local Hazardous Waste Collection Grants
Program to manage hazardous wastes.
Policy 8.1.9.8: The County shall conduct a Countywide
underground storage tank assessment and assist
any owner in seeking funding to respond to any
groundwater contamination resulting from
leaking tanks.
Policy 8.1.9.9: The County shall enact a public education
program regarding household hazardous wastes,
the proper methods of their disposal and
alternative non-hazardous substitutes, in
cooperation with schools, news media, and
civic organizations, and in conjunction with
Amnesty Day awareness programs.
Objective 8.1.10: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enaat land
development regulations which address the
conservation, appropriate use and protection
of current and projected water sources.
Policy 8.1.10.1: The County shall prepare and adopt an
emergency water management conservation plan
in cooperation with SFWMD.
Policy 8.1.10.2: The land development regulations shall reguire
wastewater reuse plans for new sewage
treatment plants operating above 250,000
gallons per day. Any new reuse plan shall be
approved by FDER.
Policy 8.1.10.3: The County shall implement a public education
program regarding various methods of water
conservation at the household and small
business level.
May 14, 1991 8- 50 CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.10.4: The County shall continue to cooperate with
the SFWMD in the free-flowing well plugging
program. -
Policy 8.1.10.5: The County shall request from the South
Florida Water Management District with
appropriate administrative and/or fiscal
support, a project which evaluates the
economic and environmental feasibility of a
reservoir in the western parts of the County
for the purposes of water conservation, as
well as stormwater management and improved
surface water quality.
Objective 8.1.11: St. Lucie County shall promote the protection
of natural reservations to lessen the adverse
effects which adjacent developments might have
on the managed conservation areas, such as the
Savannas State Reserve, Ft. Pierce Inlet State
Park, beach and river purchases, and
Outstanding Florida Waters.
Policy 8.1.11.1: St. Lucie County shall cooperate with the FDER
and FDNR in their management programs for
natural reservations within the County.
Policy 8.1.11.2: All appropriate land development regulations
required by this Comprehensive Plan shall
include the protection of natural
reservations, including those identified in
the Recreation and Open Space Element.
Objective 8.1.12: By August 1, 1990, the County shall designate
environmentally sensitive upland and wetland
areas for conservation, appropriate use and
protection which furthers the goals,
objectives and policies of this element.
Policy 8.1.12.1: The identification of environmentally
sensitive upland and wetland areas shall be
based on the results of policies 8.1.4.9 and
8.1.8.8, and information provided by various
governmental agencies such as the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Florida Game & Fresh Water
Fish Commission, South Florida Water
Management District, U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, State
Universities, and Florida Department of
Natural Resources. This information will be
presented to the County Commission for
consideration as an amendment to this
Comprehensive Plan by December 31, 1993.
May 14, 1991 8- 51 CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.12.2: All appropriate land development regulations
required by this Comprehensive Plan shall
include the protection of environmentally
sensitive upland and wetland areas.
Policy 8.1.12.3: St. Lucie County will continue to cooperate
with adjacent local government to conserve,
appropriately use, or protect unique
vegetative communities located within more
than one local jurisdiction.
May 14, 1991 8- 52 CONSERVATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY ~
Chapter 1-7.6. Article II.1. Mangrove Protection Ordinance.
St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws.
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Minimum Criteria for
Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
Determination of Compliance. Adopted, February 14, 1986,
and amended September 30, 1986.
Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Water Quality
Standards.
Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code. Mitigation Rule.
Chapter 39-27, Florida Administrative Code. Rules relating to
Endangered or Threatened Species.
Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Isolated Wetlands
Rule.
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes. State Parks and Preserves. Part
III. Aquatic Preserves.
Chapter 372.072, Florida Statutes. Endangered and Threatened
Species Act.
Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Water Resources.
Chapter 373.451, Florida Statutes. Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act. Part IV. Management and Storage of
Surface Waters.
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Environmental Control. Part IV.
Resource Recovery and Management.
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Environmental Control. Part VIII.
Permitting of Activities in Wetlands. (Warren S. Henderson
Act of 1984.)
Coastal Technology Corporation. 1989. Preliminary St. Lucie
County SWIM Study for Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile Creek,
Moores Creek, and Virginia Avenue Canal. Vero Beach, FL.
Dowling and Dowling. 1987. Ft. Pierce Christmas Bird Count.
Compilation of Twenty-Nine (29) Years Endangered Species
Act of 1973.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1984. Flood Insurance Rate
Maps.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1985. Indian
River Water Quality Survey, 1984-1985. Port St. Lucie, FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1987a. Ambient
Air Quality in Florida. Bureau of Air Quality Management.
Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1987b. Data:
Public Potable Water Demand in St. Lucie County.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1984. North Fork, St.
Lucie River Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1985. Indian River
Lagoon Aquatic Preserves Management Plan. Vero Beach to
Ft. Pierce and Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet.
May 14, 1991 8- 53 CONSERVATION
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Data: Manatee
Survey. January - December, 1986. Florida Department of
Natural Resources. 1988. Recommendations for Project
Design. South Savannas. Division of State Lands.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1982. The Sebastian
Inlet - Ft. Pierce Inlet Barrier Island. A Profile of
Natural Communities, Development Trends, and Resource
Management Guidelines. Vero Beach, FL.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1988a. Official
Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and
Flora in Florida.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1988b. Guidelines
for Gopher Tortoise Relocations. Vero Beach, FL.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1988c. Data: Scrub
Location Map. (Prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.)
