PYOS/06S -8^14- \/o\. X FWS/OBS-83/14 August 1983 Clearwater ( Pinnellas St. Petersburg Bradenton Sarasota VOLUME I TEXT FLORIDA COASTAL ^p-\^ ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION: A Socioeconomic Study of the Southwestern Region Monroe Fish and Wildlife Service c) ••M^ ^Key West U.S. Department of the Interior WHO DOCUiMENT COLLECTION FWS/OBS-83/14 August 1983 FLORIDA COASTAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION: A SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY OF THE SOUTHWESTERN REGION Volume I TEXT Edited by Carolyn 0. French, Project Officer and John W. Parsons National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1010 Gause Boulevard Slidell, LA 70458 Robert M. Rogers Contracting Officer's Authorized Representative Minerals Management Service P.O. Box 7944 Metairie, LA 70010 This study was co-sponsored by the Minerals Management Service U.S. Department of the Interior and the Division of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 PREFACE The purpose of this socioeconomic characterization study is to compile and synthesize information from existing sources about the social and economic characteristics of the southwestern coastal region of Florida, which is made up of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties. This report and the data appendix should prove useful for coastal planning and management; it is one in a series of characterizations of coastal socioeconomic systems produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The series describes the components and interrelationships among complex processes that include population and demographic characteristics, mineral production, multiple-use conflicts, recreation and tourism, agricultural production, sport and commercial fishing, transportation, industrial and residential development, and environmental issues and regulations. This study originally was under contract with the NANEX Systems Corporation, Crestview, Florida. The corporation is responsible for the compilations and accuracy of the Data Appendices and their lists of references. Most of the first drafts of the various chapters were prepared in 1980. Only a few of the sections of some of the reports have since been updated. This project was conducted under Contract FWS 14-16-0009-074. Funding was provided by the Minerals Management Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Questions or requests for this publication should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Gause Boulevard SI i dell, Louisiana 70458 Thi s report shoul d be ci ted : French, Carolyn 0., and John W. Parsons (editors). 1983. Florida coastal ecological characterization: a socioeconomic study of the southwestern region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-83/14. n TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPICS Page Population and demographic characteristics 1 Transportation 26 Residential and industrial development 53 Socioeconomic trends in agriculture 90 Mineral and oil resources 125 Recreation and tourism 159 Commercial and sport fisheries 193 Multiple-use conflicts 222 Environmental issues and regulations 254 Energetics models of socioeconomic systems 306 FIGURES Number Page Population and Demographic Characteristics 1 Southwest Florida study region 2 Transportation 1 Location of ports and waterways 27 2 Passenger and freight railroads in Florida . 39 3 Major Florida highways 41 4 Location of major pipelines 50 Residential and Industrial Development 1 Land use categories in Hillsborough County 56 2 Location of privately owned electric facilities 79 Mineral and Oil Resources 1 Florida mineral resources 127 2 Florida mineral industries 128 3 Florida counties with identified phosphate deposits 133 4 Producing and plugged oil and gas fields 138 5 Status of OCS lease areas off the Florida Gulf Coast 141 6 Projected oil and aas production for the Gulf of Mexico 144 m FIGURES Number Page Recreation and Tourism 1 Mean annual rainfall and temperature 161 2 State preserves, forests, and parks 163 3 State aquatic preserves 164 4 State wildlife management areas 165 Environmental Issues and Regulations 1 Marine landings for Florida in 1970 271 2 Population distribution in 1970 274 3 Florida counties with identified phosphate deposits 276 4 Changes in percentage of land in farms 277 5 Contamination of the groundwater system by waste disposal practices 278 6 Underground injection control program classification of wells . . 279 7 Critical habitats in Florida 286 8 Environmentally endangered lands 287 9 State aquatic preserves 288 10 State wildlife management areas 289 11 State preserves, forests, and parks 290 12 Areas of critical state concern 292 Energetics Models of Socioeconomic Systems 1 Energy circuit diagramming symbols 308 2 Energy flow model of wood and coal as fuel sources for a foundry 310 3 Energetics model of a farm illustrating the interaction of energy and money 311 4 Coal equivalent calories per dollar of gross national product per year 312 5 Basic Hillsborough County model 314 6 Simplified subsystem model of Hillsborough County natural production system 316 7 An evaluated model of the Hillsborough County natural system . . . 317 8 Energetics model of Hillsborough County natural system 319 9 Detailed energy model of Hillsborough County 321 10 Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with constantly increasing relative imported fuel price and a price jump 326 11 Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with constantly increasing relative fuel prices and a price jump and with increasing fuel surcharge beginning in 1973 .... 327 12 Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with technical innovation such as energy conservation implemented in 1983 .... 328 13 Energy ratios 330 14 Yield ratios of coal -fired and oil-fired electric power plants . . 331 TV TABLES Number Page Population and Demographic Characteristics 1 The population and percentage increase in the counties of Southwest Florida at 10-year intervals 4 2 Population projections for different levels of growth i^ . . . . . 5 3 The population of ethnic/racial minority groups 7 4 Per capita income 9 5 Median family income 9 6 Percentage of the population in Southwest Florida in different levels of income 10 7 Education data for number of public K-12 schools 12 8 Adult basic education enrollment by race and age 65 and over ... 13 9 Percentage of the different sexes and age groups in the labor force and rate of unemployment 14 10 Percentage of the available work force working in different occupations 15 11 Percentage unemployed 15 12 The number of males and females employed 16 13 Number of employees in Southwest Florida 18 14 The number of licensed health professionals for 1980 19 15 The number of licensed general hospitals 20 16 The number and sales volume of wholesale and retail sal es^ . ... 21 Transportation 1 Annual throughput capacity for the port of Tampa 29 2 Port of Tampa annual freight tonnage 29 3 Forecast of export, import, and throughput general cargo 30 4 Forecast of phosphate exports and petroleum imports for the port of Tampa 30 5 Throughput capacity for the port of Manatee 31 6 Type of public airports, number of runways, locally based airplanes, and aircraft operations 33 7 Number of past and projected air carrier enpl anements for three major airports 37 8 Number of aircraft operations and projections, among general aviation airports 38 9 The highways in the counties and some of their traffic characteristics 44 10 Average daily traffic at Florida Department of Transportation permanent traffic recording station 46 11 Volume transmissions of interstate natural gas pipeline companies 51 Number Pgc Residential and Industrial Development 1 Number of housing units 54 2 Number of housing units in each of the counties and their percentage increase 55 3 Number of single-family building permits issued and their percent contribution 58 4 Number of mobile homes 59 5 Number of multi -family dwelling unit permits issued and their percent distribution 60 6 Percent of housing units lacking all or some plumbing 61 7 Median values of housing units for sale 62 8 Number of housing units and the number and percent of rental units 63 9 Number of housing units and their percent of the State totals . 64 10 Number of year-round and seasonal vacancies in housing units . . 65 11 Average number of persons per housing unit and the projected number of housing units 66 12 Number of employees in construction and manufacturing industries 68 13 Percent of employees in manufacturing and the percent change of employment in manufacturing 69 14 Number of non-agricultural employees (excluding government) . . 70 15 New industries and expansions 72 16 Electrical generating facilities in January 1980 80 17 Bulk power network 82 18 Percent of megawatt hours of electric power used by different consumers of power companies 83 19 Net generation (million kw/hours) by fuel type 83 Socioeconomic Trends in Agriculture 1 Cash receipts and national ranking of agricultural products ... 91 2 Agriculture, livestock, and forest product classification .... 91 3 Retail value of Florida agricultural and forest products 92 4 United States and Florida agricultural exports in millions of current dollars 93 5 Percentage change of agricultural commodity production 94 6 The number of farms and the area of farm lands 95 7 The number of farms in the ten counties of Southwest Florida ... 99 8 Farm acreage in the ten counties of Southwest Florida lOO 9 Number of farms and percent of farm sales in different income categories 101 10 Index number of prices paid by farmers for production items, interest, taxes, and wages rates in the United States . . 104 11 Florida farm income 104 12 Price and income elasticities of major food groups 106 13 Southwest Florida's five major agricultural products and the major producing counties 108 14 Egg production and retail prices Ill 15 Agricultural output multipliers 116 vi Number Page 16 The contributions of agriculture to the Florida economy 118 17 Agricultural production projections for Southwest Florida (set 1). 121 18 Agricultural production projections for Southwest Florida (set 2), 121 Minerals and Oil Resources 1 New or anticipated phosphate mines 135 2 Major phosphate products in 1975 136 3 Lease sales in the gulf waters of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida combined 140 4 Lease sales offered and leased for Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida combined 140 5 Oil and gas reserves and production in the major fields 143 6 Oil and gas recoverable reserves in the Gulf of Mexico 145 7 Types and quantities of minerals transported annually offshore to an exploration rig 147 8 Siting considerations and potential pollutants from OCS and gas development and onshore service bases 149 9 Siting considerations and potential pollutants from pipeline facilities 150 10 Siting considerations and potential pollution from berthing facilities 151 11 Siting considerations and potential pollutants from onshore processing and treatment facilities 152 12 Siting considerations and potential sources of pollution from oil refineries 153 13 Siting conditions and potential sources of pollution from platform fabrication yards 154 Recreation and Tourism 1 Per capita expenditures in the United States for fishing and hunting 166 2 Per capita participation in outdoor recreation 168 3 Types of outdoor recreation and available daily supply for participating individuals 170 4 Gross expenditures and user values of the saltwater sport fishery 172 5 Freshwater sport fishing 172 6 Recreation areas in the counties of Southwest Florida 177 7 Location of charter fishing boat marinas 181 8 Onshore facilities and number of jobs required to support a hiqhfind of oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf 187 9 Estimated outdoor recreation needs by 2,110 employees hired in relation to OCS oil and gas development 188 vn Number Page Multiple-use Conflicts 1 Land areas and land use percentages for the census areas of the Florida keys 236 2 The percentage of services and retail sales attributed to the military in Key West 237 3 Major hurricanes affecting the Florida Keys 238 4 Beach erosion in Southwest Florida 243 5 Water-use permits issued for Southwest Florida 247 6 Average daily water supply allocation and dailv irrigation requirements for South Florida 247 Environmental Issues and Regulations 1 National and Florida ambient air quality standards 257 2 Sewage treatment capacity needs and costs for the year 2000 . . . 273 Energetics Models of Socioeconomic Systems 1 Energy quality factors for various fuels 309 2 Primary productivity estimates for Hillsborough County natural systems 318 3 Synthesis of 1975 socioeconomic and natural system energy storage data for Hillsborough County . 323 4 Synthesis of 1975 socioeconomic and natural system energy flow data for Hillsborough County 324 vm POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS N. Alan Sheppard Associate Professor of Education Virginia Polytechnic Institute Falls Church, VA 22042 INTRODUCTION This report focuses on the population and demographic characteristics of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties in Southwest Florida (Figure 1) and examines and analyzes information on population and income characteristics, levels of education, labor, and human services. It also identifies data gaps and incon- sistencies. Since much of this report was written before the 1980 Census data became available, empirical data on population components such as age, race, and sex are lacking. The reliability and validity of the projections for these com- ponents in 1980 are subject to error. The accuracy of these estimates is di- rectly related to the degree that the various assumptions are valid for the methodology used. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS STATE OF FLORIDA From 1950 to 1960, Rorida's population growth was faster (79%) than any other state. From 1960 to 1970, the percentage increase was second only to Nevada, and the increase in number was topped only by California. Florida's 1980 population was 9.7 million, which was 2.9 million or 43% over the 1970 population of 6.8 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1981). Florida's population is now eighth largest in the Nation. Florida's population growth has been explosive. In 1950 to 1980, its population increased from 2.7 million to 9.7 million (an increase of more than 250%). The United States was only 45%. Florida's rapid growth is expected to continue. More than 90% of the State's increase population was caused by immigration from other states. Port Richey « Clearwater Pinnellas St. Petersburg Bradenton Hillsborough miles De Soto Charlotte 50 cJ ' •Key West Figure 1. Southwest Florida study region (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 1967). Most immigrants moved to Florida for employment or retirement. In 1960- 1970, retirees, age 65 and over, rose from 11.2% in 1960 to 17.7% in 1980. The national composition was 9% and 11%, respectively. Florida's rapid popu- lation growth has brought about a steady increase in employment in the tourist trade, service, and manufacturing industries. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Popul ation Change The population of Southwest Florida was 2,352,494 (about 24% of the State's total) in 1980 (Table 1). The percent growth far exceeded that of the State in the past 30 years. Florida's population grew 78.7% in 1950-60, (93.8% for Southwest Florida) 37.2% in 1960-70 (40.5% for Southwest Florida) and 43.4% in 1970-80 (52.5% in Southwest Florida). The population of Pinellas County was the largest (728,409) of the ten counties in the region. Charlotte County grew the fastest (1,279%) and DeSoto County grew the slowest (106%). Overall, Southwest Florida's population growth in 1950-80 was 351%; for the State it was 251%. Some of the reasons behind the region's phenomenal growth will be discussed later in the report. Southwest Florida's growth (natural increase and net migration) in 1950-1980 are shown in the Data Appendix (Tables POP 2, POP 3, and POP 4). Natural increase is calculated as the number of deaths subtracted from the number of births over a given period. Net migration has been the dominant factor affecting growth for the region and State during the past 30 years. Net in-migration is greater for the region than the State. Between 1970 and 1980, net migration accounted for approximately 97% of the region's growth (the remaining 3% was due to natural increase). About 90% of the State's population growth was from net immigration during this same period. Monroe County is the only county where the population growth is not largely attrib- uted to net migration; more than 80% of i1;s growth was from natural increase. Population Projections Based upon estimates of future population growth over the next 40 years (Table POP 5 in Data Appendix), a continuing increase in population in South- west Florida can be expected, especially in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties (Table 2). Monroe, Charlotte, and DeSoto Counties will probably grow the least. In general. Southwest Florida is heavily populated, urban oriented, and fast growing. The population projections (and current estimates) probably miss a large portion of the illegal alien residents in Florida (including Southwest Florida), many of whom are of Hispanic descent. Assuming that there are seven million illegal aliens in the United States now and that an addi- tional five million immigrants will arrive in the 1980's, the minority popula- tion (including Hispanics) will increase from about 21% to 26% of the total U.S. population by 1990 (Lewis and Russell 1980). Similar trends, if not stronger ones, are predicted for Florida and Southwest Florida. Sex, Age, and Racial /Ethnic Characteristics The methodology used to compute estimates of population in this report assumes that the change in net effect of migration on the age, race, and sex S- • #t (D 1— 1 0) CO >, 1 T— 1 o t— 1 A CO 1^ CTl (O «« "O CO •^ in s- LO CO a> O) t-H •5 ^ 01 +-> 3 -? I/) o c C/O 0) o c 3 3 (O o (U u $- 3 fO S- 4-> (O c: a. d) 0) OQ J- • (U • l,.^— s* Q-C/O O • 00 -D => a^ ■— ' I— t CO o +-> 00 o c cr> X) 0) E lO .c o 1— S- +J 1+- fO +-> • trt oo f— 1 1^ ro lO > -a o (O c 1 — 0) I o c o IT3 3 o o CO I o IT) O CO I o o I o un o 00 o o o ID en o COCOOCTl"— ir-^lDVO^lO cncvjvoooi^r^oi-ni — r-n i^cvjOLOt^cvji— <^Lno OJC\J>— I"— ir)0 »3-Lf)Lf)CMLf)CsJOLr>CTiCO I— ICJ^S-rOC^LDCViLOCOlO oOLnoocvJcr>^i^m<3-io CO'-''— 'coojOcTiiocyiio COOO«d-CMOCOOC\JCOt^ • «•••••••• coc\iiocrirocr>ocrii-nvo cn«;l-CMir>cocTiVDr^coi£> IT)'— tCTiOlDCJOOCOCTi'— I '— icr>coi£)vo«*criCMOLr) i—tt^OCnCM^O'-l^CM cr>Lr)criioir>ooco«;j-oocNj LOCO'— i^o^vocncsjo vD cvj .— I I— I r^ cvj CTiOOLniOLnvotncnco Lf>»;flOlO'— I'— lOOLnCMi— I LDOOcvjcM'— iLncrico<* r^oOcoOLni^ojLOCsJO CMCO'— iCTiOCTiLnr^cJoj ^ f— I in t-H «*corooOCT>oo>— LnOOOOCOlO(n Lnt--.iot^Lnr-icni^ioco cvjLf)'— ip^^cni~~-iO"!j-io .— I,— ir-icr>Lnvr)^cor~.r^ CO CO iocoi^J^o<^r~-cricnt^ cooo«d-cri^OLncM^cnoo'*cyiOcnoo «;f CM CO CM CM LO CVJ CM ■-< (U C31 3 o +-> s- o O) o ja _ •■- 4^ (/) S-r- Or- lO I — (/I 1 — (U (U 0) +J o <0 S- ... O) c c .^o CM in CO 1^ CO CO CM CTl 0% en CO ft en CO CO CO 1— 1 in "Sf •» «« CM J— 1 "d- en in r^ .— 1 o en in r^ in •« •» r^ i-H en in o en .-I «d- o CO in lO lO in in o CO Cvl to T3 o to I/) o u 0) ■u o. 3 O i. o , 00 (O J3 c <0 (U c CD o <0 Q. 1/1 o M- (/I •^ s- O V « X> a. c — vo^vDc\jr~.^cvio »-.cocricocococsj u>r-»cococMLn^cr>CMr-» I-H COCMCM-— "cn^cM CM »« CT> CM I-H ^ CO CM CO O CTi o unoi^'d-'— 'coCM<£)»-Hr-~ >— iLOLnvocMtDOocoin I— ILOm^COCMCXDCMO^ I— i»;j-co*£)tococom«3-o — — iir>«a->-HC000Lf>r~~ r-.«*unvoLncoi^u3t~^cri ir)r--.