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1989a. Personal
Communication. June 1, 1989.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1989b. Data:
Breeding Colonies of Wading Birds. February 7, 1989
Correspondence to St. Lucie County.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1989c. Personal
Communication. July 21, 1989.
Jones, C. 1986. Summary of the June 24, 1989 Boating and Manatee
Protection Meeting. Florida Sea Grant Program. Lamphear,
M. 1989. Manatee Protection Workshop. Save the Manatee
Club. Maitland, FL.
Marine Resources Council. 1986. Fisheries Landings. Melbourne,
FL.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986. Southeast Fisheries
Center. Ex-Vessel Fisheries Landings. Miami, FL.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of St. Lucie County,
Florida. United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Twenty-Six Ecological
Communities of Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture. Gainesville, FL.
South Florida Water Management District. 1985. Data: Water Use
for 1985.
South Florida Water Management District. Land Use Land Cover Maps.
1986. West Palm Beach, FL. _
South Florida Water Management District. 1987. Data:
Documentation for St. Lucie County. Water Resources Data
and Related Technical Information to Assist Local
Government Planning. South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management District. 1988. Technical
Publication 88-4. Appendix II. Production Zones of Major
Public Water Supply Wellfields for the Counties of the
South Florida Water Management District. Water Quality
Division. West Palm Beach, FL.
St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water
Management District. 1987. Indian River Joint
Reconnaissance Report. Final Report. Palatka, FL.
May 14, 1991 8- 54 ~ CONSERVATION
St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water,
Management District. 1988. Interim Surface Water and
Improvement (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon.
Palatka, FL.
St. Lucie County. 1988. Draft Objective, Policies and Principles
of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Program.
St. Lucie County. 1989. Interim St. Lucie County Wellfield
Protection Ordinance. EC-89-03.
St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District. 1989. Personal
Communication. March 15, 1989.
St. Lucie County Planning Division. 1986. County Government
Hazardous Waste Management Assessment for St. Lucie County.
Trust for Public Lands. 1988. Recommendation for Project Design.
North Fork St. Lucie River and North Port Marina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Notice of Publication of
Federal Register (51 FR 98) to List the Florida Scrub Jay
as a Threatened Species. May 27, 1986 Correspondence to
St. Lucie County.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Personal Communication.
June 2, 1989.
May 14, 1991 8- 55 CONSERVATION
APPENDI CES
Januarv 9. 1990 nn~TCnn~~TmT~*t
Appendix 1. Dock and commercial value of major commercial fish
species landed, 1984.
SPECIES DOCK VALUE COMMERCI~,L VALUE
Swordfish $2, 460. 856 $8, 612, 996
Ring Mackerel 1, 063. 754 3, 723, 139
Tilefish 351, 506 1, 230, 271
Tuna 203, 591 712, 569
Spot 193, 601 677, 604
Spanish Mackerel 175, 551 614, 429
Sharks 165, 589 579, 562
Groupers and Scamp 119, 227 417, 295
Bluefish 64, 847 226, 277
Pompano 63, 222 221, 277
TOTAL $4, 861, 744 $17, 016, 104
Source: National Marine Fisheries
Appendix 2. Maj or commercial fish lantled, in pounds, 1984.
SPECI ES POUNDS
King Mackerel l, 174, 616
Swordfish 854,640
Spanish Mackerel 639, 159
Spot 565, 246
Sharks 394, 002
Bluefish 338, 858
Tilefish 303, 873
Black Mullet 213,403
Tuna 164, 342
Crevalle (Jacks) 137,190
TOTAL 4, 785, 329
Source: Marine Resources Council
January 9, 1990 8- A- 1 CONSERV~TION
Appendix 3. Species of finfish landed, value and weight, 1984.
SPECIES POUNDS VALUE $/LB
Swordfish 854, b40 2, 460, 856 2. 88
King Mackerel 1, 174, 616 1, 063, 754 0. 91
Tilefish 303, 873 351, 506 1. 16
Tuna 164, 342 203, 591 1. 24
Spot 565, 246 193, 601 0. 34
Spanish Mackerel 639, 159 175, 551 0. 27
Sharxs 394, 0~2 165, 089 0. 42
Groupers and Scamp 73, 727 119, 227 1. 62
Bluefish 338, 858 64, 847 0. 19
Pompano 19, 036 63, 222 3. 32
Mullet, Black 213, 403 51, 674 0. 24
Billfish (uncl. ) 54, 417 34, 442 0. 63
Sea Trout, spotted 36, 384 34, 303 0. 94
Dolphin 22, 743 25, 910 1. 14
Snapper, mangrove 15, 540 23, 641 1. 52
Croaker 48, 519 15, 903 0. 33
Ring whiting 24, 671 13, 118 0. 53
Snapper, red 3, 604 8, 816 2. 45
Crevalle (Jacks ) 137, 190 8, 202 0. 06
Sea trout, gray 20, 939 6, 553 0. 31
Sheepshead 17, 484 6, 475 0. 37
Sea bass 5, 805 3, 463 0. 60
Blue Runner 17, 121 3, 424 0. 20
Wahoo 3, 058 3, 115 1. 02
Cobia 2, 618 2, 847 1. 09
Fl ounders 3, 12 3 2, 718 0. 8 7
Snapper, yellowtail 1, 774 2, 633 l. 48
Scup 2, 658 2, 500 0. 94
Jewfish 2, 304 2, 196 0. 95
Amberj ack 8, 539 2, 159 0. 25
Bonito 32, 344 1, 637 0. OS
Permit 716 1, 562 0. 42
Snapper, mutton 633 1, 200 1. 90
Sand perch ( Moj arra ) 3, 717 910 0. 2 4
Triggerfish ~ 2, 814 790 0. 28
Snapper, vermilion 553 772 1.40
Snapper, lane 524 633 1.21
Mullet, silver 2, 171 632 0. 29
Catfish, freshwater 2, 533 560 0. 22
Drum, red 891 487 0. 55
Drum, black 957 394 0. 41
Warsaw 253 306 l. 21
Catfish, sea 2, 574 281 0. 11
Angelfish 495 252 0.51
Pigfish 506 18~ 0. 36
Tripletail 390 137 0.35
January 9, 1990 8- A- 2 CONSERVATION
Appendix 3. Continued: Species of finfish landed, value and
wei ght, 19 8 4.
SPECIES POUNDS VALUE $/LB
Menhaden 2, 345 104 0> 04
Grunts 62 74 1. 19
Barracuda 208 56 0.27
Hogfish 9 16 1. 78
Spanish sardines 3 2 0• 6~
Unclassified (food) 26, 574 5, 119 0. 19
Unclassified (misc) 30, 235 2, 045 0. 07
TOTAL FIN FISH 5, 283, 900 lbs. $5, 134, 088 0. 97 $/lb.
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, 1986.
Appendix 4. Species of shellfish landed, weight, value and
price per pound, 1984.
SPECIES POUNDS VALUE $/LB.
Crabs, blue, hard 40, 538 21, 646 0. 53
Lobster, spiny 4, 680 12, 521 2. 68
Conch 270 644 2. 39
Oysters 188 378 2. O1
Clams, hard 82 309 3. 7?
TOTAL SHELLFISH 45, 758 35, 498 0. 78
Source: National Marine Fisheries, 1986.
January 9, 1990 8- A- 3 CONSERVATION
Appendix 5. Animals common to the South Florida Flatwood
ecological community.
MAMMALS
armadillo cotton rat deer
skunks raccoon opossum
eastern cottontail rabbit
BI RDS
yellow-throated warblers Bachman's sparrow meadowlark
brown-headed nuthatch pileated woodpecker pine warblers
red-bellied woodpecker rufous-sided towhee bobwhite quail
REPTI LES
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake
pygmy rattlesnake
yellow ratsnake
AMPHIBIANS
pinewood tree frog oak toad chorus frog
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 6. Animals typical of the Sand Pine Scrub ecological
community.
MAMMALS Florida mouse deer
BIRDS Bachman's sparrow scrub jay
great crested flycatcher towhee
REPTILES sand skink black racer
gopher tortoise scrub lizard
AMPHIBIANS gopher frog
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
January 9, 1990 8- A- 4 CONSERVATION
Appendix 7. ~nimals common to the Cabbage Palm Hammock
ecological communizy.
MAMMALS
bobcat deer skunk
armadillo opossum grey squirrel
raccoon wild hog
BI RDS
red-shouldered hawk woodpeckers owls
s ongbi rds
REPTI LES
diamondback rattlesnake
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 8. Animals common to the Cabbage Palm Flatwood
ecological community.
MAMMALS
bobcat deer striped skunks
opossum cotton mice cotton rat
raccoon cottontail rabbit
BI RDS
red-shouldered hawk Bachman's sparrow bobwhite quail
rufous-sided towhee
REPTI LES
diamondback rattlesnake pygmy rattlesnake black racer
yellow rat snake
AMPHIBIANS
chorus frog cricket frog oak toad
Source: Soil Conservation Servic,e, 1987
January 9, 1990 8- A- 5 C~NSERVATION
Appendix 9. Animals c~mmon to the Wetland Hardwood Hammock
ecological community.
MAMMALS
bobcat deer skunk
mink opossum otter
racoon wild hog grey squirrel
BI RDS
Mississippi kite owls turkey
red-shouldered hawk woodpeckers songbirds
REPTILES green anole
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 10. Animals common to the Freshwater Marsh and Pond
ecological community.
MAMMALS
otter marsh rabbit mink
Florida water rat white-tailed deer raccoon
BI RDS
herons egrets bitterns
swallow-tailed kite sandhill cranes rails
li mpki ns galli nul es s nipe
killdeer Florida duck caracara
red-winged blackbirds marsh hawk ibis
red-shouldered hawk
REPTI LES AND AMPHI BIANS
amphiuma dwarf salamander sirens
cricket frogs bullfrog leopard frog
mud turtle red-bellied turtle chicken turtle
alligator water snake swamp snake
brown snake water moccasin snake ribbon sna~e
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Januarv 9, 1990 8- A- 6 CONSERV~TION
Appendix 11. Common wildlife species in the Cypress Swamp
ecological community.
MAMMALS deer mink
raccoon otter
BI RDS
pileated woodpecker anhinga herons
purple gallinule barred owl egrets
prothonotary warbler wood duck limpkin
wood stork
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
alligator frogs turtles
salamanders water snakes
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 12. Animals common to the Slough ecological community.