-<^oocoLnu5COCO Lf) t— < I— 1 lO t— t r-H CO 00 en — in to CM-—^ ^ o I-H « 00 «* r-~ 00 Lf)r-icno«3cMCOcnco»-H i-Hcn<43Lf>cocooo«^cM Lncoi-H^OTa-uJcMcno cn en CO cn cn 3 O) o +-> 4- (/) re to -a 4->i- O O) <0 +JOn34->, — (O,— oOi — a)cc:ccoU3Li_ xrocUT-ajroO'i-rtJioo «_)OQjc_is:rQ-Q-oooo to o (U I -t-> o c CL ■'" «/> la ■M •o L. 0) O 3 [Z C > > • S- «d- o cn^o 0) •r- s- x: Q. +J c c c cn o o 1/1 to to M- »f- a • *s J- • >, 00 c -C (T3 S o O ■o c -o c o •r- O +-> C/0 XJ 3 s- 4-> «4- to to o (U 03 (O a. o r^ POPULATION GROWTH, TRENDS, AND SHIFTS Although Florida's population growth since 1950 has been a rapid one, annual growth rates have varied considerably. Annual growth was about 5% in the early 1950's, 8% in the late 1950's, 3% in the late 1960's, 5% in the early 1970's, less than 2% in the mid 1970's, and 3% in 1979 (Florida Chamber of Commerce 1979). An analysis of the population growth for Southwest Florida (data for 1950-60, 1960-70, and 1970-80 are given in Tables POP 2, POP 3, and POP 4) shows that the growth in 1950-60 was high (93.8%) compared to the State as a whole (78.7%). A sharp slowdown in the average growth was apparent in the early 1960's. The average growth rate in Southwest Florida fell 53.3% (from 93.8% to 40.5%), whereas the State rate dropped 41.5% (from 78.7% to 37.2%). In the 1970's the average growth rate in Southwest Florida rose 12% (from 40.5 to 52.5%), but the State growth rate changed little (37.2% to 36.1%). In summary, the population of Southwest Florida increased rapidly in 1950-60, slowed down in 1960-70, and increased in the 1970's. The increase in the 1970's was largely due to the massive influx of senior citizens. INCOME CHARACTERISTICS INCOME LEVELS Per capita income is an excellent measure of an area's economic position. Personal income reflects levels of pay and skill in local industries, un- employment patterns, and participation of residents in the labor force. Southwest Florida lagged behind the State's per capita income from 1950-70 by about $100; but more recently (1978) the gap narrowed (Table 4). Income in Collier, Monroe, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties (where per capita income exceeds the State average) have the largest incomes which is why the Southwest Florida per capita income is rapidly approaching that of the State. Low per capita income for the other six counties is probably caused by high seasonal unemployment and a growing retirement population. The median family income for Southwest Florida was $2,154 in 1950 and $4,322 in 1960, an increase of more than 100% (Table 5). In 1960-69 the medi- an income level increased 73% (from $4,322 to $7,488) and in 1970-79, it rose from $7,488 to $14,000, an 87% increase. These figures match well with the State median family income in 1950-79. For example, the median income in 1950 for Southwest Florida was $2,400, but in 1960, the Southwest Florida median income was $4,322, somewhat less than the State median of $4,720. In 1969, the median family income gap between Southwest Florida and the State widened even more. The $7,488 income in Southwest Florida was $773 less than that for the State ($8,261). In 1979, the median family income in Southwest Florida was $14,000 and for the State it was $17,558. Table 4. Per capita income ($) for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1978 (Florida Sta- tistical Abstract 1962, 1977, 1980; Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1980). County 1950 1960 1970 1978 Charlotte 947 1,463 3,345 7,099 Collier 1,684 2,261 5,196 9,061 DeSoto 1,058 1,383 2,647 6,514 Hillsborough 1,289 1,910 3,357 6,955 Lee 1,235 1,763 3,540 7,010 Manatee 882 1,419 3,294 7,315 Monroe 1,416 2,567 3,398 8,009 Pasco 1,209 1,290 2,977 5,559 Pinellas 1,248 1,905 3,854 7,899 Sarasota 1,473 2,272 4,697 9,130 Southwest Florida^ 1,262 1,847 3,630 7,500 Florida 1,314 1,988 3,738 7,578 Per capita income for the region was computed by multiplying the per capita income in each county by the population of that county, then aggregating the products for all 10 counties, and dividing the aggregate by the region's total population. Table 5. Median family income {$) for the counties of Southwest Florida in 1950, 1960, 1969, and 1979 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1953, 1963, 1970, and 1980). County 1950 1960 1969 1979 Charlotte 1,750 3,918 6,255 11,500 Collier 2,189 4,673 9,136 17,400 DeSoto 2,060 3,542 6,320 11,500 Hillsborough 2,381 4,616 8,162 14,300 Lee 2,119 4,286 7,878 14,400 Manatee 1,917 3,814 6,591 12,300 Monroe 2,731 4,660 7,334 13,700 Pasco 1,807 3,307 4,998 14,300 Pinellas 2,441 4,359 7,642 14,300 Sarasota 2,436 4,688 7,739 14,400 Southwest Florida^ 2,154 4,322 7,488 14,000 Florida 2,400 4,720 8,221 17,558 The median income for Southwest Florida was computed from the region's income distribution (derived by aggregating the distributions for the ten counties). Charlotte and DeSoto Counties have the lowest median family income in Southwest Florida. The largest income increase over the past 29 years were in Collier County (645%) and in Pasco County (691%) where a high percentage (33%) of elderly citizens in the population was probably a major factor contributing to the increase. POVERTY INDEX The poverty rate (less than $3,968 income per capita) for Florida and Southwest Florida was 13%. About 17% of the families in the State and 14% in Southwest Florida had incomes the largest percentage (25%) whereas only about 6% of the About 77% of the families in per year. exceeding $15,000 (Table 6). Collier County had of families earning $15,000 or more per annum, families in Pasco County earned $15,000 or more. Southwest Florida earned about $4,000 to $14,999 Another indicator of poverty is the number of persons receiving Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits and food stamps. About 12% of the families receiving AFDC funds in Florida in 1978-79 resided in South- west Florida (Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1979). Table 6. Percentage of the population in Southwest Florida in different levels of income in 1970 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1972). County Less than $3,968 $3,968 to 14,999 $15,000 or more Charlotte 10.4 Collier 11.1 DeSoto 17.2 Hill sborough 12.8 Lee 11.9 Manatee 13.4 Monroe 14.0 Pasco 17.5 Pinellas 9.0 79.0 63.7 74.4 73.2 73.1 75.6 73.6 76.7 76.6 10.6 25.2 8.4 14.0 15.0 11.0 12.4 5.8 17.0 Southwest Florida 12.9 73.2 13.9 Florida 12.7 70.5 16.8 10 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Educational attainment provides an index of an area's potential occupa- tional skills. An overview of the educational attainment of residents in the Southwest Florida are given in Tables POP 11-12 in the Data Appendix. Data are given for persons 25 years old and over who received no schooling, and for those who attended school. The median school years completed from 1950 to 1970 was about the same for Southwest Florida and for Florida as a whole. Non-Whites are considerably less educated than White residents. Southwest Florida appears to have an adequate number of public K-12 schools, teaching staff, and enrol lees. The region has about 25% of the State's population, but only 20% of the educational facilities (Table 7). Current enrollment in such education programs as Adult Basic Education, (ABE) although not outstanding, are similar to those across the State (Table 8). This program and other similar programs potentially can help overcome illiteracy and increase occupational skills. Major educational institutions in the region can also have a stabilizing influence on the economy. THE LABOR FORCE LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS The number of males and females in the labor force and the percentage unemployed are shown in Table 9; those employed in manufacturing, white collar occupations, and government jobs are shown in Table 10. An analysis of the 1970 data shows that the percentage of male laborers 18 to 24 years old in Southwest Florida exceeded that for the State (85% compared to 75%). Both areas had virtually the same percentage of government workers (about 16%). The percentage of females 16 years and older, married women (husband present), males 65 years old and over, and employed persons in industries and white collar occupations was below that of the State (Table 9). The percentage of the available work force that is employed in different occupations is given in Table 10. Both the State and Southwest Florida had the same unemployment rate (3.8%) in 1970 and in 1982 (7.1%; Table 11). The county in Southwest Florida with the highest unemployment in 1982 was Collier (9.2%), followed by Char- lotte County (8.2%) and Pasco County (7.8%). Manatee and Pinellas Counties shared lowest unemployment (5.9%). The number and percentage of women in the labor force increased rapidly in the 1970's and will probably continue to increase in the 1980's. In recent years, many women have taken jobs to supplement the family income to offset inflation, or support themselves and their children. The number and percent- age of men and women employed in the counties of Southwest Florida in 1950, 1960, and 1970 are given in Table 12. Despite smaller families, an increased sense of family sharing and the growing equality of education and employment opportunities for women, some substantial differences between male and female employment still persist. For example, relatively few women with young children enter the labor market. The 11 Table 7. Education data for number of public K-12 schools, students, full- time staff, high school graduates, value of property, expenditures, number of non-public schools and non-public school students in FY 1978-79 (Florida Department of Education 1980a). Number of Number Number high public . •12 schools ' s Number of of full-, . ^ time staff^''^'^ school County K- tudents K-12 graduates Charlotte 11 5,729 662 359 Collier 23 12,244 1,437 1,340 DeSoto 8 3,160 389 154 Hillsborough 138 99,560 11,690 5,433 Lee 42 25,497 3,005 1,482 Manatee 30 18,298 2,362 1,019 Monroe 17 7,781 1,033 518 Pasco 33 20,469 2,342 1,243 Pinellas 166 79,018 8,315 5,467 Southwest Florida 447 293,709 33,369 18,790 Florida 2,256 1,367,298 147,939 88,519 Assessed Total Number of non- Number of value of expenditures publ iCj schools non-publ ic County property all funds students Charlotte 884,826,839 13,388,693 4 477 Collier 1,998,379,143 32,482,008 7 1,131 DeSoto 228,653,975 9,295,306 2 133 Hillsborough 6,006,819,180 218,660,416 66 14,554 Lee 2,952,711,920 67,072,358 11 2,177 Manatee 2,322,358,476 43,192,561 10 1,707 Monroe 1,096,849,475 17,912,225 9 906 Pasco 1,520,866,337 49,613,717 8 434 Pinellas 7,239,807,280 179,770,933 49 11,907 Sarasota 3,595,994,777 49,953,397 14 2,094 Southwest Florida 27,847,267,402 681,341,614 180 35,520 Florida 117,592,872,456 2,962,686,564 871 176,601 [jCounty tabulations subject to error. Includes adult schools. ^Fall, 1978. Vades 1-12. 12 Table 8. Adult basic education (ABE) enrollment by race and age 65 and over for FY 1978-79 (Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Col- leges 1980b). White Bl ack His panic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Male Femal e County Male Femal e Male Female Charlotte 1,962 3,117 17 43 17 50 Coll ier 886 2,276 81 192 149 203 DeSoto 355 512 199 266 48 15 Hillsborough 9,954 11,657 3,993 4,362 2,067 1,962 Lee 1,640 3,838 205 397 75 75 Manatee 805 944 185 551 42 63 Monroe 541 684 76 92 153 218 Pasco 2,606 13,066 151 336 74 128 Pinellas 4,140 4,403 2,380 2,670 254 333 Sarasota 1,289 1,570 245 357 72 94 Southwest Florida 24,178 42,067 7,532 9,266 2,951 3,141 Florida 96,818 147,131 34,506 43,621 25,806 38,817 Asian/P 'acific American 1 ;ndian/ Islander Alaskan Native Mai e Femal e 65 and over County Male Femal e Total Charlotte 9 16 N.D. N.D. 3,087 5,231 Coll ier 7 15 3 4 381 3,816 DeSoto 3 4 N.D. N.D. 15 1,402 Hillsborough 508 614 191 198 3,653 35,506 Lee 20 73 2 25 901 6,350 Manatee 15 25 N.D. N.D. 21 2,630 Monroe 13 70 N.D. 1 31 1,848 Pasco 16 40 1 1 4,688 16,419 Pinellas 271 490 35 36 384 15,012 Sarasota 43 64 10 4 494 3,748 Southwest Florida 905 1,411 51 269 13,655 91,962 Florida 3,106 4,208 757 990 50,081 395,810 13 0) 4-> 0) •a c lO (O ■a •I— i- o EZ •M (/) a. 3 O S- o> OJ « 01 ^-^ (O 0) o T3 1- c 0) ■I-) c c .-I c OJ c o •■- t- Q) *-> a. c O (0 C 0) -0 0 OJ J- >. 0 0 M- "q. J- ^ 0 dJ ^ c « 3 ' (U C CJ) It! It! •^ 4-> ^— C •»— 0) > 0 •^• i- <_3 Ol D- 0) IT3 T3 C 03 X U1 OJ > o LT) <0 t- 10 >> 00 c c i s- 0) CO T3 — ( ,— O 0) -a 1— c lO fO LO i-Hvc>Lor-.csjoocooOLncM r^ • ■•••••••• • coc\Jcorococvj^«;i-cocvJ ro oc CO C0^v£>»-iCslCOi— (CO«st-VO vo • ••••••••• • r~-or-~CMLnoocyir^ocri lo CM t— I OJ •— I >— I I— I 1—1 LO • ••••••••• • coOi— iix>co>-<<— tocoro Ln Ln i^Lno"3-«;i-oc\jocMLn • ••••••••• 0^rO«^0%CJU5MCT^01VO .— tCO^COCOCVJCO"— 'CVJCM o> CO CO OOOr-.ocMcoif)Lf)roLO • ••••••••• CMr-~.cOt— iLncovDi— I.— icT> CMCoro^cocvJcocNJrocM o> CO 10 O) (O -)-> 0)0) r— O +-> O O .— l/> lO i- U 0) > 0) 0 ■i-? 4-) J- c ■t-> J- 0 3 0 a> 0 ^ 0 ,— T- 4-> CO 0 t- .— Ol- io 1 — 00 1 — SZ 0 V -r- LO CO CO (O I. o +J CO o; ro S -o .C -r- •t-> J- 3 O O r- 00 Ll. 14 Table 10. Percentage of the available work force working in different occupa- tions in 1970 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1972). Occupation CI erical or Government County Mam ifacturing white coller positions Other Charlotte 5.9 46.4 13.4 34.3 Collier 3.7 45.3 11.2 39.8 DeSoto 7.2 29.4 31.9 31.5 HillsboroL igh 17.5 48.1 14.3 20.1 Lee 5.3 48.1 13.2 33.4 Manatee 14.1 45.2 13.5 27.2 Monroe 3.9 49.5 25.7 20.9 Pasco 3.9 49.5 25.7 20.9 Pinellas 17.1 39.8 11.2 31.9 Sarasota 9.3 52.6 11.8 Southwest Flor Ida 8.4 45.4 16.2 30.0 Florida 14.1 49.8 16.0 20.1 Table 11. Percentage unemployed in Southwest Florida Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 1982). in April, 1982 (U.S. County Percentage Charlotte Collier DeSoto Hillsborough Lee Manatee Monroe Pasco Pinellas Sarasota Southwest Florida Florida 8.2 9.2 7.4 6.9 7.6 5.9 6.0 7.8 5.9 6.4 7.1 7.1 15 I o •a c o in c CO •I- r^ c^ T3 •^ •> fc. CO o <^ I— a\ ■*-> • V) CO Q) u-> x: ^ •M O O CO t- o; O B o to <_> O) ••- M- +-) O O C (J OJ f s- ••-> rtj a. c (U •r-Q T3 • >» • O ZD I/) Irt OJ 0) 1— .c S 0) <♦- s- 10 •a o. c le c I/) I— £•■- X» O C (U ■tJ x: ■(-> 1—00 • O CM t— 1 Xi c ns O E CO +-> O § o to o (U 'io coooounr^^vDOOLf) oocyirocoo^^-ooojocn voco«d-«-HLr)00"a-oOLr3V£> .—I OOOOCV1>— Ir-HVOCO i-H00CMcrio«^^ix)Ocri CMCvjcMor^ocMLOLn^ CM"— ^^~-'—^00LnO'!l■O^'— ' ^Ln»— lOcoi-HUDvoooun t~^ 1— I I— I V£) .— I W3VOCT>CM~00i— ivo<— < I— I CM t— I i—t CT^ CSJ VO.-HCVIOOCOCVJ'*.— <»— lOd ir)^covor~«3-csj(£)oo voot^ir)ojr-~cocMoor-i COVOCOOtTl'— •CM'— 'LDVO «* I— I CVI >— I t— I I— « CM o^cOLOvoy^'^OCTii^co ^l-CO^CO«TiCO OO00C0t~^OL0Or-i Lf).-H^Lnoooc7ioooLn Cvl «d-CMCMCM^r~.r--rovo O^ f—l r-t r^ 1— I unoocjcocot^^cnCTico I— fCVJOOi—IOOCMVOVOCMO cri I— I IT) rH «3Ln <— ioocM«;S-i— ii—tr^-co CM i-t i-HCOLOCMLnOOrOCMCvJ":!- C0CM00«DO>r^VO0000CO Oi— ICMLOOCMt^^CMcnCM •-icMojCMU3C0"5i-Ln«4-r^ VO CO 0) o >, 4J i- c O (U O JD ,— (U c c: (/I c s- CM »e CM O t£} t— I cr> CM in — 00 00 CTi o LO ^—s en CM »« t— 1 LT) ^ CO «« • A o 00 «X) .— 1 «i- CM o CO ■ I— I CT^ o o «i O VO CM cn IT) I— I o .—I CTl O o co^^ 1—1 LO *« 00 00 <£> V£> 9t • «« CO CO 00 CO r-i t— ( CM ^— ' .— 1 00 U3 I— I ^ CM CO CO vo vo LO I— t M O O CM CM in vo 1— ( CO LO ^-> CO 00 »e en vo CO o M • •1 ^ CO CO CO r-l f— 1 VO _ O O) ■■- o -tJ lO «/> "O 0) -1- ^ o +-> 1— 3 o lO T3 U. O i. o L. o 3 o 1— 1 c o •^■ r^ •r— r~ Q CD r-t 9k 0) u s. 0* g o CJ lO <4- VO O r^ o <" .-I 'O 03 .■a ^- I ' O O 00 00 CTl (/) CD g CD t-H CM«^w3Lr>t— IOU3 rov£)roi^«d-r~~r^ooco ooLncMCMcocvjooo •>•»•* CD CD 1^ CD +-> o rov£5LO«*^Lnooi^vo .— iCM unio^i— It— iLO cvi OJ Lnou300c>jcocDvoLn CDOJLncvjcoocsj^o rot-Hor^cOLDLDcvji— I I— It— luOLOVOror^.— ICO r-iCM rOLr)«d-.— iOld CVJ CM rooococDcsjOcoi-nr^ CDt-^rocvir>»^DvOLncM LDCD'— •<£)C0«*CO"*CM OCDLfJCOCOt— ir^CD(Ti I— 1<— I COLO«a-i— iCD'el' CM i-H cDCOunooro^oor^o tOCOO«*CDi— luncDVO t-^Lnot^cMio«;focM OCDLOOO'— '(Dwavooo .-Hi— I COlDCOi— tCD^ CM I-H t^ Ln CO t~^ V£)«*CD«*-VX3>— ir^CD^ Lrtl^i— ICDUDLnOOVO ^ CO T— I O^ ' ' #» •» f* •! *t *t A #1 «« T-H ^^ LO 1-H >-Hi— ILOVOOO^i-HOtfJ I-H C\J «d- LD CM CM #1 CD CO 00 o CD o ID VO CM VO CO IT) CD VO o o o VO CO o o o CM CO CM M CO o o o CO o o o CO LO o CO o o o CD o VO CO O VD LO CM VO r^ LO o CO CO o CM I-H oo r--. VO CO o VO I-H I-H CM I-H 00 I-H CM «d- o A #1 M #1 A A «t ft *> A CM O LO 00 CD VD VO cr> r^ r~. r-H CM LO «;1- CO f-H *a- «3- LO ^ vo CD «:f 00 I-H r-«. LO CO lO o VO I-H CM t~-. r~. o VO I-H "^ o VO CM 00 CO I-H CO 00 o I-H o VO *^ « •» ^ #» •» «t «t A «. ««a- LO o CO LO 00 VO LO I-H VO o «d- CO I-H »* r-^ I-H I-H I-H «:*• LO r^ COl-HCVjLOiSj-I-HTd- VO COCMi-HOOOOlOi-h o voLOLnCTivo«^o CO r--.vo^cocoo^ O I-H CO CO 00 I-H "* CO 3 J- to (O +-> i- O Ol (O +-> O Ol O ^ 0) r— O r— -r- 4-> i/t -tJOr— VO i-i — Ol — - 3 O I— - 3 LO CD LO <0 c O CO •I- r-. ■M I <0 I-H 1 — t^ 3 CD .£3 I-H 1- ^« 3 -t-^ O (O CJ Q (O .a 18 c o "r" +-> 3 XI •^ s- o u u (U c ■a O I/I 9) .c 3 . oo o 00 o +J ■!-> 00 '^ o o^ Q. C 4J o 01 (O O 0) J- •r- 4J o. 1— m o 4-> S- (4_ OO •r- OJ Ol 0) O) o to ■t-> CO ■!-> a. o 0)10 S- CO (U » +-> c 3 O o o evj t-tooococMr^CTii— ir^LDcoi— I r-iLr>«v)r-.cr>oocriOO>-HO t— It— I <— lC\Ji-H r-Hr-ICO^Or-^ i-i 1—1 CO r^ CM ror--t— i»;tiOLnoo«;l-oocoo^io tn,— I,— I ,— icocMOOo CJ CO CO CM i-ioooco^cococococot->.ro oO'-icOvO'— in 00 1—1 IT) 00 CVJ OLnr^"!^«*c>JCM«a-unrovOLn ocnroi— iOLncTioLnoooo'— 'oocMLDCMcM CMLO cno^cDco^orococo CM ^ r-l 1— I »^ en CM OrOLO^d-COCVjCOr-ICD^COCNJ i-li— I OOCOCM CO^^CTiVO .-I CO CO -D o C7> (U o +-> -•-> 1- to lO CO ■»-» s- o 0) IB +J CO +-> o o ^^ CO -C •!- s- ,_ O 1— lO I. o (1) (O +-> J- (O .— CO r— ooOLi_ to c O) CO ■M (/) T3 O CO ■<-> CO 00 O 3 o o CM I^«d-«^Cr. OCTl^CTiVOi— iCO«* 1—1 r-»roi— ii— ii— lOOrocDoo ro CM CM ^ooOoc3^Lf)>-iix>Lft^r-^i^ CM ^ I— I O ^ 1-1 ^ CM CM n^i-i»^^LncMO'— 'f-imco CO«d-i— ITI-CMOOOOCOOOLT)'— 100 CO 1—1 un 1— I ^ CO 1—1 CO CO CO COLOOi— iCOLOt— ir--.c\icocoo^ LO 1— I CM C3^ •— I 1— I «:r 1-1 CO CT> 0) C7> 3 o 4-> S- +-> 1- o O S- r- O r— <0 lO ,— c/> 1— Ol c O O) •>- (1) fO 0) (U o s- o •a o lO «5 CO lO -l-> (U ro r- O S -O Or— Ifi X: •!- O 1- co C S- 3 O (O -I- fO o .^ (^ \fc/ -• \i^ t\j ^j t\j I iw ^^ f OOQ^^—JSrSIQ-Q-OOl/IU- o s- O) 4J o CO c o X3 c 3 o lO 19 4->,— c (/) lO o 0) 4^ 3 O m -tJ 4= ■«-> T3 HJ ■»-> a C/0 lO <♦- O 4^ o a ,=:to 1- o OJ o j=o E - •r- ^^ 3 •-' -tJ _ z «2 3 Q. Q.^~ o !f^ O^ Q. 0) l-~ in O <1J 00 o-c r^ (/> o t; O) ■o • c rH (V -• y CO i- >- l. g u. « CL a. c ««••- ■o^^ 0) ^SL o T3 "TJ s..^ 0) I— J3 3 0) 0) a M- O O Q S- O ^ TJ 0) O C XI C3 «"* 3 •— ' vo Z i- (U Q. 00 "?.-i CO I^ 1 in U- r-~ T3 CTl (1> genera , and , 1979 >- CO g^co (O 0) Oi CO 4-> O +J •f- O o ,— >- -' zc O " <" 00 XI 1_ t~~ ns ^ri^ c ""^ IB § CM O c-^ •■- +-> I--S 1- VOCMC000Or-.C0CTlO cjcMi^i— iooa^^^«*coroLr) CO CM cooooicsjioooo«d-eOLn^ vO'-iiou5»*-f-ir-~i— loor^OCTi ^n LDr-lCOCSJlDLOOOOCM * M M A « «t CM I— I «^ •— I I— I o^ ro ' CM 4CM^-CM«i-»S'r^rOi— iio ■-• l-H If) o^ CM ir)i~>-T±mo^ioocOr-iror^CM «3•lOCOCM«d■CMa^lDcoo^r^m • ••■•••••••• oroco^inio«!froioir)ir>ir> CO CO CM COPOO^CMlOOOOOOCMrOlO iOLnioio«*<-cocMir)nocM.-i CM •a- "-I •-< 00 i-i »* CO CO CM i-ICM^CM<^«d-lOCOO'* t— I f-H Lf) »— • (d •o 1. o J= r- 0> LI. 3 O -" t- +J S. o o n) ■)-> S- in c S- 3 o O IT) ■>- ITS o .— ITJ in r— ■o 01 a. jQ o ii- o o o t_ o Ol s_ O) C3. O) CO rocM»-i«a-r^^coinrHco>— iLO CMOOlOOCTlI*^'^'— iroooco^ '-info^LDin'S-roiOLniouf) a {A o 3 O o '-iioooooOr-ior~ CMrHlOlO"*.— l|-~r-lP~rOi— <«^ i£>n un»— icocMinmrHon CM rH ^ •— I CM o >— I Ln • CO CM ^CM^t"«S-t — nOLD 1—1 IT) I— I CM ro rH •— I r-l O) o 4-> 1- +-> S- O O 0) O XI — •!— ••-> in S- I— Or- I— OJ +J o 0) T) f— O S T3 O .— 1/) jC -1- O O) ITJ +J i- in c s- 3 o ITJ •>- ITS O I— tJCJQ:E-JS:SQ.Q.l/) o +-> (O 4J • c in o o •■- ■I- -4-) S- i- •♦-> o in 4-> XI c O QJ in +J 01 3 S- o a. ^ 5- •r— s^ m in 0) I — (/) lO O) •I- •!-> Q. c: 10 O) o s- £3. "io C I. •!- Sgr Carrabelle V^ Apalachicola \l St. Johns : o\ o\\ St. Augustine -< River _..•■ \ V ^ Ponce de Leon Citrus CoS C\ Barge Port \ ^New Smyrna 11 '^"'°^'^ U Canaveral Tarpon Springs St. Petersburg »•)' Tampa Manatee V integrated water system * Boca Grande Fort Pierce Palm Beach Everglades 9 Mator ports 9 Medium ports O Small ports -^ Intracoastal Waterway ••• Cross Florida Barge Canal /.Miami Figure 1. Location of ports and waterways in Florida (Florida Department of Transportation 1978b), 27 ties and projections are taken from the Florida Waterport Systems Study, Flor- ida Department of Transportation (1978a). Tampa The Port of Tampa is located at the head of Hillsborough Bay (the easter- ly extension of Tampa Bay) in close proximity to Tampa's central business dis- trict. Deepwater access to the Gulf of Mexico is provided by 41 miles of dredged channel. Minimum channel dimensions are 34 ft deep and 400 ft wide. In 1978 the dredged main channel was deepened to 43 ft. Additional channels maintained at 30 ft depth connect the main port facilities on the Hooker's Point peninsula with various other terminals along the shores of Tampa, Old Tampa, and Hillsborough Bays. The main shipping channels also intersect the Port Manatee Channel, the St. Petersburg Channel, and the Intracoastal Water- way. Other means of access to the port are the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Interstate Highways (1-4 and 1-75), Tampa International Airport, and the Peter 0. Knight Municipal Airport, which maintains a seaplane landing basin. The port's cargo storage capacity in 1975 was about 843,738 ft of cov- ered storage, 1,750,000 ft^^ of refrigerated storage, 4,095,511 ft^ of open storage, and 10,843,145 barrels of liquid bulk storage. Ship berthing facil- ities consist of 21,178 linear ft of port authority owned wharves and 34,522 ft of privately owned wharves. Most berths are maintained at depths exceeding 30 ft. A total of 82 docks are located in the port. Estimates of the throughput cargo handling capacity for the Port of Tampa were developed for the Florida Waterport Systems Study (Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). These estimates were based on port labor and equipment productivity relationships (provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Fed- eral Maritime Administration), an assumed 40-hr work week, and an annual sustained berth occupancy of 50%. These capacity estimates tend to be conser- vative and do not represent their maximum physical capacities. Estimates are made on break bulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk, and general cargo categories of shipments. Break bulk refers to cargo in a vessel that can be counted by unit (e.g., tractors); dry bulk and liquid bulk refer to bulk cargo carried in specially designed ships; and general cargo refers to any commodity shipped in boxes, crates, or other packaging. Estimated throughput capacities for Tampa in 1975 are shown in Table 1. Tampa's freight tonnage increased sharply in 1960-78 and it is now the largest port on the west coast of Florida, if not for the State. In 1975, Tampa's volume of waterborne commerce was 39,857,660 tons, about 49% of the State total. A summary of the changes in annual port tonnage in 1960-78 is shown in Table 2. Although the port has maintained a diversified mix of general cargo, the largest percentage has been bulk cargo. In 1978, phosphate was by far the greatest export (11.4 million tons), and petroleum products were the primary imports (6.6 million tons). Because of the emphasis on bulk cargo, conveyor belts and pipelines are the most important means of transport. Forecasts of general cargo, phosphate exports, and petroleum product imports for the Port of Tampa were made by the Florida Waterport Systems Study (Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). In general, these forecasts are based upon the port's share of Florida waterborne commerce, annual growth rates of cargo volumes in Florida and the United States, world economic 28 Table 1. Annual throughput ca- pacity (in tons) for the Port of Tampa in 1975 (Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). Cargo Capacity General cargo 1,612,000 Dry bulk Phosphate Other 34,300,000 8,010,000 Liquid bul k Oil Other 12,740,000 2,626,000 Table 2. Port of Tampa annual freight tonnage for inter- mittent years 1960-78 (Florida Department of Transpor- tation 1978a). Percentage Year Tons increase 1960 14,786,470 -- 1965 19,829,071 34 1970 31,356,522 112 1975 39,857,660 169 1978 47,077,047 218 trends, and assessments of competition between Florida and other U.S. ports. The annual general cargo forecasts for Tampa are given in Table 3. A general cargo growth of 44.9% is expected in the Port of Tampa between 1980 and 2000. The forecasts for annual export of phosphate rock and import of bulk petroleum products are shown in Table 4. Petroleum product imports are expected to increase in 1980-2000 and phosphate rock exports are expected to increase until 1990 and decrease thereafter. The decline probably will result from the depletion of known reserves in Florida and the need to con- serve supplies for domestic fertilizers. 29 Table 3. Forecast of export, import, and throughput general cargo (in tons) for the Port of Tampa in 1980, 1985, 1990, and 2000 (adapted from Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). Cargo 1980 1985 1990 2000 Foreign Imports 827,000 914,000 977,000 1,111,000 Exports 1,652,000 1,948,000 2,167,000 2,584,000 Domestic Imports 106,000 115,000 123,000 137,000 Exports 212,000 215,000 218,000 222,000 Total throughput 2,797,000 3,192,000 3,485,000 4,054,000 Table 4. Forecast of phosphate exports (in tons) and petroleum imports (in tons) for the Port of Tampa at 5-year intervals, 1980-2000 (adapted from Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). Year Phosphate Petrol eum 1980 22,400, ,000 11. ,571, ,000 1985 24,300, ,000 12. ,844, ,000 1990 25,600, ,000 14. ,257, ,000 1995 24,900, ,000 15, ,255. ,000 2000 23,800, ,000 16, ,383, ,000 Manatee The Port of Manatee is located on a 675-acre site on the south side of the entrance to Tampa Bay in Manatee County. Manatee is approximately 25 miles down channel from the Port of Tampa and is connected to the Tampa Bay Channel by the Port Manatee Channel, which is 3 miles long and maintained at a width of 400 ft and a depth of 38 ft. Other water access to the port is pro- vided by the Saint Petersburg Channel and the Florida Intracoastal Waterway. Other transport linkages are provided by a port-owned and operated railroad connecting the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, by a petroleum pipeline which supplies the Florida Power and Light Company, and by the Tampa International Airport, and by local highways. The principal highway routes are U.S. 41 and 1-75. 30 The Port of Manatee's storage facilities in 1975 were 326,000 ft^ of cov- ered storage and a bulk petroleum storage capacity of 3,800,000 barrels (bbl). Ship berthing facilities included two shallow berths 20 ft deep, and five deep berths ranging from 37 ft to 40 ft deep. The Port of Manatee is used mainly for bulk cargo. Almost 90% of the port's business is petroleum and petroleum products. Estimates of the throughput capacity of the Port of Manatee in 1975 are given in Table 5. Port Manatee began cargo service in 1970 and in 1980 petroleum, phos- phate, fertilizer, feed, cement, scrap steel, plywood, pipe, and offshore drilling materials generated 5 million tons of commerce. Of this total, 3 million tons were petroleum receipts and 1.5 million tons were fertilizer/ phosphate shipments. No forecasts were made for this port by the Florida Waterport Systems Study (Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). Based on analysis of tributary area demands, the Manatee County Port Authority has estimated that its commerce should reach 8 million tons by 1985. St. Petersburg The Port of St. Petersburg is located on the west shore of Tampa Bay, adjacent to the downtown area of the city of St. Petersburg. Access to the port is provided by a 1.7-mile channel, maintained at a 16-ft water depth which connects to the Tampa Bay Channel. Other means of access are provided Table 5. Throughput capacity (in tons) for the Port of Manatee in 1975 (Florida Department of Transportation 1978a). Category Capacity General cargo Ship/apron transfer 328,000 Storage/truck transfer 333,000 Covered storage 355,000 Liquid bul k (fuel oil ) Ship/apron transfer 11,701,000 Tank storage 9,080,000 Storage, truck transfer 6,749,000 Dry bul k (fertil izer) Ship/apron transfer 671,000 Storage capacity 786,000 Storage/rail transfer 516,000 31 by the port's proximity to three airports (Whitted, Tampa International, and St. Petersburg-Clearwater International), Interstate 275 and U.S. 19, and the Intracoastal Waterway approximately 5 miles south of the port. No direct rail service is available. The port's berth facility is comprised of a 900-ft by 1,800-ft slip with docking space along 3,900 ft of bulkhead. The Albert Whitted Airport, a part of the port complex, is available for air freight. Just west of the port, another small port named Bayboro Harbor is privately operated. It has a com- mercial fishing wharf and power plant facilities that include provisions for receiving fuel by barge. In 1978, the Port of St. Petersburg's volume of cargo was only 234,000 tons. This port is used primarily as a base for small craft (fishing and pleasure) and for passenger cruises. Boca Grande Boca Grande is located on the south end of Gasparilla Island near the entrance to Charlotte Harbor. The port is connected to the Gulf of Mexico by a 32-ft deep channel. Once active in both phosphate and petroleum shipments, Boca Grande has not served as a public port since 1978. Attempts to create a new facility nearby have not materialized. Key West The Port of Key West is located in the northwest corner of the island of Key West. It is located approximately 220 mi south of the entrance to Tampa Bay. Key West is mainly used as a port of safe haven. No commodities are transported except for local use. Tarpon Springs The Tarpon Springs docks are located on the Anclote River about 2 miles from the Gulf of Mexico in downtown Tarpon Springs. The channel /harbor depth is only 9 ft. This port does not serve waterborne commerce. Principal uses of the port are for recreational craft and sponge fishing boats. AIR TRANSPORTATION DESCRIPTION OF AIRPORTS Southwest Florida has 3 commercial and 24 smaller public airports. The public airport facilities in 1980 are listed by type and county in Table 6. Inventories of facilities in the following sections were taken from Florida Airports (Florida Department of Transportation 1981). The history and projec- tions of annual air carrier passenger enplanements for commercial airports are given in the next section on airport activity. The number of enplanements represents the number of departing passengers. The number of aircraft opera- tions, as used in this text, represents the number of landings and take-offs. 32 Table 6. Type of public airports, number of runways, locally based airplanes, and aircraft operations in Southwest Florida in 1980 (Florida Department of Transportation 1981). Number Longest Number of of runway based Number of annual Name of airport runways (feet) airplanes operations Charlotte County 3 5,000 94 44,445 Rotonda 1 4,200 9 12,000 Everglades 1 2,400 4 4,000 Immokalee 3 5,000 27 23,000 Marco Island- 1 5,008 11 14,000 Naples Municipal 2 5,000 131 100,347 Arcadia Municipal 2 2,678 40 18,000 Brandon 1 2,775 64 32,000 Hillsborough 1 2,500 30 19,000 Peter 0' Knight 2 3,400 103 56,000 Plant City Municipal 1 3,050 38 46,000 Tampa International 3 11,000 105 240,000 Vandenberg 1 3,260 208 70,000 Page 2 6,401 167 141,096 Key West International 1 4,800 45 60,355 Marathon Flight Strip 1 5,000 56 41,000 Port Largo 1 2,295 10 5,000 North Tampa 1 3,540 27 21,000 Pilot 1 3,700 10 4,000 West Pasco 1 5,000 77 45,000 Zephyrhills 3 5,550 28 13,000 Albert Whitted 2 3,322 155 102,000 St. Petersburg/Clearwater 3 7,989 230 277,680 Buchan 2 2,750 15 7,000 Sarasota/Bradenton 2 7,000 196 155,934 Venice Municipal 2 5,000 155 97,000 Charlotte County Airport of Punta Gorda in Charlotte runways of 5,000 ft each and This airport is located 3 miles southeast County. In 1980, the airport had three paved served nine daily airline flights. The number of aircraft based there was 94 and the number of aircraft operations (number of takeoffs and landings) was 44,445. Rotonda Airport The Rotonda Airport is 1 mile south of Rotonda on State Road 771 in Char- lotte County. In 1980, the single paved runway was 4,200 ft long and served 12,000 aircraft operations. Nine aircraft were based at the field. 33 Everglades Airport This small airport is 1 mile southwest of Everglades City in Collier County. The single paved runway was 2,400 ft long and served 4,000 aircraft operations in 1980. Four aircraft were based at the field. Immokalee Airport The Immokalee Airport is 1 mile northeast of Immokalee in Collier County. In 1980, the airport had three paved runways of 5,000 ft each, 27 based air- craft, and served 23,000 aircraft operations. Marco Island Airport This airport is 6 miles northeast of Marco in Collier County. In 1980, the single paved runway was 5,008 ft long and served 14,000 aircraft opera- tions. Eleven aircraft were based at the field and six daily airline flights were scheduled. Naples Municipal Airport This airport is 2 miles northeast of Naples in Collier County. In 1980, there were two paved runways of 5,000 ft and 100,347 aircraft operations. A total of 131 aircraft were based at the field and 10 daily airline flights were scheduled. Arcadia Municipal Airport This airport is located 2 miles southeast of Arcadia in DeSoto County. In 1980, there were two unpaved runways, one 2,678 ft long and one 2,300 ft long, 40 based aircraft, and 18,000 aircraft operations. Brandon Airport The Brandon Airport is located 3 miles south of Brandon in Hillsborough County. In 1980, the field had a single unpaved runway of 2,775 ft, 64 based aircraft, and 32,000 aircraft operations. Hillsborough Airport This airport is located 9 miles east of Tampa in Hillsborough County. In 1980, the field had a single unpaved runway of 2,500 ft, 30 based aircraft, and 19,000 aircraft operations. Peter 0. Knight Airport This airport is 4 miles south of Tampa in Hillsborough County. The field is adjacent to the Port of Tampa in Hillsborough Bay and maintains a seaplane landing basin. In 1980, the field had two paved runways 3,400 ft and 2,700 ft long, 103 based aircraft, and 56,000 aircraft operations. 34 Plant City Municipal Airport This airport is 2 miles southwest of Plant City in Hillsborough County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 3,050 ft, 38 based aircraft, and 46,000 aircraft operations. Tampa International Airport Tampa International is the largest airport in Southwest Florida and is 5 miles west of downtown Tampa in Hillsborough County. In 1980, the field had three paved runways. Their lengths were 11,000 ft, 8,300 ft, and 7,000 ft. In 1980, the airport served 230 daily airline flights, 105 based aircraft, and 240,000 aircraft operations. Vandenberq The Vandenberg Airport is 7 miles east of Tampa in Hillsborough County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 3,260 ft, 208 based aircraft, and 70,000 aircraft operations. Lee County- Page Field This airport is 4 miles south of Fort Myers in Lee County. In 1980, the field had two paved runways of 6,401 ft and 5,000 ft, 72 daily airline flights, 167 based aircraft, and 141,096 aircraft operations. Key West International Key West International is 2 miles east of Key West in Monroe County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 4,800 ft, 10 daily airline flights, 45 based aircraft, and 60,355 aircraft operations. Marathon Flight Strip The Marathon Flight Strip is located 2 miles east of Marathon in Monroe County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 5,000 ft, four daily airline flights, 56 based aircraft, and 41,000 aircraft operations. Port Largo This airport is 1 mile east of Key Largo in Monroe County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 2,295 ft, 10 based aircraft, and 5,000 air- craft operations. North Tampa The North Tampa Airport is 17 miles northeast of Tampa in Pasco County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 3,540 ft, 27 based aircraft, and 21,000 aircraft operations. Pilot County The Pilot County Airport is 15 miles southwest of Brooksville in Pasco County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 2,700 ft, 10 based aircraft, and 4,000 aircraft operations. 35 West Pasco This airport is 7 miles southeast of New Port Richey in Pasco County. In 1980, the field had a single paved runway of 5,000 ft, 77 based aircraft, and 45,000 aircraft operations. Zephyrhills Municipal This airport is 1 mile southeast of Zephyrhills in Pasco County. In 1980, the field had three paved runways of 5,000 ft, 5,200 ft, and 5,550 ft, 28 based aircraft, and 13,000 aircraft operations. Albert Whitted Municipal The Albert Whitted Municipal Airport is part of the St. Petersburg Sea- port complex in Pinellas County and features a seaplane landing basin and ramp. In 1980, the field had two paved runways of 2,800 ft and 3,322 ft long, 155 based aircraft, and 102,000 aircraft operations. Clearwater Executive Clearwater Executive Airport is located within the City of Clearwater in Pinellas County. In 1980, this field had a single paved runway of 3,000 ft, 150 based aircraft, and 70,000 aircraft operations. St. Peters burg -Clearwater This airport is located within the City of St. Petersburg in Pinellas County. In 1980, the field had three paved runways of 7,989 ft, 5,165 ft, and 5,722 ft, 230 based aircraft, and 277,680 aircraft operations. Buchan Buchan Airport is 2 miles north of Englewood in Sarasota County. In 1980, the field had two unpaved runways of 2,750 ft and 2,240 ft, 15 based aircraft, and 7,000 aircraft operations. Sarasota-Bradenton This airport is 3 miles north of Sarasota in Sarasota County. In 1980, the field had two paved runways of 5,006 ft and 7,000 ft, 40 daily airline flights, 196 based aircraft, and 155,934 aircraft operations. Venice Municipal Venice Municipal Airport is 0.5 mile south of Venice in Sarasota County. In 1980, the field had two paved runways of 5,000 ft, 155 based aircraft, and 97,000 aircraft operations. 36 AIRPORT OPERATIONS Commercial Airports To establish the level of operations among the airports within the 10 county region, standard FAA workload measures were employed. The basic meas- ure for commercial airports is the number of enplaning passengers (persons boarding commercial flights) per year. Past and projected volumes of passen- ger enplanements for the three commercial airports are given in Table 7. Commercial airline forecasts, given in this section, were made for the Florida Department of Transportation (1975) as part of the Florida Aviation System Plan. The forecasting employed were (1) correlation analysis (popula- tion history with enplanement history); (2) share of the market (regional en- planement history with U.S. enplanement history; and (3) linear ft (regional enplanements' with regional population history). The variables used were population, payroll, and tourist accommodations. These forecasts predict that Tampa will remain the dominant airport in the region, but the Lee County-Page Field Airport will grow the fastest in 1980-90. General Aviation Airports The basic operations measure for general aviation facilities is the number of takeoffs and landings (aircraft operations) per year. Historical and predicted annual aircraft operations for these airports in Southwest Flor- ida are shown in Table 8. Future operation levels are taken from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Forecasts (U.S. Department of Transpor- tation 1979). The procedure used was to apply the FAA forecasted growth per- centage (42%) for general aviation aircraft operations from 1979 to 1991 for Southwest Florida as a whole, and then allocate this growth based on each air- port's market share of the operations reported in 1980. Table 7. Number of past (1970 and 1979) and projected (1980, 1985, and 1990) air carrier enplanements^ for three major airports in Southwest Florida (Florida Department of Transportation 1975). Airport 1970 1974 1980 1985 1990 Tampa International 1,520,400 2,424,300 3,972,900 5,586,600 8,013,000 Lee County- Page Field -- 147,400 350,500 631,600 992,200 Sarasota- Bradenton 146,400 275,400 434,600 784,500 1,155,100 Number of passengers boarding commercial flights. 37 Table 8. Number of aircraft operations in 1972 and 1980 and projections to 1991 among general aviation airports in Southwest Florida (Florida Department of Transportation 1975, 1981). Annual aircraft ope rations Airport 1972 1980 1991 Charlotte County 35,000 44,445 63,100 Rotonda — 12,000 17,000 Everglades 1,400 4,000 5,700 Immokalee 20,000 23,000 32,700 Marco Island -- 14,000 20,000 Naples Municipal 6,000 100,347 142,500 Arcadia Municipal 7,000 18,000 25,600 Brandon 25,000 32,000 45,400 Hillsborough 7,500 19,000 27,000 Peter 0' Knight 60,650 56,000 79,500 Plant City Municipal 30,300 46,000 65,300 Vandenberg 97,000 70,000 99,400 Key West International 62,528 60,355 85,700 Marathon Flight Strip 17,798 41,000 58,200 Port Largo 3,000 5,000 7,100 North Tampa 10,700 21,000 29,800 Pilot -- 4,000 5,700 West Pasco 6,000 45,000 63,900 Zephyrhills 8,000 13,000 18,500 Albert Whitted 100,280 102,000 144,800 Clearwater Executive 55,500 70,000 99,400 St. Petersburg-Clearwater 208,449 277,680 394,300 Buchan 1,000 7,000 9,900 Venice Municipal 50,550 97,000 137,700 3,100 route the State. RAIL TRANSPORTATION The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (SCL) provides the only rail freight service in Southwest Florida. This Class I railroad (net annual operating revenue of $10,000,000 or more) is part of the Family Lines System and is headquartered in Jacksonville (Figure 2). The Family Lines System operates miles in Florida and connects with all other lines operating in The Florida State rail plan (Florida Department of Transportation 1978b) lists 1,337 locomotives and 63,758 freight cars for SCL. Trail er-on - flatcar or piggyback loading facilities are maintained by the SCL at Tampa, Bradenton, Arcadia, Fort Myers, and Immokalee. Tampa and the nearby phosphate producing areas are a major source of traffic for the SCL. In 1976, the Tampa yards routed about 1,600 cars daily over 63 tracks. In 1975, the operating revenue of SCL was $153,596 and the operating expense was $142,021. 38 Jacksonville Pensacola lllllllll PASSENGER SERVICE CLASS I — - - — - Ga Southern & Fla. Railway Co. — - - Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. St. LoulS'San Francisco Railway Co. . Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. Fla. East Coast Railway Co. CLASS II 1 Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co. 2 Atlanta & St Andrews Bay Railway Co 3 Live Oak. Perry & Gulf Railroad Co. (Southern Railway) 4 The Marlanna & Blountstown Railroad Co. 5 The South Ga. Railway Co. (Southern Railway) Miami ,t»»'^' Figure 2, Passenger and freight railroads in Florida CFlorida Department of Transportation 1978a). 