MAMMALS
bobcat deer marsh rabbit
grey fox opossum raccoon
cotton rat
BI RDS
bobwhite quail cranes egrets
herons ibis meadowlark
red-shouldered hawks snipe
REPTI LES
cottonmouth moccasin yellow rat snake
pygmy rattlesnake ringneck sna~e
eastern diamondback rattlesnake
~MPHI BI ANS
chorus frog cricket frog grass frog
pig frog salamanders
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
January 9, 1990 A- 7 CONSERVATION
APPENDIX 13
BIRD SPECIES RECORDED ON
FT. PI ERCE CHRI STMAS BI RD COUNT
January 9, 1990 8-~- 8 CONSERVATION
Appendix 13. Bird species recorded on twenty-nine Ft. Pierce
Christmas bird counts.
Times Low High
- Species Recorded* Count Count
Red-throated Loon 1 1 1
Common Loon 28 1 17
Pied-billed Grebe 29 3 38
~ Horned Grebe 14 1 13
Brown Booby 1 1 1
Northern Gannet 20 1 218
American White Pelican 3 3 39
Brown Pelican 29 113 1,827
Double-crested Cormorant 29 42 1,088
Anhinga 28 1 128
Mannificent Frigatebird 25 1 11
American Bittern 9 1 3
Least Bittern 12 1 9
Great Blue Heron 29 22 229
Great White Heron 3 1 1
- Great Egret 29 6 1,639
~ Snowy Egret 29 2 1, 771
Little Blue Heron 29 20 470
Tricolored Heron 29 5 1,038
~ Reddish Egret 7 1 3
~ Cattle Egret 29 24 3,328
Green-backed Heron 28 3 67
Black-crowned Night-Heron 20 1 21
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 29 1 27
White Ibis 29 1 2, 027
Glossy Ibis 17 1 115
Roseate Spoonbill 6 1 2
Wood Stork 29 1 226
Fulvous Whistling-Duck 2 1 21
Brant 1 2 2
Wood Duck 15 1 25
Green-winged Teal 15 1 300
American Black Duck 2 2 2
Mottled Duck 25 2 47
Mal l ard 4 2 3
Northern Pintail 8 1 9
Blue-winged Teal 26 6 225
Cinnamon Teal 1 1 1
Northern Shoveler 10 1 25
Gadwall 2 2 2
Americn Wigeon 11 2 29
Canvasback 2 1 1
Redhead 1 1 1
Ri.ng-neck Duck 21 1 54
Lesser Scau~ 26 5 285
January 9, 1990 8- A- 9 CONSERVATION
Appendix 13. Continued: Bird species recorded on twenty-nine
Ft. Pierce Christmas bird counts.
Times Low Hi gh
Species Recorded Count Count
Black Scoter 1 6 6
Scoter sp. 5 1 30
Hooded Merganser 19 2 42
Red-breasted Merganser 29 4 394
Ruddy Duck 3 1 4
Black Vulture 28 5 197
Turkey Vulture 29 32 1,198
Osprey 39 9 273
Snail Kite 6 1 5
Bald Eagle 28 1 5
Northern Harrier 29 1 54
Sharp-shinned Hawk 29 1 15
Cooper' s Hawk 21 1 3
Red-shouldered Hawk 29 1 30
Broad-winged Hawk 10 1 8
Red-tailed Hawk 29 1 82
American Kestrel 29 47 191
Merlin 16 1 4
Peregrine Falcon ' 3 1 2
Northern Bobwhite 28 1 173
Clapper Rail 23 1 23
Ki ng Rai 1 6 1 2
Vi rgi ni a Rai 1 6 1 3
Sora 16 1 9
Purple Gallinule 6 1 2
Common Moorhen 29 1 184
American Coot 27 4 1,478
Caribben Coot 1 1 1
Limpkin 12 1 17
Sandhill Crane 29 1 42
Black-bellied Plover 29 8 175
Wilson' s Plover 8 1 6
Semiplated Plover 25 1 102
Piping Plover 16 1 10
Killdeer 29 9 408
American Oystercatcher 4 1 3
Greater Yellowlegs 28 1 38
Lesser Yellowlegs 26 1 35
Solitary Sandpiper 4 1 3
Willet 28 1 145
Spotted Sandpiper 28 2 26
Whi mbrel 1 1 1
Marbled Godwit 12 1 18
January 1, 1990 8- A- 10 CONSERVATION
Appendix 13. Continued: Bird species recorded on twenty-nine
Ft. Pierce Christmas bird counts.