39 Few details are available for analysis of railroad operations in South- west Florida and no projections have been made for the future. The status of passenger transportation service due to AMTRAK service abandonments is uncer- tain. HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION MAJOR NETWORKS The locations of existing and committed interstate highways in Florida are shown in Figure 3. In Southwest Florida, 1-75 is the major north-south highway. Because of the convergence of 1-75 with 1-4 near Tampa and St. Pe- tersburg, these two cities are better served by highways than any other part in Southwest Florida. Interstate Route 75 connects Tampa and St. Petersburg with Bradenton, Sarasota, Port Charlotte, Fort Myers, and Naples. At Naples, the four lane 1-75 connects with the Everglades Parkway (Alligator Alley), a two lane road- way providing direct east-west access to Fort Lauderdale. The other major north-south highway serving the region is US-41, which also connects the major west coast cities listed above. South of Tampa, the major traffic flow is north-south; the east-west roadway network is relatively sparse and lightly traveled. More detailed descriptions of the highway systems in each county are given in the following subsections. Charlotte County The major north-south highways serving Charlotte County are 1-75, US-41, US- 17, and State Route-31 (SR). US-17 connects Port Charlotte/Punta Gorda with Arcadia, Lakeland, and Interstate Route 4 to the north. State Route 31 provides the most direct north-south connection between Fort Myers in Lee County and Arcadia in DeSoto County. There are no major east-west highways in Charlotte County. Coll ier County In addition to 1-75 and US-41, the north-south travel in Collier County is served by SR-29, which connects US-41 near the Everglades National Park with Immokalee and US-27 to the north. Two major east-west routes serving Collier County are Everglades Parkway (Alligator Alley) and US-41, which con- verge near Naples. DeSoto County DeSoto County's major north-south arteries are US-17 and SR-31. The major east-west arteries are SR-70, which connects Arcadia with Bradenton, and SR-72, which connects Arcadia with Sarasota. Hillsborough County Major north' 301, and SR-39. ■south arteries The east-west in Hillsborough County are arteries are 1-275, US-92, 1-75, US-41, US- and SR-60, which 40 ino Pensacola Jacksonville Completed Under Construction West Palm Beach 1-395 ,.^"^- Figure 3. Major Florida highways (Florida Department Of Transportation 1978b), 41 connect Tampa and St. Petersburg, and 1-4, which connects Tampa with Orlando. Lee County The major north-south arteries in Lee County are 1-75, US-41, and SR-31. Major east-west arteries are SR-78, SR-80, and SR-82. SR-80 connects Fort Myers with Clewiston and US-27 on the south side of Lake Okeechobee. SR-82 connects Fort Myers with Immokalee in Collier County. SR-78 is a recreational route connecting Fort Myers with the Gulf of Mexico and Pine Island. Manatee County Manatee County is connected to the Tampa/St. Petersburg area by US-19 via the Sunshine Skyway, US-41 and US-301. Until the Tampa bypass of 1-75 is com- pleted in 1985, there will be a gap in the freeway system between Bradenton and Tampa. The east-west highways in the county are lightly traveled and con- sist of three two-lane roads, SR-62, SR-64, and SR-70. Monroe County Monroe County, consisting mostly of Everglades Wetlands, is served by only one highway. The route, US-1, connects Key West with Miami. Because of its wetland topography and geographic location, Monroe County is the most in- accessible county in Southwest Florida. Pasco County The major north-south roads in Pasco County are 1-75, US-19, US-41, and US-301. The two major east-west roadways are SR-52 and SR-54. These roads connect US-19, which is on the heavily populated western side of the county, with 1-75 to the east. Pinellas County Pinellas County, located on a peninsula between Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, is served largely by US-19, which runs north and south and is heavily congested, and the following major east-west highways: 1-275, US-92, SR-60, SR-580, and SR-584. These east-west highways provide direct access to Tampa and Hillsborough County highways. Sarasota County Sarasota County is served by 1-75 and US-41 for north-south travel. The only significant east-west highway, SR-72, connects the City of Sarasota with Arcadia in DeSoto County. HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS Highways usually are described by their width (travel surface), number of lanes, direction, average daily traffic volume, and capacity at level of ser- vice C. These data are difficult to interpret because of changes of traffic along a given route caused by localized variations in travel demand and inter- 42 secting traffic flows. A general picture of highway conditions in Southwest Florida is given in Table 9. The roadway widths generally represent the mini- mum widths, which are most often encountered outside of the city limits in rural areas. These narrow roadways determine the capacity for inter-county travel . To indicate the relative use of the highways in each county, a traffic volume range was produced. The low volumes generally correspond to the aver- age daily traffic reported by the Florida Department of Transportation on the narrow rural sections of roadway described above. The high volumes are en- countered in towns or at major intersections. In these cases, the widths are generally greater than those shown in the table. Capacity (volume of traffic) computations were based upon procedures doc- umented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Florida Department of Transportation 1965). For capacity level C, 10% of the traffic is trucks, the terrain is level, peak hour traffic equals 12% of the average daily traffic, and the directional split is 60/40. US-41 is the most congested roadway in Southwest Florida (Table 9). With the opening of 1-75 from Bradenton and Naples in 1982, much of the traffic will be diverted from US-41. In Pasco County, for example, US-41 traffic is considerably lower because 1-75 absorbs much of the 1-75 north-south traffic. The next most congested highways in the region are US- 19, 1-75, and SR-60, all in the Pinellas County area. Historical changes in traffic volumes at designated locations in the State are documented by a permanent traffic recording stations maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation. The average daily traffic volumes reported at the temporary recording stations in Southwest Florida are in Table 10. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS The Florida Department of Transportation has studied traffic volume changes in each of the 10 counties since 1929. These observed changes were correlated with county population and motor vehicle registrations. From these data, projections were made for traffic in each county (Table 10). The pro- jections were made by multiplying a base year traffic volume by a 20-year growth factor. For example, to estimate the 1997 traffic in Charlotte County, the 1977 traffic volumes were multiplied by 3.652 (the 20-year growth factor). The usefulness of these estimates is restricted, however, to roads lo- cated outside of areas having an ongoing Urbanized Area Transportation Study (UATS). In Southwest Florida, there are UATS for Tampa, St. Petersburg, Sar- asota, Bradenton, and Fort Myers. Newly emerging UATS areas are in Pasco County (Port Richey) and Collier County (Naples). Documentation of UATS data collection, modeling, and network assignment procedures and forecasted traffic volumes are maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation, Division of Planning. 43 c -D •^ ^ 1/1 3 ca. t- c 0) 3 •»-> o • o 'f— t- in c M- ■o c c o nj ■> ■o i~ Q o 1— * U- c o +J •r— O 3 CL O 01 oo c IB o 1— (/) <♦- (U O •^ c 3 s 4J C 0) t. 0) Q. (U (O ./>-o li i:»^. • ^ JC 10 r-« (1) o . -o > -S o a> <4- 1 — LD >*- .Q lO (TJ ITJ Ol J- (O > Q. O) <_5 ■o s- > CTLn CT> E' 3 E 0) 0) ■t-> T3 C o o -a o 3 o o o o o o o I-H 00 CM o o o o o o o o I-H 1— I «3- ^ o o o o o o o o "d- CM o o o o o o CM I-H Ln CO 00 CTi o o o o o o o o o CM CO 00 00 CT^ CO CT^ CM o o o o CTl O o o o o o o .— t I— I CT^ OT •« M ro r^ i-H CO CO CM CO IT) CM •1 «« A M CO cr> t-H t^ O 00 I— " CM LO O <— < .-H CO oj CM i-H •* ro LT) LO 1^ O I— 1 I-H I-H CM o o o -t-> -M +-> o ■(-> o o 4-> +-> o o o o +J +J +J +J o o o o o o o +J +J +J +->+->+-> +J o o o o o +J +J +J +J +J o o o o o o O^ CO o •1 •« CM »-H I— < o o 00 2,100 1,800 o o o o o o o o cr> oo CO 00 CM 1—1 CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o vo to CO r~ I-H r~~. oo «i •« «t *i •« «« t CO CO CM P-» ^ CM «-H I— 1 i-H CM 00 o o o o o o o o o o CM O f-^ CO CM «« «« «t «v «i CO CO CO CM O^ o o o o o o t-^ o o o o o o CO to o 1 o 1 IT) 1 *^ o o o o o o o o WD CTl oo CM •t A M A o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I-H I-H CM CM r~~. CM 00 o o o o o o o o o o ^ LO vo t~~ r-- «l #t A #1 «» oo CM o o o 4-> +-> ■!-> o o o o o o LO CM cr> CM <-H CO o ■!-> o o LO o I o I 00 I I-H CM r-H LO o o o o 4^ 4_> 4-> 4-> o o o o o o o o LO LO O «* LO !"-» LO r~ o 00 o^ o o o o o o o 4_> 4-> 4^ ^ 4-> -1^ 4-> o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CTi «!l- LO 00 LO O CO I-H I-H T-Hi-H cMOOLOcocooocn I-H oo CM CO I-H o o o o o 4J 4-> -l-> ■!-> -M o o o o o o o o o o r-. r-- LO o CM C« Vk #t «t I-H CM I-H LO ■o 3 o o O CM 00 CO CM «i- a o "t '=t CM CM CM CM Kf «* CO CM CM CM I-H CM CM O ^ O CM 00 00 CM «d- CM «* CM «d- ^ O O «d- O 00 CM CM CM CM «a- «>0 O) CO ^ CM I I I I I I I q; cii oo 00 00 I-H I— 1 oo oo =) O =5 3 o s- o I-H 00 O CM I-H CO r-- 00 CO ^ I I I I I q: oi a: a: oo oo oo oo 00 r3 0) 0) 44 >><_> O (U Q. O) <0 I— O O -o IT3 > a; cr LD U3 en O) E = ■»-> ■o T3 O O cr> CO O^ CM CM ^O O^ CT^ CT< VD CT^ CM CM CM CM 00 a\ CM o o o o o o o o o o o o to o^ o^ un ^ r-~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 r^ 00 CM cr. 00 CM o o o o o o o o o o o o CO O O 00 O CO O O O O CM CO CM ^ CO (^ ^ >— • ,— ( t-l CO I— t CO in in vo I— 1 vo r^ o CTi «d- CM i-H 00 00 CO •-' o ^ ^ t— 1 in CM in 00 ■•a- CO o o o o o o +j +j +j +j +j ^-> o 4-> o +-> o o o o 4^ 4^ +J 4-> o o o o o +j +j ^j +j +j o o o o o o o o o o o o o o vo •—< r-. Lrt CO IT) M A «« A A A T-l .— 1 CM r~. I— 1 <.o t-l t-H o o o o o o o o o o o o r-~ r~. o^ •— < #■ A A A lo lO >— < in t-l i-t o o o o o o o o o o CM in o in CM A A A M A 00 <^ 00 r- «d- CM r-H i-H 400 23,400 o o o o o o o o o o o o CO CM O O CO «* #1 «t «l A M CM CM VD O «a- I— 1 I—t o o o I-H O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 o r^ 00 CO CO CO O CM .-H CM O 1 o 1 CM 1 « CM o o o o o 4-> +J 4-> -M •)-> o o o o o o o o o o lo "^ lo in in AAA in ^ CO o o U3 o o o o o 4-> +J +J -(-> ■•-> o o o o o O O O O O I LO ^ lO «* I-H I A A A I «d- «a- in o o o o o +J +J 4J> 4J +J O O O O O O O O O O I— I o in ^ CO A A A A A CTl CO 1-H O CO o I o I «3- O ^ O 00 O «* CM CM CM ^ CM CM O CM CM O ^ CO ^ CM 00 CM CM CM 'd- CM CM ^ O ^ ^ 00 O 00 ^ CM CM ^ ^ ^ O 00 CM «d- co I/) I/) «/> I/) I/) l/) (/> CM ^ O CT> <— I O lo to r^ <— I ^ CO I I I I I I o: Q£ q: (/)(/) oo 00 to 00 =3 ZD 3 oo CT> CM «^ o^ I— I o in CO in in I-H «a- CO r^ I I I I I I I q: a: Qi oo i/i oo •— I oo 00 00 rD ^ = : oo z: o ^ in o 00 00 o^ CM r>- to in in <— < o> CM I I I I I I q: q: q; 00 00 •— I 00 oo 00 =) Z3 CM i-H ex: 00 00 ZD ■»-> c to o (O _ Q. R o *^ c •I- ro M- IT) 1_ >♦->£>(— S- .-I 4- O CO 1— 1 .—1 I— 1 en I— 1 CM en 1 o .-1 1 CO o CM .-1 CM^- 1 i-l VO 1 o o O ID ,-1 00 en LO LD CO I— 1 ID I— 1 ID 1^ CM CO CM ID O CO VO O UD r-t O t^ o CM o ^a- o ID •* CM O CM ID O o I— 1 o «* T-l CO o t— 1 yo CO I— t C\J CVJ t— 1 CO 00 CM "^l- ID CM r-H CO f-t CM vo LD o cr> ID CT> o o o »a- LD cr. 00 •t •» r^ CM LD 00 CM O CM O CM lO o LD CO CM 00 LD LO VO ID CM O ft o ■el- LD I LD I er> CO LD 00 CO o o o LD (^ CO ^ O l-H #t «k ft CM O CM t-H CM 00 LD LD O o LD ID LD LD LD LD LD ID a\ CO f— 1 cn CTl VO ID CM 1 1 III 1 LO «a- ^ o o r-» r^ t~-~ O O 1 1 III 1 «« •« «t 9t #t •* « 9t «s •* VO CM I— 1 vo ID o t— 1 00 00 t— 1 CM 00 CO LD LD O O ID o o LD o o o «* CM CO CO CO ID LD «!l- CM O 1 1 O cn (T> yo ■^ r-^ cn CO o •:*- 1 1 ^ .-< CO cr> ■»-> o JZ .c ^ ^ x: o> CJl a> en O) 3 3 3 3 3 o 0) ja t— o (/> r^ •1— CO CO CO •!- •M +J CO 1 — o o TT o o P_ 31 3: o: o Q S3: Q. Z 0) c LD >>.= c o o o (O "O t/) "O "O T- en o Q to r— S- Ll. , ^- CO "^ . ? <4- O r~- o >, cy> 4-> 3 LD CO (O c: ^ I -o 3 Qi •!- I- O 'r- OO E O O E C£> lO ■t-> ^ +J VO •!- *0 <0 (O ^D t> ^ n (O I— 1 1— I coo O 00 •* o o cj CO I oo I CO I C7)O0 -o to 1- 00 CM ^ ■t-> >» •» C •• "O • CM (O CM C .-1 O^ f^ CT^ (O ^ I Q. I CD I OO 00 00 (U I cm—" O ••- 4- tt- J- o 0 o) CO CO ^ +J -r- T3 E a; •!- to c 1 — •<-<_} (O LD Q. E LU ,— . (O ■)-> -^ o ^ ^ c «. c (O LD (O •> C "r— r--. S_ LD •I- «d- D- CM Ll_ 1^ 1 I I di 0) <+- r— 4- o (O o 00 >> ^ z +-> O o M ■o (O ai cn r^ o ^ (O o cr> +-> CM c— 1 S- ID S- LO .-t .— 1 (O 1 1 <: 1 OQ 1 1 1 s: cc oo q; on t/1 00 oo =3 oo c/1 ra rs 03 o t; s- •-I 3 o o 1=^ XI "O (O C L CO ^ (O +J 00 C $- CL -a c Q 3 O • 1- (/) «5 C -tJ •!-> (0 •>- O o c 1— lO 3 > +J C (/> o C o +-> r~ o to T3 ■t-» c c 3 O t. •.- (O 1 c > S- 3 >> ^— +-> ■4-> re • r- O o c 1- re 3 > j__ re +-> c c o re l>1 •t-> o re •^ re 0) C > to 3 ■o ■t-> c c 3 CO re o +J (J S- •^- re 1 c >• i- 3 re 0) >, ^ ■!-> 1/) re C 4-> +-> re 't— o o C 1— re 3 > ^_ re +-> c c o lO re 10 ■M o re •^ re O) C >• (/I 3 -a c ■!-> 3 01 C o ^ re s- •r- o 1 c re 5» s- re vo "5l- ro ^ t^ r^ CO <£> LO CvJ Lf) CO O .-H VO ^ CSJ vDcrii^rouOLD^Lor^vo OO^"— '<^'— 'Oa^I— iCvJO r^^ c\jroor^ •t M o r-~ 1—1 CO t— 1 CM I— 1 00 00 T-t «« #1 en ^ «3- o CM aioo^ooot-it^cooo^ ooo"*«d-cMcop^vocTicM iti-i— icocMcovocnLnCMLf)^Lf) «d-r~.op^uDr^00'— '^co ^O^O'-'CTlOO^t— IVOLDIT) «« A M M «« A ,— I f— I CM 1— I I-^ CM cOTJ-Lno>^c^JLr>co«s^c3^ *3-CM"*r-~Lf)ocriLr)Lnoo oo^CMCM«^cMr^cri«=rLn LO 00 o CO CM cn CO CM 0«— 'CO"— — re s- o 0) c c c re o re •<- s z: a. Q- o to re i- re I/) in CM CM CT> LD CO 00 o CM ■o o ■M to (U 3 O 00 1^ LT) to CSJ CM CO LT) CO to to CO 00 LO LO CM CO CO to 00 re -o 65 or in State records; most surveys include these as housing units without making distinctions of specific use. Short of an examination of all of the original census sheets (which may or may not contain this information), or an analysis of county tax assessments, these data will remain obscure. Table 11. Average number of persons per housing unit and the projected number of housing units in the counties of Southwest Florida in 1980, 1990, and 2000. Number of pe irsons County per housing unit 1980 1990 2000 Charlotte 1.7 35,514 46,087 53,514 Collier 1.7 50,779 68,513 79,596 DeSoto 2.6 7,458 9,312 10,823 Hillsborough 2.5 263,619 317,040 367,334 Lee 1.8 111,013 151,639 176,125 Manatee 1.8 83,586 103,489 120,227 Monroe 1.7 38,088 42,155 48,965 Pasco 1.9 101,172 139,633 162,176 Pinellas 1.9 376,971 479,683 557,208 Sarasota 1.8 113,355 143,866 167,096 Southwest Florida 2.0 1,181,555 1,501,417 1,743,064 Time-sharing units are important irt Southwest Florida because most of them are located immediately adjacent to the coast, and data pertaining to them could shed light on the availability of housing to workers who might be associated with potential OCS oil and gas development. Depending on the situation, condominiums and cooperatives may be suitable for OCS workers, but time-sharing units likely would not be available, or preferred even if available. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Industrial development in Southwest Florida is confined largely to the Tampa Bay area in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and to Fort Myers. A number of manufacturing industries are scattered throughout Pinellas County from St. Petersburg to Clearwater, most of which are in low-lying areas sub- ject to floods and storm surge. In Hillsborough County (Figure 1), industrial lands are concentrated in the eastern outskirts of Tampa, the eastern shore of Tampa Bay, and in the Plant City area (an unincorporated area in the eastern part of the county). All of the counties have some manufacturing industries, but the land area involved is relatively small. Most of the better lands for development are being used to provide housing for tourists and retirees. Although industrial 66 development is needed in this area to help diversify its economic base, the lack of an appropriate labor force, an ample supply of fresh water, and numer- ous environmental problems will probably restrict industrial development to large urban areas like Fort Myers and Sarasota. The following section describes the industrial development from a histor- ical perspective, general site characteristics, projected trends, and poten- tial for onshore development from OCS oil and gas activities, and related environmental impacts. TRENDS IN INDUSTRY Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties are two of the most industrialized counties in Florida. Among the counties in the State, they rank third and fourth, respectively, in manufacturing employment (Table 12). The dominance of these two counties in Southwest Florida is demonstrated by their contribution of 64% of the total employment and 76% of the employment in manufacturing. The relative importance of employment in manufacturing as a percentage of total employment is low for most of the counties in Southwest Florida (Table 13). The Statewide percentage of 11.1, which is low compared to many other states, is exceeded only by Manatee County (13%), Hillsborough County (13%), and Pinellas County (12%). Manatee County has the highest employment in manu- facturing in Southwest Florida. The greatest increases in percent change in employment in manufacturing were in Collier (140%) and Lee (109%) Counties (Table 13). Considering that these counties had relatively few employees in manufacturing in 1978, this percent gain is unimportant. Hillsborough County had the greatest number of employees in manufacturing, but in terms of percentage change in manufacturing from 1970-79, employment increased only 16.1%, one of the lowest gains among the counties in the area. DeSoto County was the only county in the region that recorded a loss (-3.4%). Descriptions of the industrial base of the counties in Southwest Florida are given in alphabetical order in the following subsections and in Table 14. Charlotte County Like other counties in Southwest Florida, the main nonagricultural employment categories in Charlotte County are retail trade and services. Almost two-thirds of the people employed in services worked in health services, which is a reflection of the high proportion of elderly and retired people in the county. Collier County Retail trade is the largest source of nonagricultural employment in Collier County. About a third of the workers in this category are employed in eating and drinking establishments. Services support the second largest number of employees. 67 la •a o 01 c: o B <0 i. c 00 •I- l~^ J- c -•-> •^" • r— ■l-> Q 0 3 M S- >» c 0 d) ^ Q. +J E s- 0) d (/> i-H (U 'r- r— c j:^ 3 ro 0 1— 0 J^ t^ en ^ ro c in CO m cnrocon«3->^ 1 1 «3 t-H t-H t-H CM t— 1 1 1 a: c 3 ■(-> o (T5 <4- 3 C to en c o 4-> o 3 J- 4-> (/> C o 0) >> JD O E r- 3 Ol Z E ro«d-vOLf)iDo^oowDcvj 000"5}-oo<^v£30Ln .— ICO 00io«:i-CMfOLr)i^ CM CM CM CTl CO ■X3 i~ o o cn CM 00 CO cn U- 3 0) 0 +J +-> s- to (O to +-> s_ 0 OJ ro ■•-> 0) fO >, 0 to ■♦-> 0 0 1— to .c •^ c J- .— 0 .— (O s- 0 0) (o 4J s- 3 ro .— (/) 1— 0) C C V) C S- 3 0 0 JC 0 c 0) c L. 0) > o Ol o> c •^ -o 3 ^— o X (U «/l > o r— • o. E <— 1 1- 0) I/O ■o c rtJ Q) l- CC •4-> Hi f— O ^ 3 c: o to •^ O +J ^ •r— J- 3 ^— o Q. •r- CL +-> to T3 3 C C 2: o ITJ O O ir)i~^totocM00r^tOLncj OOO'— 'tr)«:i-i— icjcocj^ LnrHCvj^or^cocTicMoo MM MMMMMMM t— icvi LnLocvJi-Hi— 100^ V£)O00^tDOmCT>^^ I— lOOt-H'— "OOVOOOt^LO Lnoo^ootDooCT»tooom MM MMMMMMM COCO CT>tooir)t^v£)(Ti ^ I— I I— I in •— ' o'^'sj-'— '•— ic\j«^ocvjto r~-Lnoor^cM>— Jco«3CMr^vDr--.<\j CM csj •—< CM 00 CM OC*100COCJ>'— ICM«d-CTltO coi— ir^vocoto— I UnCOt— ll— I.— icxjco r~~^.— ivooLOrorocTico OOVO«^CTiOOCMOOCTiOi— I LD CO LO CO en CO n r--. CO 0) o 4-> t- O (1) ns -)-> oa)oJ3 0)0) I— o r — •r'+JtO -MOOi — to i-i — oi — los-oajw (Oi — tOi — (UCCtOCS- o<_>Q3:_i2:sa.Q.oo 70 Monroe County In Monroe County, which depends heavily on tourism, retail trade and ser- vices (especially motels and lodging facilities) accounted for 66% of the total non-agricultural employment (excluding government) in 1979. Manufactur- ing employed only 837 people. Pasco County Pasco County, just north of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, is developing rapidly and its western portion has many of the retirement and recreation characteristics shown by Pinellas County. Its central and eastern portions are spillover areas for Hillsborough County, so this area is similar in some respects to the Tampa area. In 1979, the major fields of employment were retail trade, services, and manufacturing. Pinellas County In Pinellas County, 33,091 people were employed in manufacturing in 1979. This was exceeded only by retail trade and services. Over one-third of the service workers in the county were employed in health-related fields; most likely a consequence of the large number of retirees. Sarasota County Retail trade and services accounted for the majority of the non-agricul- tural jobs in Sarasota County and reflect the county's dependence on tourism, recreation, and retirement. The next largest categories of employment were construction and manufacturing. RECENT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT The types of industries that have located or expanded in the counties of Southwest Florida in 1970-80 are discussed in the following subsections. A list of these new industries or expansions by county, city, and type of manu- facturing is given in Table 15. Charlotte, Collier, and DeSoto Counties No new industrial plants or expansions were reported for Charlotte County in the 1970's. In 1974, a concrete block and ready-mix plant was located in Naples (Collier County) to serve the growing residential development. In the more agriculturally oriented DeSoto County, a citrus processing plant (1978) and a asphalt plant (1980) were opened in Arcadia. Hillsborough County In 1970-80, thirty-seven new industries located in Hillsborough County and six manufacturing firms expanded their floor space. Thirty-one of the new plants were in Tampa and the other six in Plant City. All of the expansions were in Tampa. The construction of 16 new plants in 1979 and 1980 may be a forerunner of new industrial growth in the county. Several of the industries listed in Table 15 could be used or converted to supply the needs of OCS oil 71 Table 15. New industries and expansions in Southwest Florida in 1970-80 (Industrial Development Research Council 1977-80). New Expan- County City Type of industry plant sion Year Charlotte None Collier Naples Concrete blocks, ready mix X 1974 DeSoto Arcadia Citrus processing X 1978 Asphalt X 1980 Hillsborough Plant City Aluminum extrusion products X 1970 Tampa Optical machinery, lenses X 1970 Cigars X 1970 Industrial furnaces X 1971 Hydrofluosilicic acid X 1971 Superphosphate plant X 1971 Aluminum cans (beer) X 1972 Plant Phosphate fertilizer X 1972 City Tampa Terminal for handling phosphate fertilizers X 1973 Process clinker X 1973 Cold storage warehouse X 1973 Grocery store warehouse and X 1974 headquarters Corrugated shipping containers X 1974 Grain storage X 1974 Meat processing X 1974 Pressurizers for nuclear power x 1974 plants, steam generators Plant Modular classrooms x 1975 City Tampa Isocronous governors, couplings (boats) X 1975 Barges X 1975 Port terminal for fertilizer X 1976 storage, shipping Yachts X 1976 Insulation x 1977 Plant Metal belt conveyors, special x 1977 City industrial machinery Tampa Uranium recovery from x phosphoric acid 1977 Shrimp processing X 1978 Electronic microprocessor, x 1979 fiber optic equipment (continued) 72 Table 15. (Continued). New Expan- County City Type of industry plant sion Ypar Hillsborough Tampa Flight simulators, training devices X 1979 Aluminum sheet & foil X 1979 Paper bags X 1979 Electronic assembly X 1979 IBM engineering center X 1979 Airline operations center X 1979 Distribution center X 1979 Electronic components X 1980 Wooden beds X 1980 Data processing X 1980 Data processing X 1980 Electronic medical monitoring X 1980 equipment Plant Vegetation processing X 1980 City Mobile homes X 1980 Tampa Citrus processing X 1980 Aircraft, engine parts X 1980 Phosphoric acid X 1980 Lee Fort Crushed limestone X 1972 Myers Aircraft filters, air and water purification equipment X 1976 Rub-off tape X 1978 Newspaper X 1979 Manatee Bradenton Clay pipes X 1973 Welding machines X 1974 Oil unloading station, pipe- X 1974 line & refinery Port Clean fuels processing X 1974 Manatee Bradenton Phosphate rock beneficiation X 1975 Aircraft switches X 1978 Mirrors X 1979 Cutting tips X 1980 Monroe Key West Shrimp processing and packing X 1977 Pasco Lacoochee Concrete pressure pipes X 1974 New Port Taps, dies, gauges X 1978 Richey Bakery machinery X 1979 Plastic bottles X 1980 Pinellas Clear- Electronic assembly X 1975 water Saint Microwave equipment x 1975 Peters- burg (continued) 73 Table 15. (Continued). New Expan- County City Type of industry plant sion Year Pinellas Clear- Metal watch bands X 1975 water Saint Telephone directory X 1975 Peters- Airplanes X 1977 burg Tarpon Sponges, sheepskins X 1977 Springs Clear- Window & door guards X 1978 water Tarpon Packaging machines X 1978 Springs Saint Microwave equipment X 1978 Peters- burg Clear- Sail and power boats X 1978 water Saint Aircraft filters X 1978 Peters- Plastic lenses X 1978 burg Electric terminals and component parts X 1979 Largo Data communication systems X 1979 Clear- Bomar Instruments^ X 1979 water Eva-Tone Evatype X 1979 Hytronics X 1979 Tanko Screw Products X 1979 Technapac X 1979 Cosco X 1979 Dynamet X 1979 Pacemaker furniture X 1979 Largo Atlantic X 1979 Oldsmar Gil CO X 1979 Godfrey Engineering X 1979 Pinellas Swanson H&S Tool X 1979 Park Saint Buffalo Medical Speciality X 1979 Peters- Farmer Mold and Machine Works X 1979 burg Hamilton Avnet Electronics X 1979 King Electronics X 1979 Largo Big Sunitral X 1979 Fl Gulf Coast Industries X 1979 Pinellas ABA Industries X 1979 Park (continued) 74 Table 15. (Concluded). County Pinellas Sarasota City Saint Peters- burg Clear- water Saint Peters- burg Largo Saint Peters- burg Clear- water Oldsmar Saint Peters- burg Largo Pinellas Park Saint Peters- burg Sarasota Type of industry New plant Action Ads Laminated/coated film Freight carriers terminal Optical instruments Textile machinery Pharmaceuticals Construction components Electronic bottle inspection equipment Welding equipment Switch boards Metal and plastic valves Aircraft overhauling Gold jewelry Precision instruments, industrial equipment Commercial printing Bottle closures G T Eb Wholesale distribution center Mobile homes Square D Cob Leather goods Liquid chromatography Military aircraft Telemetry mounting and control equipment Fiberglass boats Expan- sion Year X 1979 X 1979 X 1979 X 1979 X 1979 X 1979 X 1979 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X 1980 X X 1980 1978 1979 ^From Bomar Instruments, Action Ads (p. 5) The type of industry was not named; names of firms are substituted. 75 and gas exploration and production. Among them are aluminum extrusion pro- ducts, barges, and metal belt conveyors. Lee County Fort Myers had only three new industries and one expansion in 1970-80. The county is mostly residential, and industrial plants are scarce. Manatee County Eight new industries have located in Manatee County since 1970. Several industries manufacture items or materials that could be used or converted to be used for OCS oil and gas exploration and production. Examples are welding machines, clay pipes, oil unloading stations, pipelines, and cutting tips. Monroe County A shrimp processing and packing plant was opened in Key West in 1977. Pasco County Three new industries were built in New Port Richey in 1978-80. One other industry was built in Lacoochee in 1974. Pinellas County Fifty new industries and 16 expansions were reported for Pinellas County in the 1970's. These industries were distributed mainly in Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tarpon Springs, Largo, Oldsmar, and Pinellas Park. As in Hills- borough and Manatee Counties, the products of several industries may be usable for OCS oil and gas exploration and production. Sarasota County One new industry located in Sarasota County in 1978, and one industry expanded in 1979. GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND ISSUES Future industrial growth in Southwest Florida will depend upon a variety of factors including the availability of water, electrical power and other public utilities, materials, transportation, markets, and manpower. Most of these factors are discussed in other chapters, except for public utilities, which is described in the following section of this chapter. Generally, new industries require the following criteria for locating a plant (Lochmoeller 1975): (1) Major metropolitan areas that have the expectation of substantial popula- tion and economic growth. 76 (2) The site is served by either an existing expressway system or one planned for construction. (3) Ready access to highways, airports, or seaports. (4) Favorable community attitudes toward industry. (5) Potential for new and expanding industries. On the basis of these criteria, future industrial development in South- west Florida will probably continue to gravitate to the Tampa Bay area and to a lesser degree in Fort Myers. Under current (1980) conditions, it is unlikely that other cities will have much industrial development in the next decade or two. Industries often locate in floodplains, but their attempts to do so usually lead to serious conflicts. According to the Urban Land Institute, "Historically, industrial development followed the course of railroads along the river valleys. Because most of these rail lines are being used and interest in the availability of multimodel transportation is increasing, flood plains remain attractive to the industrial development" (Lochmoeller 1975). This is true in Southwest Florida, and the problem may get worse because of the threat of flooding from hurricane surge and excessive rainfall. Another major conflict is the concentration of industrial development along the coast. Much of the land for urban, suburban, and industrial devel- opment is low and subject to tidal surge; consequently, plans for further development of coastal lands should be carefully reviewed. The competition for suitable land for any kind of development is intense, and less expensive, but marginally preferred lands (often valuable marshes that are filled in) sometimes are in demand. Other problems for locating industrial sites are the potential exhaustion of freshwater supplies in some areas and the intrusion of saltwater into groundwater supplies along the coast. Continued pumping, particularly increased pumping of groundwater to keep pace with new freshwater demands, could cause severe saltwater intrusion in some areas. A recently recognized problem is the potential seepage of toxic wastes from surface impoundments into groundwater. This is of particular concern in areas where chemicals are manufactured. This issue was highlighted in_ a nationwide study on surface impoundment assessments by a congressional commit- tee in 1980 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 1980). Based on the probability of deterioration of a retaining structure or lagoon containing toxic or hazardous waste, about 50 sites in Florida have been identified as having a potential for polluting drinking water. Most of these sites are in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area; only five are in Southwest Florida. As indus- try expands around Tampa Bay, especially chemical manufacturing, the number of storage sites that contain potential hazards to drinking water also will increase. It is clear that some urban centers of Southwest Florida are likely to undergo further industrial expansion. Much of the expansion may locate in valuable natural environments unless local controls or permit restrictions prevent it. 77 DATA GAPS The lack of recent data, especially that to be compiled by the U.S. Gov- ernment population census for 1980, makes it difficult to give a perspective or status report on current conditions relating to residential and industrial development in Southwest Florida. This chapter should be updated when this information becomes available to verify the interpretation of trends and to make comparisons with other 1980 census information. PUBLIC UTILITIES Residential and industrial development are in part dependent on the availability and capacity of public utilities. Since DCS oil and gas recovery would place new demands on public utilities, it is important to understand the type, distribution, and degree of services available in Southwest Florida. INVENTORY OF UTILITIES Generation of electrical power in Florida depends heavily on imported fuel oil. A number of generating facilities are now being converted to burn a combination of oil and pulverized coal. Although these conversions are expensive, coal should replace oil as the primary source of fuel in Florida sometime before 1990. Of the four privately-owned utilities in the State, the three that serve the ten-county Southwest Florida region are Florida Power and Light (head- quartered in Miami), Florida Power Corporation (St. Petersburg), and Tampa Electric Company (Tampa). The service areas of these three utilities are shown in Figure 2. The Florida Power and Light Company (FLPL), with plants in 11 locations (and two more plants under construction), has the largest new capability of any power utility in the State. Its service area covers virtually all of southern Florida and extends along the east coast as far north as Jackson- ville. It serves seven of the ten counties in Southwest Florida (Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, and Sarasota), but only 2 of its 11 plants are in Southwest Florida, the Fort Myers facility in Lee County has two fossil fuel steam generating units operating on heavy oil, and 12 combus- tion turbine generating units operating on light oil (Table 16). The Manatee facility in Manatee County has two fossil fuel steam units that use heavy oil. The Florida Power Corporation, which has the second largest power capa- bility in the State, serves Pinellas and Pasco Counties, as well as much of central and northwestern Florida. In Pinellas County, FLPC operates the Anclote facility at Tarpon Springs, which has two fossil steam units operating on heavy oil, the Bartow plant in St. Petersburg, which has three fossil steam units fueled by heavy oil, and four combustion turbine units fueled by light oil. The Higgins plant at Oldsmar has three fossil fuel units fueled by heavy oil and four combustion turbine units operating on light oil (Table 16). 78 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 1 Cape Canaveral 2 Culler 3 Ft Lauderdale i Ft Myers 5 Manatee 6 Martin 7 Miami 8 Palalka 9 Port Everglades 10 Rivera 11 Sanlord 12 St Lucie 13 Turkey Point FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 1 Anclote 2 Avon Park 3 Bartow 4 Bayboro 5 Crystal River 6 Higgtns 7 Intercession City 8 Inglls 9 Port St Joe 10 Rio PInar 11 Suwannee River 12 Turner TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 Big Bend 2 Gannon 3 Hookers Point E. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 Fernandina F. REEDY CREEK STEAM GENERATION 9 Operating O Under Construction NUCLEAR GENERATION ▲ Operating A Under Construction INTERNAL COMBUSTION OR GAS TURBINE ■ Operating Q Under Construction * lOU HEADQUARTERS Figure 2. Location of privately owned electric facilities, and type of power generation in Florida (Florida Public Service Cormiission 1979). 79 Table 16. Electrical generating facilities in Southwest Florida in January 1980 (Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group 1980). Company and plant County Number of units Unit" type Fuel In service Florida Power and Light Co. Fort Myers Lee Manatee Manatee Florida Power and Light Corp. Anclote Pinellas Bartow Higgins Tampa Electric Co. Big Bend Hillsborough Gannon Hookers Point 1 FS HO 1955 2 FS HO 1969 1-12 CT LO 1974 1 FS HO 1976 2 FS HO 1977 1 FS HO 1974 2 FS HO 1978 1 FS HO 1958 2 FS HO 1961 3 FS HO 1963 1-4 CT LO 1972 1-4 CT LO 1974 1 FS HO 1951 2 FS HO 1953 3 FS HO 1954 1 CT LO 1969 2 CT LO 1969 3 CT LO 1971 4 CT LO 1971 1 FS C 1970 2 FS C 1973 3 FS C 1976 1 CT LO 1969 2-3 CT LO 1974 1 FS HO 1957 2 FS HO 1958 3 FS HO 1960 4 FS HO 1963 5 FS C 1965 6 FS C 1967 1 CT LO 1969 1 FS HO 1948 2 FS HO 1950 3 FS HO 1950 4 FS HO 1955 5 FS HO 1955 FS = Fossil steam, CT = Combustion turbine b HO = Heavy oil, LO = Light oil, C = Coal 80 The Tampa Electric Company serves Hillsborough County and the immediate areas east and northeast. The Big Bend plant, which is one of the three plants located in Hillsborough County, has three fossil steam units and three light oil combustion turbine units (Table 16). The Gannon facility has four heavy oil steam units, two coal steam units, and one light oil combusion turbine unit. The Hookers Point facility has five heavy oil steam units. The only publicly-owned electric utility in Southwest Florida is a non- generating utility at Key West. Four rural nongenerating electric cooperatives serve portions of South- west Florida. The Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative, located in Dade City (Pasco County), covers Pasco County, Pinellas County, and part of Hills- borough County. The Peace River Electric Cooperative, headquartered in Wauchula (located outside the region), distributes electricity to Sarasota County, Manatee County, and the remainder of Hillsborough County. The Lee County Electric Cooperative, located in North Fort Myers, has a divided service area. It supplies parts of Lee County, part of Charlotte County, and most of Collier County. Most of the eastern Keys are serviced by the Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, located in Tavernier. The electric utility companies serving Southwest Florida operate within a broad interstate network. Few areas in Florida are self-sufficient in elec- trical power, and the network ensures power during all levels of demand. Information about major interconnections for bulk power transactions is given in Table 17. In Florida, fuel types and their percent contribution for power gener- ation are fuel oil - 48%, coal - 19.5%, nuclear - 16.4%, natural gas - 16.1%, and an insignificant amount of hydropower. All of the oil and coal used in Florida for energy generation is imported from other places, except for a relatively small amount produced in Northwest Florida. The percent consumption of electricity by different consumers reported for Florida in 1980 shows that most of the power was used by residential users, followed by commercial and industrial users, in that order (Table 18). Net generation of power for Florida in 1979 was about three times greater than it was in 1965 (Table 19). The percentages of generation by fuel type have changed considerably. The biggest change was in nuclear fuel. None was used in 1972 but by 1980, it contributed 16% of the State total. Fuel oil is the major fuel type, but its contribution declined from 52% in 1965 to 45% in 1979. The greatest increase in the use of coal as a fuel was in 1978-79, an increase that is likely to persist through the 1980' s. More than twice as much power was generated by gas in 1979 than in 1965, but its contribution to total power declined from 25% to 16%. Hydro-electric power plants contribute little to the electric energy supply. In general, the private utility companies serving Southwest Florida have a different pattern of distribution for users than do the electrical coopera- tives. Private utilities largely serve the commercial and industrial areas, whereas most cooperatives serve residential areas. 81 Table 17. Bulk power network in Southwest Florida in 1978 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1981). Name Code Network utilities Power sources Investor-owned systems: Florida Power & Light Co. FLPL Florida Power Corp. Tampa Electric Co. Municipal systems: Key West Utility Bd. FLPC TAEC KEWU Rural electric Coop: Florida Keys Electric Corp. FLKE Lee County Electric Co-op. Peace River Electric Co-op. Withlacoochee River Electric Co-op. FLPL, FTPA, HOME, JACO, LAWU, NEWB, ORLA, TAEC, VEBM FLPL, GAMW, GEPC, GUPC, KISS, LALW, TAEC, TALL FLPC, FLPL, LALW U.S. Naval Air Station FLPC, SEPA, SIME FLPC, SIME FLPC, FLPL, TAEC FLPC, SIME ^FTPA - Fort Pierce Utility Authority; GAMW - Gainesville/Alachua Regulatory Utility Board; GEPC - Georgia Electric Power Co.; GUPC - Gulf Power Co., HOME - Homestead Municipal Lake Worth Utility Commission; NESB - New Smyrna Beach Utility Commission; ORLA - Orlando Utility Commission; SEBU - Sebring Utility Commission; SEPA - Southeastern Power Administration; SIME - Semi- nole Electric Co-op.; TALL - Tallahassee Electric Co.; VEBM - Vero Beach Municipal Utility. 82 Table 18. Percent of megawatt hours of electric power used by different con- sumers of power companies serving Southwest Florida (Florida Public Service Commission 1980). Consumer Power Company Res idential Commercial Industrial Other FL Power & Light Co. 53.4 36.5 8.0 2.1 FL Power Corp. 47.7 25.1 22.1 5.1 Tampa Electric Co. 32.8 20.5 40.5 6.2 FL Keys Electric Co. 49.2 22.8 27.2 0.8 Lee County Electric Co. 65.3 34.3 -0- 0.3 Peace River Electric Co. 74.5 11.2 6.6 7.7 Table 19. Net generation (million kw/hours) by fuel type in Florida from 1965 to 1979 (Florida Public Service Commission 1980). Year Coal Fuel oil Gas Nuclear Hydro Total 1965^ 5,399 17,019 7,556 298 30,273 1966 7,017 18,634 8,463 -- 290 34,404 1967 9,534 18,965 9,391 -- 286 38,176 1968 10,156 20,118 13,239 -- 242 43,755 1969 10,199 21,962 16,405 -- 273 48,940 1970. 1971*^ 11,394 25,829 17,954 — 292 55,469 11,184 31,822 17,403 -- 253 60,662 1972_ 11,631 40,439 15,032 66 238 67,407 1973: 1974"^ 14,625 42,313 14,602 4,681 231 76,452 13,880 39,549 13,861 7,297 249 74,836 1975 12,592 44,045 12,586 8,370 232 77,825 1976 13,500 47,238 11,315 8,648 256 80,957 1977 15,118 41,454 12,452 17,536 239 86,803 1978 15,747 45,954 14,366 15,366 224 91,514 1979 18,301 45,034 14,112 15,396 247 94,090 .1965-70 Edison Electric Institute. 1971-72 Federal Power Commission. n973 FPC Form 23, Electric Utility Companies. °1974-79 FPC Form 4. 