Ti mes Low Hi gh
Species Recorded Count Count
Ruddy Turnstone 29 8 236
Red Rnot 4 4 5
Sanderling 29 4 6b4
Western Sandpiper 24 1 229
Least Sandpiper 21 1 138
White-rumped Sandpiper 1 6 6
Dunlin 28 2 927
Stilt Sandpiper 2 6 10
Short-billed Dowitcher 22 1 115
Long-billed Dowitcher 1 1 1
Common Snipe 28 1 217
American Woodcock 9 1 6
Jaeger sp. 4 1 3
Laughi ng Gul 1 2 9 1 6, 8 0 0
Bonaparte's Gull 29 2 195
Ring-billed Gull 29 136 3, 347
Herring Gull 29 16 233
Great Black-backed Gull 19 1 19
Lesser Black-backed Gull 1 1 1
Black-legged Kittiwake 3 1 1
Gull-billed Tern 4 1 4
Caspian Tern 29 1 61
Royal Tern 29 59 l, 087
Sandwich Tern 27 2 67
Common Tern 19 1 24
Forster' s Tern 29 2 228
Least Tern 1 1 1
Black Skimmer 29 7 337
Rock Dove 12 6 167
White-winged Dove 1 1 1
Mourning Dove 29 18 846
Common Ground-Dove 29 13 148
Cuckoo sp. 2 1 1
Smooth-billed Ani 20 3 103
Common Barn-Owl 20 1 17
Eastern Screech-Owl 28 1 34
Great Horned Owl 25 1 4
Burrowing ~wl 9 1 2
Barred Owl 21 1 6
Commor~ Ni ghthawk 2 1 1
Chuck-will's widow 9 1 2
Whip-poor-will 22 1 7
Ruby-throated Hummingbird 27 1 9
Be? ted Ringfisher 28 17 133
Red-headed Woodpecker 18 1 7
January 1, 1990 8-~- 11 CONSERt7~TI0N
Appendix 13. Continued: Bird species recorded on twenty-nine
Ft. Pierce Christmas bird counts.
T~mes Low High
Species Recorded Count Count
Red-bellied woodpecker 29 18 130
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 29 1 29
Downy Woodpecker 28 2 22
Hairy Woodpecker 17 1 4
Northern Flicker 29 g 72
Pileated Woodpecker 28 1 18
Eastern Wood-Pewee 1 1 1
Empidonax sp. 2 1 1
Eastern Phoebe 29 10 110
Great Crested Flycatcher 21 1 6
Western Kingbird 3 1 4
Eastern Ringbird 3 1 2
Tree Swallow 29 6 250,000
Barn Swallow 1 3 3
Blue Jay 29 26 113
Scrub Jay 4 1 13
American Crow 25 1 223
Fish Crow 29 66 3, 949
Tufted Titmouse 4 1 7
Brown-headed Nuthatch 6 1 3
Brown Creeper 1 1 1
Carolina Wren 29 6 56
House Wren 29 3 52
Winter Wren 1 1 1
Sedge wren 1 1 1
Marsh Wren 12 1 3
Ruby-crowned Ringlet 28 2 64
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 29 7 170
Easterr_ Bluebird 20 1 26
Hermit Thrush 25 1 8
American Robin 29 74 19, 829
Gray Catbird 29 9 90
Northern Mockingbird 29 57 383
Brown Thrasher 29 1 24
Water Pipit 6 1 100
Cedar Waxwing 13 4 489
Loggerhead Shrike 29 31 164
Europena Starling 25 2 1,264
White-eyed Vireo 29 1 32
Solitary Vireo 27 ? 2g
Y211ow-throated Vireo 1 1 1
Orange-crowrad Wa~bler 26 1 31
Northern Parula 14 1 7
Yellow warbler 8 1 3
Magnolia Warbler 2 ~ 1
January 1, 1990 A- 12 CONSERVATION
Appendix 13. Continued: Bird species recorded on twenty-nine
Ft. Pierce Christmas bird counts.
Ti mes Lo~a Hi gh
Species Recorded Coun~ Count
Cape May Warbler 2 1 2
Black-throated Warbler 5 1 8
Yellow-rumped Warbler 29 7 1,837
Black-throated Green 3 1 2
Warbler
Yellow-throat~d Warbler 28 1 39
Pine Warbler 26 1 138
Prairie Warbler 28 1 45
Palm Warbler 29 4 386
Black-and-white Warbler 29 1 57
American Redstart 15 1 7
Prothonotary Warbler 3 1 1
Ovenbird 29 1 19
Northern Waterthrush 21 1 18
Louisiana Waterthrush 2 1 1
Common Yellowthroat 29 15 287
Wilson' s Warbler 2 1 1
Summer Tanager 2 1 1
Tanager sp. 1 1 1
Northern Cardinal 29 48 235
Black-headed Grosbeak 3 1 2
Blue Grosbeak 1 1 1
I ndi go Bunti ng 2 4 1 17
Painted Bunting 29 4 68
Dickcissel 4 6 7
Rufous-sided Towhee 29 9 115
Bachman's Sparrow 3 1 2
Chipping Sparrow 24 2 g5
Field Sparrow 21 1 22
Vesper Sparrow 9 2 g
Lark Sparrow 1 1 1
Savannah Sparrow 29 2 136
Grasshopper Sparrow 8 1 4
Henslow' s Sparrow 1 1 1
Le Conte's Sparrow 1 1 1
Sharp-tailed Sparrow 21 1 18
Seaside Sparrow 16 1 26
Song Sx~arrow 7 1 10
Swamp Spa~row 23 1 25
Whits-throated Sparrow 10 1 3
Red-winged Blackbird 29 143 a, 770
Easte~n Meadowlark 29 17 211
Rusty Blackbird 15 1 67
Brewer' s Blackbird 2 2 3
January 1, 1990 8- n- 13 CONSERV~?'~QN
Appendix 13. Continued: Bird species recorded on twenty-nine
Ft. Pierce Christmas bird counts.
Ti~es Low High
Species Recorded Count Count
Yellow-headed Blackbird 1 1 1
Boat-tailed Grackle 29 41 5,081
Common Grackle 28 15 2, 759
Brown-headed Cowbird 17 1 475
Northern Oriole 24 1 5
Pine Siskin 2 1 24
~merican Goldfinch 27 3 405
House Sparrow 29 2 192
Note:
* 29 years of record (1957-1986). Species seen during count week
but not on count day are included in the number of times
recorded.
Source: Dowling & Dowling, 1987.
January 1, 1990 8- A- I4 CON6ERVATIOr1
APPENDT_X 14
ENDANGERED aND THREATENED SPECIES,
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN, AND
SPECI ES UNDER REVI E~rV FOR LI STI NG
January 1, 1990 A- 15 CONSERVATION
Appendix 14. Endangered and threa~ened species and species of special cancern known or
suspected to occur in St. Lucie Cotinty (Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, 1988).
Common Name Scientific Name FDA USFWS
Plants
Aspidium fern Thelypteris interrupta T
Aspidium fern Thelypteris kunthii T
Bay cedar Suriana maritima E
Beach creeper Ernodea littoralis T
Beach star Remirea maritima E
Big yeliow milkwort Polygala rugelii T
Burrowing four-o'clock Okenia hypogaea E
Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis T
Carter's mustard Warea carteri E
Catesby lily Lilium catesbaei T
Crested coralroot Hexalectris spicata T
Curtiss milkweed Asclepias curtissii T
Dildoe cactus Cereus pentagonus T
Downy shield fern Thelypteris dentata T
Fall flowering pleat leaf Nemastylis floridana E UR2
Four-petal pawpaw Asimina tetramera E
Fragrant prickly apple Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans E
Gian~ leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium T
Golden Polypody Phlebodium aureum T
Inkberry Scaevola plumieri T
Lakela's mint Dicerandra immaculata E E
Leafless beaked orchid Spiranthes lanceolata var, lanceolata T
Mosquito fern Azolla caroliniana T
Nodding club mass Lycopodium cernuum T
Prickly pear Opuntia stricta T
Rein orchid Habenaria odontopetala T
Sand spike moss Selaginella arenicola T
Satinleaf Chrysophyllum olivaeforme E
Shoestring fern Vittaria lineata T
Southern club moss Lycopodium appressum T
Spring ladies tresses Spiranthes vernalis T
Tampa vervain Glandularia tampensis UR1
Water spider orchid Habenaria repens T
West coast prickly apple Cereus gracilis E UR2
Whisk fern Psilotum nudum T
~~ild coco Eulophia alta T
Wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana T
Wild pine Tillandsia setacea T
January l, 1990 8- A- 16 CONSERVATION
Appendix 14. Continued: Endangered and threatened species and species of special concern
known or suspected to occur in 5t. Lucie County.
Common Name Scientific Name FGFWFC USFWS
VERTSBBATES
Fish
Common snook Centropomus undecimalis SSC
Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus SSC
Amohibians
Florida gopher frog Rana areolata SSC UR2
Reotiles
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC
Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas mydas E E
Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata E E
Atlantic loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta caretta T T
Atlantic ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi E E
Atlantic salt marsh water snake Nerodia fasciata taeniata T T
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T
Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus SSC UR2
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC UR2
Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E
Sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi T T
Short-tailed snake Stilosoma extenuatum T UR2
Birds
American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus SSC
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius E T
Audubon's crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T
Bachman's warbler Vermivora bachmanii E E
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E
Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SSC
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC
Florida grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum floridanus E E
Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis T
Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens T T
Ivory-billed woodpecker Campephilus principalis E E
Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E
Least tern Sterna antillarum T
Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC
Piping plover Charadrius melodus T m
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis T E
January 1, 1990 8- A- 17 CONSERVATION
Appendix 14. Continued: Endangered and threatened species and species of special concern
known or suspected to occur in St. Lucie County.
Common Name Scientific Name FGFWFC USFWS
Birds
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens SSC UR2
Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SSC
Snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis E E
Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC
Southeastern american kestrel Falco sparverius paulus T UR2
Tricolored heron; Egretta tricolor. SSC
Wood stork Mycteria americana E E
Mammals
Florida mouse Peromyscus floridanus SSC UR2
Florida panther Felis concolor coryi E E
Sherman's fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani SSC UR2
Southeast beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris T T
West indian manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E E
E: Endangered
T: Threatened
SSC: Species of Special Concern
UR2: Under review for listing, but substantial evidence of biological vulnerability
and/or threat is lacking.
Source: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1988
St. Lucie County Community Development Department, 1989
January 1, 1990 8-~- 18 CONSERVATION
Appendix 15. Major colonial waterbird rookeries.
Colony Location Species Average # ~
Breedi ng
Pai rs
County Line small island south double-crested
Spoil Island of County line cormorant 5
brown pelican 3
great blue heron 1
Bird Islands 4 islands north cattle egret 1,500
of North Beach white ibis 1,000
Causeway snowy egret 800
Louisiana heron 500
brown pelican 250
great egret 240
double-crested
cormorant 100
great blue heron 50
little blue heron 50
black-crowned night
heron 20
anhi nga 10
yellow-crowned night
heron 3
Source: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1982
January 1, 1990 8- A- 19 CONSERVATION
Appendix 16. Potable water demand in St. Lucie County, 1985.