83 The Ten-Year Plan The 1980 "Ten-Year Plan" for Florida, prepared by the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (1980), projects an annual statewide rural and resi- dental user increase (in megawatt hours) of 3.8% annually through the 1980' s (down from an annual increase of 6.4% in the 1970's), and an annual increase of 3.6% for industrial users (down from 5.1%). Rapid residential growth in Southwest Florida may result in a somewhat larger percent annual increase in residential use of energy than for the State as a whole. Overall, the average annual growth rate for the State in the 1970 's was 6.5%, but it is expected to fall to 4.3% in the 1980' s. The amount of fuel oil used in Florida in the 1980' s will decline from about 54% to 34%, and the amount of coal will increase from 17% to 47% (Flor- ida Electric Power Coordinating Group 1980). The contribution of natural gas is expected to decrease from 16% of the generated energy in 1979 to only about 1% at the end' of the decade. Because only one additional nuclear fueled gen- erating unit (Saint Lucie) is expected to be in service in the 1980' s, the percent contribution of nuclear energy to the State total is expected to decrease (Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group 1980). Eight of the nine proposed additions to or changes in steam-powered generating facilities in Southwest Florida in the 1980's will use coal as fuel. The only light oil unit, a combination turbine generating unit, will be put in service by the Florida Power Corporation in 1989. Three of the new units will be located in Hillsborough County and one will be in Pinellas County. The locations of the other five units have not yet been designated. The Florida "Ten-Year Plan" for electrical power generation and distribu- tion forecasts a capability to meet all needs for Florida and Southwest Florida. This capability is based on a complex network of intrastate and interstate transfers. This projection is almost totally dependent on the shipment of coal and oil from out-of-state sources. Telephone Three telephone companies serve Southwest Florida. The Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (located in Miami) is the largest; it has 100 exchanges and 10% of the main stations and trucks (Florida Public Service Com- mission 1981). The General Telephone Company of Florida (headquartered in Tampa) is second largest; in 1980, it had 24 exchanges and 24% of the number of main stations and trunks in the State. Southern Bell serves Monroe County with exchanges at Key Largo, Key West, and Marathon. Of the 24 exchanges operated by the General Telephone Company of Florida, 18 are located in Southwest Florida (Florida Public Service Commission 1981). Six are in Hillsborough County (Plant City, Tampa-central, Tampa-east, Tampa- north, Tampa-south, and Tampa-west), two in Manatee County (Bradenton and Palmetto), two in Pasco County (Hudson and Zephyrhills), three in Pinellas County (Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Tarpon Springs), and five in Sarasota County (Englewood, Myakka, North Port, Sarasota, and Venice). The other two telephone companies serving Southwest Florida are the Flor- ida Telephone Corporation and the United Telephone Company of Florida, both a4 headquartered in Altamonte Springs (Florida Public Service Commission 1981). The Florida Telephone Corporation has 34 exchanges, but only two of these are in Southwest Florida (Dade City and San Antonio, in Pasco County). The United Telephone Company has 30 exchanges. Of the 18 in Southwest Florida, three are in Charlotte County (Cape Haze, Port Charlotte, and Punta Gorda), five are in Collier County (Everglades, Immokalee, Marco Island, Naples, and North Naples), one is in DeSoto County (Arcadia), and nine are in Lee County (Boca Grande, Bonita Springs, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Lehigh Acres, North Fort Myers, Pine Island, and Sanibel-Captiva Islands). POTENTIAL ONSHORE IMPACTS OF OCS OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION No oil or gas is produced off the west coast of Florida, but a large discovery would have a major effect on onshore industrial and commercial development. During intense exploration, the influx of workers could cause competition for existing residential units and industrial sites. If produc- tion started, new residential construction probably would begin to meet the housing needs of OCS related workers. In addition, some of the manufacturing industries in the area probably would redirect their production to meet the needs of offshore oil and gas operations. Other industries would likely con- vert their operations to meet the new demands and a number of new support industries might locate in the principal community or communities serving the offshore operations. At worst, these developments could place a considerable strain on the community and on public services, and cause degradation of the natural environment. Recognizing this, Hoedecker stated that "potential envi- ronmental hazards of onshore development are greater than those of offshore development," and former Florida Attorney General Robert Shevin once recom- mended "that before offshore oil drilling was approved, tough restriction be placed on onshore development" (Hoedecker 1980). Only a few communities in Southwest Florida would have much new onshore development. Inland and coastal communities with inadequate harbors and channels (less than 18 to 25 ft deep) and inadequate dock space would be little affected (Calder 1978). The five-phase sequence of the development of offshore oil and gas, if it occurs, is (1) preliminary geophysical and geological surveys, (2) exploratory drilling, (3) development, (4) production, and (5) decline (Calder 1978). Geophysical surveys require few onshore support facilities, but exploratory drilling usually requires adequate docking space and harbors. If exploratory operations are on a large scale, suppliers of shore services and drilling- related equipment will locate in the port area and subsidiary businesses are likely to spring up. OCS oil and gas companies often choose to locate in smaller communities because of the high cost of land in urban areas. After discovery, oil and gas development could cause severe stress on the socioeconomic and natural environments (Calder 1978). The population increase could cause housing shortages and transportation, school, and hospital ser- vices would be strained. In the process, some valuable natural resources would be threatened. Care must be taken during the developmental phase to avoid overcommitting public facilities and services. After wells have become producing wells, the need for labor, facilities, and services would decline rather sharply. With 85 this in view, the following advance planning for offshore community develop- ment would be helpful, according to Myhra (1980): Recognize that socioeconomic problems may occur and be willing to do whatever it takes to hold them at a minimum. Create an impact mitigation task force, group or team. Develop an impact management plan. Inventory existing socioeconomic conditions at the site area. Determine the estimated influx of new workers and their dependents. Forecast the likely socioeconomic changes on the community. Translate those adverse impacts into new fiscal deficits. Provide appropriate funding and financing to mitigate the impacts. Monitor how well the impact management program is working out. Redirect the allocation of impact assistance where needed the most. Continue readjustment activities as long as necessary after construction is complete. Implementing these procedures (which were initially worked out for nuclear power plant construction site communities) would enable a community to strengthen what is considered as "one of the weakest links in the energy facility construction chain" (Myhra 1980). This would allow a community to mitigate many of the negative characteristics of "boomtown" development and take full advantage of the positive features that such growth can bring. 86 REFERENCES Calder, F. Offshore oil and natural gas: a gift from the sea or community burden? Florida environmental and urban issues. Vol. V, No. 6. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: FAU - FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Prob- lems; August 1978. Calonius, E. The Florida economy: eighty-one. Florida trend economic year- book 1981: the benefit and burden of Florida's population growth, St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Trend, Inc.; April 1981. Crew, D. Promoting rental housing: the Collier County experience (Florida environmental and urban issues, volume VII, number 3); Fort Lauderdale, FL: Florida Atlantic University & Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Issues; August 1978. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electrical Power Regulation. Power pooling in the southeast region. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; August 1981. Florida Chamber of Commerce. Directory of Florida industries, 1980. Talla- hassee, FL: Florida Department of Commerce; 1980. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council. Florida coastal zone: land use and ownership. Tallahassee, FL: Prepared by seven participating Florida universities and the Martin-Marietta Corporation; 1970. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Economic Development. Florida county comparisons/1980. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Com- merce; 1980. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Florida surface impoundment assessment, final report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Envi- ronmental Regulation; January 1980. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Computer printout of data on status of wastewater discharge for each county in the State and treatment capacity needs through the year 2000. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Depart- ment of Environmental Regulation; 1981. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group. 1980 ten-year plan. State of Flor- ida: electrical generating facilities, demand and energy, fuels. Talla- hassee, FL: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group; September 1980. Florida Public Service Commission. Statistics of the Florida electric utility companies. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Public Service Commission; 1980. Florida Public Service Commission. Comparative cost statistics, regulated industries: electric-gas-telephone-rail-water-sewer. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Public Service Commission; January 1981. Hager, K. & RuBino, R. Mobile home locations and trends in Calhoun County, Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University; 1978. 87 Hoedecker, Elizabeth A. The development of the State of Florida's outer con- tinental shelf policy. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, Office of the Governor; November 1980. Industrial Development Research Council. Industrial development reports. Atlanta, GA: Conway Publications; bi-monthly reports from 1977 through mid-1980. Levin, Deron. Southwest region: Florida Trend economic yearbook 1981: the benefit and burden of Florida's population growth. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Trend, Inc.; April 1981. Lochmoeller, D.C., et al. Industrial development handbook. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute; 1975. Miller, A. Florida trend economic yearbook 1981: the benefit and burden of Florida's population growth. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Trend, Inc.; April 1981. Myhra, D. Energy plant sites: community planning for large projects. At- lanta, GA: Conway Publications, Inc.; 1980. Thompson, R.G., et al. (eds.). Florida statistical abstract. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water resources study; northwest Florida region. Mobile, AL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; July 1978. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Northwest Florida Urban Study: summary report. Mobile, AL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; May 1980a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water resources study: Escambia-Yellow River Basins. Mobile, AL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; May 1980b. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of housing: 1950, Vol. I, Part 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1951. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1960 census of population, housing characteristics for states, cities, and counties. Vol. 1, Part 11, Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1961. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 census of population housing characteristics for states, cities, and counties. Vol. 1, Part 11, Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1971. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980 census of population and housing: Florida -- final population and housing unit counts. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1981a. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County business patterns, 1979: Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; March 1981b. 88 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Northwest Florida industrial water supply requirements. Mobile, AL: U.S. Corps of Engi- neers; 1979. U.S. Geological Survey. Industrial, irrigation, and other water needs. Mobile, AL: U.S. Corps of Engineers; 1979. 89 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS IN AGRICULTURE Dr. Frederick W. Bell Professor of Economics and Matthew W. Addison Research Associate Department of Economics Florida State University Tallahassee, Fl 32306 AGRICULTURE IN FLORIDA - AN OVERVIEW Agriculture in Florida has traditionally been a major source of income and employment. Employment in forest and agricultural production and agricul- tural support services, such as machinery sales and service, has risen from about 91,646 employees in 1963 to 127,589 in 1978. From 1954 to 1978, real agricultural income (1967 dollars) rose 145% ($769.0 million to $1.9 billion). Farm income includes cash receipts, government payments, non-money income, and other farm income. The warm climate and abundant rainfall has given Florida farmers an ad- vantage over many other states. The area of Florida is about 37.5 million acres of which 3.1 million acres are rivers, lakes, and other water areas. The land area available for farm, industrial, and urban use is about 34.4 mil- lion acres. In 1978, there were 13.4 million acres of farm land and 15.5 million acres of forests. The two together make up about 84% of Florida's land area. PRODUCTION TRENDS In 1978 Florida ranked Uth (Table 1) in the Nation in terms of cash receipts ($3.2 billion) from agricultural products (Greene et al . 1980). Cash receipts is income from the sale of agricultural products by the farmer to wholesalers and retailers. Excluding livestock production, Florida in 1978 ranked fifth nationally with total cash receipts of $2.4 billion (Greene et al . 1980). Prior to 1976, Florida's six major agricultural products were (1) oranges, (2) cattle and calves, (3) dairy products, (4) tomatoes, (5) grapefruit, and (6) forest products. After 1975, sugarcane surpassed grapefruit in value of cash receipts. A more precise classification of agri- cultural products is given in Table 2. Fami products are composed of field crops (vegetables, fruits, and nuts), greenhouse and nursery products, and livestock and forest products (Table 2). Unless otherwise stated, the term agriculture or forest products does not include commercial forestry. Cash receipts from farm products grown in Florida have increased substan- tially since the mid-1950's. Receipts in 1979 were about $3.9 billion in current (1978) dollars or $1.8 billion in real dollars (1967 = 100). The retail value of all agricultural and forest products was about $10.9 billion in 1979 according to the University of Florida (Economic data for Florida 90 Agriculture 1975-80). Crops are by far the most important farm income, comprising 50.4% ($5.5 billion) of the total retail value. Forest products contributed 27.5% ($3.0 billion) of the total retail value of farm products, livestock products contributed 14.1%, and farm products (e.g., turf, alliga- tors, catfish) contributed 8%. This pattern of product composition has remained relatively unchanged over the last two decades. The retail value of the major farm products are given in Table 3. Prior to 1970, a large percentage of Florida products such as livestock, grains, and milk has gone to local consumption and Florida has been a net importer of many types of produce. Citrus has long been an export crop for Florida, but in 1975-79 the State began exporting other agricultural products, which have grown steadily and will continue to be an important part of Flor- ida's economic base. Total agricultural exports to foreign countries exclud- ing forest products at the wholesale level were approximately $529 million in current dollars in 1979, up $245.4 million since 1975. Fruit and related pro- ducts have been the major export product constituting 52.8% ($279.4 million) of 1979 total foreign exports. Citrus and processed citrus products, predomi- nantly frozen orange juice concentrate (FOJC), make up the bulk of interstate and foreign fruit exports. In order of sales, the other foreign farm exports Table 1. Cash receipts (millions of dollars) and national ranking in paren- theses of Florida's major agricultural products in 1978 (Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences 1980). Cattle and Greenhouse Dairy Florida Field crops Oranges calves products products Tomatoes Total 2,383 (5) 908 (1) 358 (25) 271- (2) 247 (12) 189 (2) 3,239 (11) Table 2. Agricultural,, livestock, and forest product classification for Florida (Addison 1981). Vegetables Field crops Fruits and nuts Greenhouse Livestock Forest Tomatoes Sugar cane Oranges Chrysanthe- mums Sweetcorn Corn Grapefruit Gladiolus Potatoes Soybeans Temples Gypsophilia Peppers Peanuts Limes Statice Watermelons Tobacco Tangerines Orchids Cabbage Cotton Avocados Snap beans Pecans Cattle and calves Dairy Swine Eggs Poultry Honey Horses Pulp wood Sawlogs Veneer 91 Table 3. Retail value ($) of Florida agricultural and forest products (in thousands of current dollars) in 1975 and 1978 (Institute of Food and Agri- cultural Sciences 1980). Product 1975 1978 Crops Fruits and nuts Vegetables Field crops Nursery Total crops Livestock Meat animals Dairy Poultry and eggs Other Total livestock Other agriculture Forest products Total retail value ^Includes value of vegetables and field crops. Includes government payments, horses, game birds, alligators, catfish, and others. -- Data not immediately available. are vegetables ($67.8 million), soybeans and related products ($39.3 million), tobacco ($17.6 million), and feed grains ($16.4 million). A comparison of foreign agricultural exports for Florida and the United States for 1975 and 1979 are given in Table 4. Florida alone accounts for 26.8% of U.S. fruit exports. In 1975-79 the real value of Florida's foreign exports grew 38. U, whereas U.S. exports grew only 14.0%. Florida is currently exporting about 13.6% of the value of it's total agricultural products to foreign markets, and the amount is steadily growing. Agriculture exports account for 11.8% of Florida's foreign exports. In 1954-78, production of Florida agricultural products increased sub- stantially. For example, tomato production increased 237%; oranges, 91%; milk, 144%; and cattle and calves, 35%. The percentage changes of the State's major agricultural commodities in 1954-78 are given in Table 5. 92 1,985,248 1,327,684 1,265,881 556,350 2,012,968 677,808 5,135,163 6,319,416^ 388,955 395,947 270,278 126,198 745,006 411,528 317,169 56,653 1,181,378 1,530,356 851,070 859,941 1,714,285 3,000,000 8,881,896 11,709,713 Table 4. United States and Florida agricultural exports in millions of current dollars for fiscal years 1975 and 1979 (Greene et al . 1980). 1975 1979 Commodity U.S. Florida U.S. Florida Livestock products Meat animals 381.9 3.2 844.1 9.5 Dairy products 143.0 0.6 116.1 0.4 Poultry and eggs 112.0 2.6 368.1 9.9 Hides and skins 393.3 3.9 1,302.7 14.0 Lard and tallow 400.6 5.2 704.8 9.9 Crops Wheat 5 ,236.8 0.7 4,862.0 0.3 Feedgrains 4 ,858.3 14.6 7,026.1 16.4 Cotton 1 ,054.5 0.4 1,900.0 0.7 Cottonseed oil 213.5 0.1 197.5 0.1 Tobacco 897.3 20.3 1,292.2 17.6 Soybeans and products 3 ,376.0 21.0 7,515.0 39.3 Peanuts and oil 166.2 7.2 284.8 13.2 Vegetables and preparations 533.9 34.8 756.2 67.8 Fruits and preparations 674.6 141.3 1,042.4 279.4 Nuts and preparations 151.6 0.4 327.0 0.9 Other agriculture and fisheries Greenhouse and nursery 16.6 1.2 ^•^a 14.0* Fishery products 319.8 5.0 520.5* Other 1 ,632.9 21.1 2,550.6 35.1 Total 20 ,562.8 283.6 31,619.3 529.4 ^Figures for 1978. Florida's crops and livestock are produced by 35,100 farms and ranches plus a large network of support industries such as transportation, marketing, processing, and supply. Farms and ranches range from traditional small family or individually-owned operations to a few large-scale multimillion dollar cor- porate farms. According to the 1978 Census of Agriculture, individual or family farms made up 83% of total farms as opposed to 6.3% for corporate farms. This pattern has remained relatively stable over the last decade. Wilcox et al . (1974) concluded that large corporate farms are not displacing the private individual or family farms. They contend that many of the corpor- ate farms are owned and operated by families and individuals and still exhibit the characteristics of family farms. 