Water Usel
Supply Source Population Annual Daily Per
Capita
PUBLI C SUPPLY
Bryn Mawr2 918 37. 2 0. 102 111
Holi3ay Pines Svc. 375 29. 2 0.080 213
Spanish Lakes C. C. 1, 710 54. 8 0. 150 88
Spanish Lakes MHP 2, 286 82. 6 0. 226 99
General Dev. Util. 26, 096 840. 4 2. 303 88
Ft. Pierce U. A. 41, 600 2907. 7 7. 966 192
SUBTOTAL 72, 985 3951. 9 10. 827 148
NON-PUBLIC SUPPLY 43, 625 2336. 0 6. 40 148
TOTAL 116, 610 6287. 9 17. 227 148
lAnnual and daily water use is in million gallons; per capita use
is in gallons •per person per day.
2The Floridan system is used to meet this use.
Source: South Florida Water Management District, 1985 data
January i, 1990 8- A- 20 CONSERVATION
Appendix 17. Public potable water demand in St. Lucie County,
1987.
Public Water Usel Per Cent Change
Supply Source Over 1985
Annual Daily
Bryn Mawr2 43. 8 0. 120 17. 7%
Holiday Pines Svc. 84.3 0.231 188.8%
Spanish Lakes C. C. 134. 0 0. 367 144. 7%
8panish Lakes MHP ? 36. 2 0. 373 65. 0% ~
General Dev. Util. 1653. 5 4. 530 96. 7%
Ft. Pierce U. A. 4542. 4 12. 445 56. 2%
TOTAL 6594.2 18.066
lAnnual and daily water use is in million gallons.
2The Floridan system is used to meet this use.
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1987 data
Appendix 18. Agricultural water use in St. Lucie County, 1985.
Acres Gallons Total Water Usel
Crop I rri gated Acres /Day
Daily Annual
Citrus 71, 637 2, 850 204. 13 74, 507. 5
Improved Pasture 5, 000 968 4. 84 1, 766. 6
Turf Grass (Golf) 1, O50 1, 467 1. 54 562. 1
Misc. Vegetables 1, 000 990 0. 99 361. 4
Woody Ornamentals 150 5, 200 0. 78 284. 7
TOTAL 78, 837 2, 693a 212. 28 77, 482. 3
1Tota1 water use is in million gallons.
aAverage
Source: South Florida Water Management District, 1985 data
January 1, 1990 8- A- 21 CONSERVATION
Appendix 19. Projected potable water demand, 1990-2000.
Per Cap ta Total Demand3
Year Populationl Demand~
Daily Annual
1990 151, 700 144 21. 845 7, 973. 4
1995 186, 2Q0 140 26. 068 9, 514. 8
2000 218, 900 136 29. 770 10, 866. 1
1Future Land Use Element
2Per capita water use is in gallons per day and is expected to
decrease as urbanization occurs and water conservation measures
take effect.
3Total demand is in million gallons.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
Appendix 20. Projected citrus and agricultural water demand,
1990-2000.
Total Demand2
Acreage Pres~nt Citrus All Crops3
Year Irrigated Use
Daily Annual Daily Annual
1990 76, 718 2, 693 206. 60 75, 409. 6 215. 21 78, 551. 7
1995 82, 159 2, 693 221. 25 80, 757. 8 230. 47 84, 122. 7
2000 87, 986 2, 693 236. 95 86, 485. 4 246. 82 90, 089. 0
1Present use coefficient is assumed to remain constant.
2Tota1 demand is in million gallons.
3Projected demands are based on the proportion of citrus
remaining constant at 96% of all agricultural demands.
Source: SFWMD, 1985 data
SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987
St. Lucie County Cammunity Development Department,
1989
January 1, 1990 8- A- 22 CONSERVATION
Appendix 21. Projected domestic and industrial water usel,
1990-2000.
1990 1995 2000
Daily Annual Daily Annual Daily Annual
Domestic 6. 80 2, 482. 0 7. 36 2, 686. 4 7. 93 2, 894. 5
Industrial 2. 39 872. 4 2. 58 941. 7 2. 79 1, 018. 4
1Water use is in million ga~ lons.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
January 1, 1990 8- A- 23 CONSERVATION
Appendix 22. Draft Objective, Policies and Principles of the St.
Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection Program
(St. Lucie County, 1988).
OVERALL OBJECTIVE
To deve~op and maintain a public wellfield protection program for
St. Lucie County through the use of an ordinance and other
appropriate mechanisms as mandated by the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act and the Florida
Comprehensive Planning Act. .
POLI CI ES
The wellfield protection program shall be designed to:
1. Assure adequate and safe water supplies to present and
future citizens of St. Lucie County;
2. Comply with federal and state regulations in the best
interests of St. Lucie County and its future growth and
development;
3. Avoid crisis water supply situations through careful
groundwater resources planning and conservation;
4. Identify and protect the functions of public wellfield
areas, including recharge of those areas, and provide
incentives to keep the present and future public
wellfields compatible with the needs expressed in
Policy ##1;
5. Ensure that the new development is compatible with
existing local and regional water supply capabilities;
and,
6. Protect present and future public wellfields against
depletion and contamination through appropriate
regulation, incentives, cooperative agreements, and
comprehensive plan goals.
PRI NCI PLES
1. Public wellfields are of critical importance to south
Florida' s drinking water supplies, and they must be
protected by action at all levels of government.
2. The development of a St. Lucie County Public Wellfield
Protection Program has been initiated at the County
January 1, 1990 8- A - 24 CONSERVATION
Appendix 22. Continued: Draft Objective, Policies and
Principles of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield
Protection Program (St. Lucie County, 1988).
level, in cooperation with the municipalities of Fort
Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. This
program should be implemented as soon as adequate data
and administrative and enforcement procedures are in
place.
3. In implementing St. Lucie County's Public Wellfield
Protection Program, a County water resource
organization in its infrastructure should coordinate
with the South Florida Water Management District, St.
Lucie County 298 Districts, St. Lucie Soil and Water
Conservation District, and other relevant groups and
agencies.
4. The overall strategy should be to provide for maximum
protection and minimum degradation, economically
achievable, of groundwater resources used by present
and future public wellfields.
5. Groundwater related data that is currently available
for present and future public wellfield sites will be
used to initiate and guide the development of the St.
Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection Program.
Modifications and adjustments should be made as new
data becomes available.
6. Public wellfield protection requires more than land use
controls. The Public Wellfield Protection Program
should provide for protection through growth management
and long-range planning policies, including
consideration of recharge areas for public wellfields;
through adequate monitoring of utility operations,
solid waste disposal facilities, and potentially non-
compatible land uses; and through cooperative
agreements with non-conforming businesses in areas of
present and future public wsllfields.
7. All problems that can lead to wellfield contamination
should be covered by the St. Lucie County Public
Wellfield Protection Program, including contaminant
sources. (Treatment at a water utility/facility should
be considered as a form of contaminant control.)
8. Wellfield protection maps (includi ng control, zoning,
, contour or other delineations) shall be based on the
best available information. These shall be modified if
future information indicates boundary or area
January l, 1990 8- A- 25 CONSERVATION
Appendix 22. Continued: Draft Obj ective, Policies and
Principles of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield
Protection Program (St. Lucie County, 1988).
refinements are necessary.
9. Full public input shall be sought at all ma~or
opportunity points.
10. The St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Program should be housed within the County's existing
organizational and regulatory framework, with new
programs or permi.ts i ni ti ated i f needed. The County' s
program and regulatory scheme should be coordinated and
consistent with regional, state, and federal wellfield
protection regulations.
11. The St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Program should work with the South Florida Water
Management District programs and should be compatible
with their goals and objectives. The County will ask
the South Florida Water Management District to provide
support as agreed by both parties, as based on the
District's Wellfield Protection Program Task Force
recommendations, subsequent district management
decisions, and cooperative memoranda of understanding.
12. The St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Program should seek out and encourage research by all
relevant groups and agencies (such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the South Florida Water
Management District, the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, the St. Lucie Soil and Water
Conservation District, the United States Geological
Survey, and the Department of Agricultural and Consumer
Services.) This research should determine the fate of
contaminants and chemicals in groundwater aquifers
(such as travel times, decomposition rates, or
biotransformation) and conditions and characteristics
of groundwater aquifers, to assist more informed
decision-making for the St. Lucie County Public
Wellfield Protection Program relevant to present and
future public wellfield protection.
13. The St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Program will develop a public wellfield protection
ordinance to designate reasonable protection zones
around present and future public wellfields and
establish regulatory policies within these protection
zones, as well as, mechanisms for permitting existing
January 1, 1990 8- A- 26 CONSERVATION
Appendix 22. Continued: Draft Obj ective, Policies and
Principles of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield
Protection Program (St. Lucie County, 1988).
and future development within these zones, without
creating needless regulatory requirements or
unnecessary restrictions on private use of land.
The specific items listed in the preliminary Task List will be
addressed during the development of this ordinance.
PRELI MI rIARY T~SR LI ST
ST_ LIICI $ COIINTY
PIIBLI C TiiELLFI ELD PROTECTI ON COi~II TTSB
The St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection Program will
develop a public wellfield protection ordinance to designate
reasonable protection zones around present and future public
wellfields and establish regulatory policies within these
protection zones, as well as, mechanisms for permitting existing
and fut~ure development within these zones, without creating
needless regulatory requirements or unnecessary restrictions on
private use of land.
1. Determine threshold withdrawal capability for
public wellfields to be protected.
2. Identify, map and determine withdrawal capability for
all existing public wellfields.
3. Establish mechanism for acquisition and evaluation of
available hydrogeological data for St. Lucie County and
identify additional data requirements necessary for
program implementation.
4. Identify potential future public wellfields in St.
Lucie County and areas that will require protection.
5. Establish criteria for determining exclusion or control
zones around public wellfields, based on groundwater
travel times.
6. Address protection of diffuse (residential) groundwater
withdrawals.
January 1, 1990 8- A- 27 CONSERVATION
7. Establish county-wide groundwater monitoring program
utilizing existing data and additional monitoring wells
as determined necessary for protection of critical
groundwater resources.
8. Monitor available information and records on the use,
handling, production, collection, storage, transfer,
and disposal of hazardous materials and address needs
for county-wide solid and hazardous waste collection,
storage, transfer, and disposal facilities.
January l, 1990 8- A- 28 CONSERVATION