93 The "real" cash value of Florida's agriculture refers to trends which have been adjusted for overall inflation in the economy. Production has expanded (Table 5), real prices have fallen, and the real value of production has increased. Although the increase in farm prices did not keep pace with inflation, the expansion in production offset the declining real prices resulting in a rise in the real value of agricultural production. The strong demand for Florida's agricultural products coupled with rising productivity has increased employment in Florida. Although production has increased, the number of farms and farmland has declined. A detailed analysis of this change is reported later in this report. The number of farms from 1954 to 1979 decreased from 57,543 to 35,100 (39%), and the land area in farms declined from 18.1 million acres to 13.4 million acres (26%). These acreages include cropland, pasture, woodland, and other noncul tivated land. In 1954-78, the area of cropland increased 32.9%, whereas the area of pasture and woodlands fell 69.4% (Table 6). Acreage in crops has fallen for corn, cotton, eggplant, oats, peanuts, strawberries, tobacco, tomatoes and others, and has increased for celery, sweetcorn, escarole, green peppers, and lettuce. The decline in agricultural land area in Florida can best be explained by considering other factors of production such as capital, labor, fertilizer, and energy. The increased demand for land was brought about primarily by the great increase in population and its attendant needs, which has raised the opportunity cost of holding land. Opportunity cost is value of the best potential rent or revenue foregone by not renting or selling farmland. Because the price of land has risen faster than wages and the cost of capital, farms used less land and more labor and capital. For example, in 1975-79 land and building prices rose 53.6%, machinery prices rose 46.6%, and wages rose 38% (for the trend in these prices see Table 10). Table 5. Percentage change of agricultural commodity production from 1954 to 1978 (Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual field and crop summaries 1967-78, and Vegetable summaries, 1954, 1960-80). Commodity Percentage decrease Commodi ty Percentage increase Potatoes 3 Celery 12 Hogs 16 Oats 18 Tobacco 20 Snap beans 50 Cotton 84 Soybeans 2,658 Sugarcane 650 Peanuts 260 Tomatoes 237 Corn (grain and feed) 227 Milk 144 Sweetcorn 141 Green peppers 109 Oranges 91 94 Table 6. The number of fanns and the area (thousands of acres) of farm lands and use in intermittent years, 1954-78 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of Agriculture annual summaries for 1954-79; Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual field and crop summary 1979). Number Area Land Pasture and Other Year of farms in farms Cropland woodland land use 1954 57,543 18,162 3,398 9,853 4,910 1959 45,100 15,237 3,401 7,672 4,164 1964 40,542 15,412 3,581 7,257 4,573 1969 35,586 14,032 3,774 4,817 5,441 1974 32,466. 35,100^^ 13,199 3,722 4,019 5,459 1978 13,435 4,519 3,015 5,901 ^Not fully comparable for all years because of differences in definition of a farm and of cropland used for pasture. "^Data for 1979. The introduction of new machinery has made the cultivation of large farms more efficient and less costly per acre than smaller farms. Consequently, many small farms are absorbed as the demand for large-scale operations increases. This trend explains why the average acreage per farm steadily increased in 1954-78. Many of the innovations that have contributed to the phenomenal growth in farm production and farming methods have aroused public concern; the increase in the application of chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides have caused water pollution in some areas of Florida. This topic will be discussed in detail later in this report. The increase in farming technology in recent years in the United States has caused a decline in farm employment (Greene et al . 1980). Florida is an exception. Employment in agriculture has increased because many of Florida's crops can not yet be cultivated or cropped mechanically. Any increase in demand for farm products, such as oranges and grapefruit, creates an increase in the demand for labor and other nonmechanical inputs. The exceptions are the animal industries and some field crops that use mechanization as a substi- tute for labor. MAJOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS Citrus and Other Fruits Citrus fruits, the State's main agricultural product, accounts for over 30 percent of all farm cash receipts (Greene et al . 1980). Florida is the Nation's largest supplier of oranges and is among the world's largest fruit 95 producers. Other fruits are grapefruit, lemons, limes, avocados, mangos, peaches, and berries. When compared to citrus fruits, other fruit crops are relatively small and few are exported. Most citrus fruit is not marketed fresh as are other fruits, but is processed into frozen concentrate. In 1954-78 the cash receipts of citrus crops increased sharply, but total acreage fell. Loss of citrus fruit acreage was due primarily to the conversion of land to phosphate mining and urbanization. Vegetables Florida excel Is in other agricultural products and between October and June is the Nation's leading supplier of many fresh vegetables. Their abun- dance in order of importance are tomatoes, sweetcorn, celery, potatoes, and peppers. The State is ranked second in the Nation in the production of toma- toes. Florida's unique climate permits the growth of both cool weather and warm weather vegetables at the same time. The percentage growth in vegetable production has matched the growth in the State's population until recently. This was due largely to the conversion of farm acreage to urbanization and a decline in yield per acre. The implica- tion of this trend is that a greater share of vegetable production is consumed locally and less is exported. Nursery Products The newest and fastest growing of Florida's agricultural sectors are nursery and ornamental horticulture products such as gladiolus and foliage. In this regard, Florida ranks second in the Nation. In 1978 estimated cash receipts were about $271.1 million in real dollars (1967 = 100), up nearly 18% since 1974. Florida is the world's leading producer of foliage plants, accounting for over 75% of the U.S. production. Much of Florida's cut foliage is exported to florists in Europe and Canada. Florida is second in production among the states for flowering plants, gladiolus, chrysanthemums, sypeophila, poinsettas, orchids, and other similar plants. Florida is the Nation's sole supplier of some of the 300 varieties of plants in this industry (Greene et al. 1980). Animal Husbandry Animal husbandry is another major sector of agriculture. Excluding forestry, it is the most land intensive sector and is the fastest changing agricultural industry. Rising land values have spurred research to increase productivity by using new feeds, nutrients, and animal breeds. The value ($358 million) of Florida's cattle and calf production in 1978 was second only to oranges in the State and was ranked 25th in the Nation. The egg and poul- try industry's cash receipts were $184.2 million, and dairy products were $247.3 million. According to the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Serv- ice, annual dairy summaries (1970-80); poultry summaries (1960-80); livestock summaries (1960-80), Florida imports beef, lamb, pork, milk, and poultry to meet its needs, but exports eggs. ^ Forestry Forests, the major land use in the State, occupy 15.5 million acres, or 45% of the State's land. In 1978, real cash receipts of forest products were about $61.4 million. Real income increased 18% in 1975-78. Over 50% of Flor- ida's forest land is controlled by non-industrial users (noncorporate owners). The bulk of commercial forests and wood processing and manufacturing plants is located in north and west Florida. Forest products have the largest retail markup of any agricultural products, i.e., 2,500% from the tree to the con- sumer. Sawlogs and pulpwood are the major products from the State's timber industry. Although this study is concerned largely with the socioeconomic aspects of agriculture, there are other considerations. Many other jobs, businesses, and other sources of income stem from agriculture. Examples are the feed, fertilizer, and machinery industries that support farming and processing ind- ustries, transportation, papermills, services and industries, and others that derive their existence from Florida ranchers and farmers. These subjects are discussed in the following section. AGRICULTURE IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA The coastal region of Southwest Florida is comprised of ten counties with a land area of 5.9 million acres or approximately 15.8% of the State's total land area. According to the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Southwest Florida is among the State's principal citrus, vegetable, beef cattle, and egg producing areas. The northern half of the region from Pasco County to Sarasota County is a major producer of tomatoes, peppers, sweetcorn, cabbage, lettuce, celery, bush and pole beans, oranges, beef cattle, dairy cattle, and eggs. This area also supports numerous processing plants and citrus concentrate processing and transportation facilities. The southern half of Southwest Florida, from Charlotte to Monroe County, is a major producer of sweetcorn, cucumbers, eggplant, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, and watermelons. In 1978, Southwest Florida contributed 2.1 million acres or 15.9% of the State's agricultural acreage (Florida Statistical Abstract 1980). The land for the most part is low and flat. Drainage is required because swamps and marshes comprise much of the land. The area is almost semitropical ; average daily temperatures range from a low 50° to 60°F in the winter to a high of 80° to 90°F during the rainy season (June through September). The two basic soil types in Southwest Florida are apparent by the diver- sity of agricultural crops. Pasco and northern Hillsborough Counties have gently sloping hills, sandy soil, and moderately good drainage, whereas, Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota have sandy soil and poor drainage. Sandy soil is excellent for citrus fruits and many vegetable crops. Lee, Collier, and Monroe Counties have a serious drainage problem. Much of the soil is peat and muck. 97 LAND AND CROP CHARACTERISTICS The climate, soil, and topography make Southwest Florida a major producer of many of Florida's agricultural products. Among the counties, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties rank in the top ten in the State. The ten counties have considerable potential for further agricultural development. The 2.1 million acres in farm production is only about 50% of the potential land available for farming. According to a Soil Conservation Service estimate in 1977, Florida had 1.4 million acres of prime agricultural land, and 1.2 million acres more suited for citrus and vegetable crops. Prime land is the best suited for field farming. It is generally flat or gently sloping land with good drainage and subject to little or no erosion. Farming on this land is the least costly per acre and consequently exhibits the high- est yield. The majority of prime farmland is located in north Florida. Only Pasco and Hillsborough Counties have prime acreage, and it is only 5.2% of the State total . Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yield of citrus fruit, avocados, mangos, papayas, lettuce, cabbage, radishes, celery, carrots, toma- toes, cucumbers, and potatoes. Except for Monroe County, all counties have unique farmland. The area of citrus fruit groves among the counties are Hillsborough, 38,263 acres; DeSoto, 33,882 acres; Pasco, 33,367 acres; Manatee, 14,730 acres; Charlotte, 6,100 acres; Collier, 5,975 acres; Lee, 5,384 acres; Pinellas, 3,205 acres, and Sarasota, 1,604 acres. The total is 12.1% of the State's citrus fruit acreage. The nature of the land, especially that which is unique, is important because conflicting uses such as for OCS oil and gas development and residential development may replace some of the fruit crop acreage. Unless productivity of unique lands increases substantially, the prices of products produced there may rise. FARM NUMBERS, SIZE, AND VALUE The trend in agriculture is towards fewer and larger farms. The average farm in Southwest Florida is and has been larger than the average Florida farm (Table 7). In 1954, the average area per farm in Southwest Florida was 382 acres whereas the State average was 316 acres. In 1978, the average acreage per farm in Southwest Florida declined 8.8% to 348 acres, and the average size farm in Florida declined 3.6% to 304 acres. In 1954, the 8,677 farms and ranches in Southwest Florida accounted for about 15% of the State's farm land. These farms and ranches covered 3.3 million acres. In 1954-78, the number of farms in Southwest Florida declined from 8,677 to 6,127 (about 30%). In 1978, the area of farm land was about 2.1 million acres, a decline of 35.6% since 1954 (Table 8). The number of farms (including ranches) and farm acreage has decreased faster in Southwest Florida than in the State as a whole. In 1954, Southwest 98 la u ■o •^ •I- t. t_ en o«t r— U- <+- o ■4-> 1/) SJ 3 3 (/) f C ■•-» 3 OQ 0) O C J- •r- o; = ,^«^ = 10 o 0) o y c t. a. B i. C n) •I- Q. la • 0) CO t. • 0)00 D>r>«. S- i-H 0) (O c: — ^ »♦- ^ IT) 00 r-- en 3 CM O «* CO •— < t-H •— I ^ - — -CTi 00 *1" CM 'n CM CTi t— I » — «0^ ^ CM ^ O CTii— i^Oi-Hi— iir)vocMp-~CTi CO CO Kj-1— iir>Lr)O^Lnco<-«x)Lr) r-~ lo oocMcr»co^or^«— '«3-com -< #> •» #1 #» CM 1-H VD «*■ in 00 «* CO If) 1— t vo — -o r~- r~- r~ •>!— I in o CM '—•CO CO •> r- o in O) in c 3 O o loinr^incocMr^^t— 100 e3^^r-»co<— ICO co>— •« 00 in CO r-~ - — >o^ ^ oo ,— iCM^i— i"d-«d-cviCMr~.r-~ COVDCMCT>mt--.«;l-COOO ini— IIOIOCMIO COCTiCT) I— ii-Hinr-coio <— •cvj'-' CM <-• 00 CM CT) O ^ V£> 1— t in '— .ID O^ CTi • "lOCMi-HOOOO"— <0«* CMCOt^CNjincococOi-Hio cMLnoooo<£)CT><£>oovO'— • T-(CO«3-lO .-H«*COcO "VO CM <— I CO CO O O >— ' cocor-~CMincoincOT-HLn ^«^Lncrio>cot~~CMioin r^ooocor~.Lni-H<— i«^c>j .— ico^cMr-~ oinco CO «-H cn ^ in ^ CM o ^ '—■CO '— -^ •> ",— tCTiOOOO^OOiniO CMCOCTii— («^co^cor-~Ln oomLncMoo«*»-Hv£>oocr> ^■— ino<— icoin^ I— ti— iin^^oo oi^co 00 in ID in in CO o I-H CM ID »D ID CM CO cn CO VD 00 in in CO «d- O 00 00 CO CO CT> CM CT) «d- 00 in M •« VD o ■>* t^ 00 ID CO CO CO ^ o CO o »— 1 «• * VD in *i- CM VD 00 I— 1 CO 00 t~~ CO r~~ ^ VD in n «i 00 r^ in •o OJ a> O) o s- 4-> S- O O to I- ,— o .— (O 1 — oo 1 — tt» to (W O) >0 ■!-> OJ O) 1— o 4-> O O >— to (O S- u « _ . C C to C 1- j_0'80<0-'-(0 OOQtE—IZrSZO-OuC/) o to c 3 o c_> X) s- o 99 l-H (O .— < I — Si en •" = 2! ■O 3 O S_ U-et ■(-> >4- (/) O 0) .c +-> 3 o 3 CO c I— 1 C30 CM t— < «a- ^ r-. 00 r^ A A n M A ^ •« «\ «t *l A cn vo CO 00 1^ LT) 1^ r^ lO t-H ^ »X> •— ' * — 1 T— < o ^ O r-l CO CO CO I— 1 CO ro CO .— 1 CO OO CM .— 1 ^ CM CO Ln vo 00 o cn o 00 cn CO f— 1 ir> O 1— 1 I— 1 r^ cn lo 1 — 1 CM CO .-H VO ^ LO CO •— 1 tX) lO 00 ^ V£> Vi3 CO «t #1 •« M •« M ««»««« * •» f-1 f-H O 00 VD CO oo LT) cn o (Ti 1^ r^ 00 in CM r^ 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 CO cn I— 1 CM CM CO .—1 CO CO C^J .— 1 I— 1 CM r-.^t— ir-»cn^vocnr-~co Oi— (i^voldvo i-«^r^ c cn ^ r~. cn *£> CM CO CO CO oc 00 o^ »— * ^ »— 1 o^ I— I O r--. r^ ^ t— I CM CO CM CO •— I CO 00 r-i cn CO CM ^ CO .— I o^CTioom^D'— 'Lor^o co«3-t O t^ o cn vo ixj 1^ CM CO CM r^ .—I CM n cn cx) cn LO ^ lO CO .— I CM CM ID CO CM Lf) vo 00 cn cn CO o 00 io«*.-ioocncM^r^cMoo LfJCMVOlOOr— s- 10 (o ■)-> L. O 0) (O ■•-> 00)0^ (ULO 4->OOi — LO J-i — Oi — (OS-U s- (O 3 C3- ■o ro c o o o o c o -o a> 10 ■M C o T3 o 5 o c o •^ 4-> O (U •■-J O {- Q. • C I— t O 00 •r- r-t O 3 c T3 o O (/) t- O. ■5 ■o ^^ < (O t. X3 3 c 4J ^— -^ 00 o o CO o «d- o 00 «i- Ln •k * A • t— 1 t-t VO rH Ln o CO en CO o o 1— < ^-1 CM o o IC 1^ CM o o r-- in «3- #1 A A A 00 ^ r^ .— 1 ^ CO .—1 CO CO M CO «i- vo o cn 00 CvJ r^ o I— 1 ID ^ CO o r^ r^ CO #1 A A A Ln 00 CT> l-H ^ o cn o CM A o «!l- o o lO 00 CVi in o r^ ID ID t— 1 o ID r^ CM A M A A CO I— 1 l-H f-l «d- CO 00 VO CM A r-^ CO I— 1 o CO in r^ en o CO cn cn o o in 00 t-i M A A A 1^ in l-H .— 1 CO in ^ p-» C>J A lO CM in O cn in 00 CM O CO cn «i- O O in 00 >-• * A A A ■^ cn CM l-H CO CO CM r^ CM A CVJ CVJ 1— < o .— ( yD 00 I— 1 o CO O CO ^ o ■* CO 00 en ID f— 1 ^— ^ 1/1 1/1 ,^— N ■o t- O in o •t- +J OJ o S- r- O E ^— ' C71+-> > c 0) 4-> c o T3 o cn 3 l-H O «>0 ^— •r— J- O o C «4- 3 O lO O c o 10 (U +-> o o 5- o o W1 t- 0) Q-Qi ,-^ i. CM (U 4-> +J O c 3 o T3 ^— ^— 3 r— O 0) CQ 1- cn . (Tj cn o CO o CM o CM o CM o CM O o o CM o en ^ O in xt CM A A A A o ID CM l-H »3- «d- ^ O CM M I— <0 X( +-> (DOS- I— O E 01-»-> lO ••- 3 c> — cn S- O T- O) CD O I— S CQ UJ 121 REFERENCES Addison, M. Florida State University, unpublished data, 1981. Available from Florida State University, Department of Economics, Tallahassee, FL. Bell, F. Florida State University, unpublished data, 1981. Available from Florida State University, Department of Economics, Tallahassee, FL. Bell, F.; Addison, M. Determinants of farm land uses and tenure, an empirical analysis of Florida. Tallahassee, FL: 1981 (unpublished). Barn^.tt, H.J.; Morse, C. Scarcity and growth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press; 1963. 359 p. Covery, C. Farm labor in the decade ahead. Selected speeches from agricul- tural growth in an urban age conference. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1975. 82 p. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual dairy summaries 1970 to 1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1971-81. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual poultry summaries 1960 to 1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1961-81. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual livestock summaries 1960 to 1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1961-81. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual citrus summaries 1960 to 1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1961-81. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual vegetable summaries 1954, and 1960 to 1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1961- 81. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Annual field and crop summaries 1967, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1978, 1979. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1961-81. Florida House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture. The small farm, a holistic policy perspective: State policy options vis-a-vis the small farm (as a component of agriculture structure); Tallahassee, FL: April 1981a. 23 p. Florida House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture. Agricultural lands in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: March 1981b. 10 p. 122 Florida Sulfur Oxides Study, Inc. Florida sulfur oxides study. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Environmental Regulation; 1978. 252 p. Florida Statistical Abstract. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980. Greene, E.; Mathis, K. ; Polopolus, L.; Holt, J. Economic data for Florida agriculture, 1975-1980. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1980. 152 p. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Agricultural growth in an urban age. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1980. 230 p. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (editors). Agriculture in an urban age. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1975; 115 p; 1980. 211 p. Irland, L.C. Is timber scarce? The economics of a renewable resource. Bulle- tin 83; New Haven, CN: Yale University Press; 1981. 47 p. Loehman, E.; Hsiao, K. An input output analysis of the Florida economy and the role of agriculture, 1963 and 1970. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; January 1979. 236 p. Thesis. Miernyk, W. The elements of input-output analysis. New York: Random House; 1966. 125 p. Salathe, L. Household expenditure patterns in the United States; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; April 1979. 23 p. Seneca, J.; Tausig, M. Environmental economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishers; 1979. 379 p. Smallwood, D.; Balylock, J. Importance of household size and income on food spending patterns. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; February 1975. 18 p. Smerdon, E.T. Energy for agriculture; selected speeches from agricultural growth in an urban age conference. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1975. 82 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Resource Bulletin. Washing- ton, DC: 1969. 23 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Resource Bulletin. Washing- ton, DC: 1979. 31 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Census of agriculture. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; Annual summaries 1954-81. Ward, R. The economics of Florida's FCOJ imports and exports: an econometric study. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; Tallahassee, FL: 1979. 156 p. 123 Ward, R. ; Tilley, D. Time varying parameters with random components: the orange juice industry. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; Chapel Hill, NC: 1979. 9 p. Water Resources Management Council. OBERS, 1972 pages 53, 54. Water Resources Management 1969 and 1979 (forestry). Wilcox, W. ; Cochrane, W. Herdt, R. Economics of American agriculture. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1974. 504 p. 124 MINERAL AND OIL RESOURCES Andrew A. Dzurik Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 INTRODUCTION Florida is the world's leading producer of phosphate and ships phosphate products worldwide. It imports large amounts of refined and finished petro- leum products, primarily from U.S. oil companies. In addition to phosphate, major minerals produced in Florida are petroleum, limestone, titanium, zircon, earth concentrates, and cement. This paper focuses on the mineral production of Southwest Florida in Mon- roe, Collier, Lee, DeSoto, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Pinellas, Hills- borough, and Pasco Counties. A historical and geological perspective is pro- vided, together with current and projected production of minerals. In addi- tion to information on mineral production, related issues such as employment, value of shipments, and potential impacts of mineral production are discussed. This information should be useful for environmental planning and to public and private agencies and individuals. Emphasis is placed on phosphate production in the region and on the facilities potentially needed for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil production. Although there is modest onshore production, there have been no offshore discoveries; however, potential discoveries war- rant planning for possible onshore impacts. Consequently, much of this paper provides generic information on OCS oil and gas development and their poten- tial impacts. Nonfuel mineral production in Florida contributes materially to its gross product and has increased rapidly since 1940. The value of production in- creased from about $15 million in 1940 to almost $109 million in 1955, an in- crease of 730%. Between 1960 and 1977 the value of production rose from about $177 million to $1.7 billion, an increase of 815%. The rapid increase can be attributed largely to the discovery and production of petroleum in the Jay field in Northwest Florida. By 1978, Florida was the sixth largest nonfuel mineral producer in the United States, and its value ranked ahead of that of the traditional mining States of Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. In 1978, mineral production (excluding fuels) was valued at over $1.0 billion. Phosphate rock was the leading mineral commodity followed by petroleum, cement, and stone (crushed limestone, dolomite, and shell-rock) (U. S. Department of the Interior 1978). Florida not only ranked first in the Nation in the production of phos- phate rock, it also ranked first in titanium concentrates and zircon, second in fullers earth and rare earth concentrates, and sixth in stone. In 1978, phosphate rock contributed over half (over $600 million) of the State's total nonfuel mineral value, followed by cement ($110 mill ion), and stone ($118 mil- lion). The total value of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas was $709,053,000, about 39% of the value of all minerals. In terms of the State's 125 economy, the principal mineral products in order of value are phosphate rock, crude petroleum, and limestone. The ten county area of Southwest Florida is prominent in fuel and nonfuel mineral production. The nonfuel minerals produced are phosphate, limestone, cement, sand and gravel, and oyster shell. Phosphate is by far of greatest value. DeSoto, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties are estimated to contain 442 million metric tons of phosphate reserves, which is about 13% of all known reserves in North America. About one- third of the phosphate rock is shipped out of the State, either to foreign or domestic destinations, for further pro- cessing into final products. In 1978, the leading export from Tampa Port (the third ranked port in the nation in terms of export tonnage) was raw phosphate rock to be used for fertilizer. REGIONAL GEOLOGY INLAND 2 Florida is the second largest (58,600 mi ) State in the southeast. It lies entirely within the coastal plain province, a major physiographic divi- sion of the United States. It is underlain by sedimentary rock with a thick- ness of more than 1,200 m (4,000 ft). The surface mantle over much of the State is composed of soils and sands up to 61 m (200 ft) deep (Calver 1957). The State has a variety of mineral resources and industries (Figures 1 and 2). The counties of Southwest Florida are underlain by a thick sequence of sedimentary layers. Beds older than Late Miocene do not crop out in Southwest Florida. The Late Miocene is represented by the Tamiami Formation of undeter- mined thickness. Pliocene deposits are unknown and the Pleistocene is repre- sented by the Caloosahatchee Marl and the overlying Fort Thompson Fomiation. Average thickness of the Pleistocene formation is between 8 m (25 ft) and 23 n or 75 ft (DuBar 1962). Below those formations, which tend to be exposed, are formations of the earlier Hawthorn and Tampa Miocenes. Series below the Mio- cene include the Oligocene, represented by the Ocala Limestone, Avon Park, Lake City, and Oldsmar formations (Florida Department of Administration 1978). All of Southwest Florida lies within the Southern or Distal Zone of the Coastal Plain Province (White 1970). The basic geology of the region consists of relatively young sedimentary formation, with most of the coastal lowlands covered by unconsolidated marine and estuarine terrace deposits of the Pleis- tocene or more recent age. Most of the region is covered by sand and clay that have relatively limited economic value. Large areas in the southwest are covered by valuable phosphate and peat reserves. The mineral industry in Southwest Florida is supported largely by phos- phate production and modest amounts of petroleum. Onshore oil and gas produc- tion is confined largely to the Sunniland Field in Collier County. Oil and gas production in the southwest may be attributed to lower crustaceous lime- stone (Trinity Age) from the Mesozoic Era (Babcock 1964). The producing zone of this formation has been named Sunniland and is at a depth of about 3,505 m (11,500 ft) (Calver 1957). 126 ..:^^s^c^ MINERAL RESOURCES D Limestone Sand shell "coquina ". sometimes mixed with marl or clay Phosphatic sands and clays, limestones, and fullers earth J5^ Dolomite Phosphate Sand clay and limestone Sand with clay and kaolin Figure 1. Florida mineral resources (Wood and Fernald 1974). 127 A A A Sand and Gravel Pit B Peal Producer C Limestone Quarry 0 Dolomite Quarry E Clay Mine F Kaolin Mine G Fullers Earlti Mine H Petroleum Field 1 Phosphate, Land Pebble Mine J Phosphate. Solt Rock Mine K Heavy Mineral Sand Mine L Portland Cement Plant M Lime Kiln .•'*•..• Figure 2. Florida mineral industries (Wood and Fernald 1974) 128 Natural rock containing one or more phosphate minerals (usually calcium phosphate) is generally referred to as phosphate rock. Phosphate rock is nei- ther constant in composition nor occurrence and consists of a variable mixture of calcium phosphates and other minerals. X-ray studies have shown that the dominant phosphate mineral in Florida deposits is fluor-apatite found in the extensive bedded deposits of marine origin. Studies by the United States Geo- logical Survey (USGS) have shown that the phosphates of the Bone Valley forma- tion and the Hawthorn fonnation are of marine origin (Calver 1957). These deposits are sedimentary beds of phosphate pebbles, sand, and clay located in Hillsborough and nearby counties. The hard rock phosphate deposits, on the other hand, were formed by weathering of surface rocks, and the deposition of phosphate as replacement for limestone is not of marine origin. OFFSHORE Hydrocarbon-bearing formations in the Gulf of Mexico are generally asso- ciated with sub-seabed vertical salt movements that form salt domes. Under the weight of the overlying beds, salt is squeezed upwards, piercing sedimen- tary beds, and arching. Those that are closer to the seabed surface form into domes. The domes are typically topped by caprock. Oil and gas accumulates along the flanks of these salt domes (U.S. Department of the Interior 1980a). The West Florida Shelf and Slope extends from the DeSoto Canyon in the Gulf of Mexico eastward to The Straits of Florida in the Atlantic Ocean. Geo- logically, it is considered the submerged extension of peninsular Florida. Interest in Southwest Florida has been scattered in areas known as the Florida Middle Ground, Tarpon Springs, the Elbow, Saint Petersburg, and Charlotte Har- bor. Salt domes and anticlines within these areas are the principal explora- tory drilling targets of industry seeking oil and gas fields. Industry's present interest in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is focused on the Howell Hook and Pulley Ridge areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. Both of these areas are south of parallel 26°, about 161 km (100 miles) west of Fort Myers in Lee County. It is theorized that a continuation of the geophys- ical and geological characteristics in the Sunniland basin extend to the Outer Continental Shelf, and that oil and gas resources there may be in commercial quantity. Recently there has been speculation that an abundance of phosphate lies in the Gulf of Mexico's continental shelf waters. Scientists from the Univer- sity of South Florida believe that phosphate deposits may extend from the City of Apalachicola to the Keys. The heaviest concentration appears to be between 16 km (10 miles) and 96 km (60 miles) off the coast of Clearwater. In June 1981 two USGS research vessels conducted additional studies on the phosphate potential of the Gulf of Mexico (Tallahassee Democrat 1981). THE MINERAL INDUSTRY Minerals that are of economic importance in Southwest Florida are phos- phate, petroleum, peat, limestone, cement, and sand. Other than phosphate and petroleum, peat is perhaps the most important mineral. Major peat deposits are the Everglades, and Corkscrew Marsh. The mining of peat historically 129 falls into three eras. First, muck and peat areas were drained for agricul- tural cultivation early in this century. Second, peat was used as an energy source. In 1905, the first plant for the conversion of peat to briquets was constructed. Ideas for the use of peat for fuel prevailed into the 1920's. The conversion of peat to fuel now is too costly. Third, peat is used primar- ily for humus and fertilizer. Between 1917 and 1945, 200,000 tons of 50 per- cent air-dry peat were mined (Davis 1946). A mineral which has recently gained economic importance is uranium, a by- product of the phosphate industry. Areas that are rich in phosphate often contain relatively high concentrations of uranium. Several other minerals are scattered throughout Southwest Florida, but are not important. COUNTY PROFILES The amount and value of most minerals produced in Southwest Florida are not available from publications open to the public. Specific data by county and, in the case of phosphate for the State, are withheld so as not to compro- mise the competitive positions of individual producers and operators. In a few instances figures were obtained. For example, in 1965 phosphate produc- tion in Hillsborough County was valued at $27,344,000 or 19% of the total value ($141,258,000) of mineral production for the State (U. S. Department of the Interior 1965) . In 1978, oil and gas production contributed $42,753,000 to the economy of Southwest Florida. This amount was 6% of the total oil and gas production for the State and 2% of the State's total mineral production (U. S. Department of the Interior 1978). Limited profiles for each county in Southwest Florida based largely on 1972 data are given in the following subsections (U. S. Department of the Interior 1960, 1970, 1975). Charlotte County No data are available. Coll ier County In 1972, petroleum was the most valuable mineral produced, followed by limestone and natural gas. The 18 mineral producing establishments employed about 1,000 workers. The payroll was about $1.1 million, which added $4.2 million to the State's economy. Capital expenditures were $1.7 million. Seventeen establishments, all in oil and gas extraction, employed between 1 to 19 employees. One establishment in nonmetallic mineral mining employed between 20 and 99 employees. DeSoto County DeSoto County reported one establishment in oil and gas extraction. No other data were available. 130 Hill sborouqh County Cement, followed by phosphate, oyster shell, and gems were the most valu- able minerals produced. In 1967 and 1972 there were 9 and 10 establishments, respectively, in the minerals industry. About 500 workers were employed in minerals industries in 1967 representing a payroll of $3.1 million. In the same year, mineral industries added $14.3 million to the State's economy. Of the 10 establishments reported in 1972, 8 were in nonmetallic mineral mining and 2 in oil and gas extraction. Lee County Limestone, oyster shells, and gems, in that order, were the most valuable minerals produced. In 1972, several establishments employing between 1 and 19 workers were reported. Of these, 4 were nonmetallic mineral mining and 3 were oil extraction. Manatee County Cement and stone were the most valuable minerals. In 1972, four nonme- tallic mineral mining establishments employed between 1 and 19 workers. Monroe County Limestone was the most valuable mineral. In 1974 and 1975 mineral pro- duction was reported to be $1,296,000 and $881,000, respectively. Two estab- lishments, employing between 1 and 19 workers, were involved with oil and gas extraction. Pasco County In 1974 and 1975, the value of mineral production (mostly stone) was $611,000 and $343,000, respectively. In 1972, one establishment in nonmetal- lic mining employed between 1 and 19 workers. Pinellas County In 1972, there were 18 mining establishments. Twelve were in stone pro- duction and six were in oil and gas extraction. Sarasota County In 1972, two sand and gravel mineral industry establishments employed between 1 and 19 workers, one establishment employed between 20 and 99 employ- ees. Two establishments were in oil and gas extraction and one in nonmetallic mining. PHOSPHATE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION HISTORY OF PHOSPHATE MINING Phosphate mining in central Florida dates back to the 1880' s when large quantities of phosphatized vertebrate fossils were discovered along the Peace 131 River. Mining of these deposits was by hand labor and production was low (Canterbury 1978). By 1888, however, production shifted from river deposits to land-pebble deposits discovered in Bone Valley, about 25 miles east of Tampa. Production was 2,700 metric tons in 1888, 275,500 metric tons in 1892, 680,000 metric tons in 1900, 3.3 million metric tons in 1930, and 36 million metric tons in 1975 (Hoppe 1976; Canterbury 1978). As the demand for fertilizer grew and technology advanced, the volume and efficiency of recovery increased. Nevertheless, the phosphate industry in Florida is characterized by a small number of producers because of the large capital investment required to mine phosphate (Canterbury 1978). The ten major phosphate companies in Florida produced 80% of the U.S. total in the 1950's and 85% in the 1960's. In the 1970's, 15 companies mined over 95% of the nation's phosphate rock (Canterbury 1978). PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION Three Southwest Florida counties fall within the 5-county Central Florida Phosphate District, an area of approximately 5,180 km (2,000 mi^) (U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency 1978). This area, sometimes referred to as the Pebble Phosphate District, or Bone Valley, is one of the world's largest sources of phosphorite or amorphous phosphate rock (Figure 3). The rock occurs in sedimentary deposits of marine origin. Chemical analysis of phosphate rock are reported as percent phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5), tricalcium phosphate (CA3PO4), or bone phosphate of lime (BPL). One percent BPL is equivalent to 0.46 P2O5. Fertilizers manufactured from triple superphosphate and diammonium phosphate have about 46% P2O5 (Wilbur Smith and Associates 1980). The production of the Bone Valley phosphate industry in Florida in 1976 accounts for about 80% of U.S. production and 33% of the world production. In Southwest Florida, Hillsborough, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties produce the most phosphorous. The principal activities associated with the phosphate industry are mining, beneficiation, chemical and nonchemical processing, and mineral transportation. The standard mining practice in the Florida land-pebble phos- phate fields is to remove the overburden and mine the phosphate matrix with electric powdered drag lines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978). The overburden is typically quartz, sand, and clay averaging 6 m (20 ft) in thickness. In a typical 1-year operation, 162 ha (400 acres) of land are mined and 9.9 million m-^ (13 million yd-^) of overburden and 6.9 million m^ (9 million yd3) of matrix are removed. In the Bone Valley area in 1976, about 2,000 ha (4,940 acres) were mined (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978). The phosphate industry currently owns either the land or mineral rights to areas with enough phosphate deposits to continue the present rate of produc- tion beyond the year 2000 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978). After the area is mined, land reclamation for strip-mine areas begins to show effects within 2 to 3 years, but the reclamation of slime-holding ponds, an integral part of the phosphate strip-mining process, may take as long as 10 years. In 1979, the following companies engaged in phosphate mining in South- west Florida: International Minerals and Chemicals Corp. (IMC); Brewster 132 Al Al AMA GEORGIA Northern Florlda/"East Coast phosphate dIatrlct/Hardrock phosphate district Central Florida phosphate district South Florida phosphate district ..«*''A'^ -' Miips Figure 3. Florida counties with identified phosphate deposits (Zellars- Williams 1978). 133 Phosphates at Fort Lonesome; and Borden, Big Four Mine (Wilbur Smith and Asso- ciates 1980). As the phosphate industry expands to meet consumer demands, a number of new phosphate mines will be developed. Several are scheduled for Southwest Florida (Table 1). Beneficiation is a process used to upgrade phosphate ore. In order to remove impurities, a mechanical process involving washing, milling, screening, clarifying, separating, and floating is used. These processes require large quantities of water as high as 10,000 gal per minute at the mines and even higher at recovery plants. For the most part, the reauired water is obtained from wells in the Floridan aquifer (Canterbury 1978). Generally speaking, companies engaged in phosphate mining also are engaged in beneficiation. After beneficiation, phosphate rock generally holds 1% to 70% moisture content. At this stage, the product is termed "wet rock." Because some con- tracts require a product that does not exceed 3% moisture content, rock drying is a major operation. Once dried, the pulverized rock may be shipped directly to the customer for acidulation, or applied directly to the soil as fertil- izer. Some phosphate rock is subjected to high temperatures to destroy the organic materials. This rock is called calcined phosphate. Important products produced by the phosphate industry are sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid slag, ferrophosphorus, triple superphosphate, ammonium phos- phates, superphosphate, superphosphoric acid, elemental phosphorus, and animal feed grade phosphate. The transport of phosphate is dependent on rail lines and ports in the Bone Valley area. Trains usually originate at the Tampa Ports with empty cars transported to Bone Valley for loading. Products for export make the return trip to Tampa or other Florida ports. Phosphate products bound for other states move through Plant City, east of Tampa (Wilbur Smith and Associates 1980). The port facilities serving the phosphate industry in Southwest Flor- ida are the Ports of Tampa and Port Manatee. The Port of Tampa has six marine loading terminals for rail shipments of phosphate rock and chemicals. Port Manatee, about 25 miles down channel from Tampa, has one phosphate terminal operated by Manatee Terminals, Inc. About 40 million tons of rock were produced in 1978 by the phosphate in- dustry in central Florida. Twenty-five million tons of rock were shipped to gulf coast ports. Most of the phosphate is loaded and shipped at the Port of Tampa, relatively small amounts are shipped from Boca Grande (Lee County) and Port Manatee (Wilbur Smith and Associates 1980). Hillsborough, Manatee, and DeSoto counties support a variety of phosphate production operations including mining, processing, manufacturing, and market- ing. Since 1967, the marketing patterns in Florida have consisted of (1) do- mestic shipments of dry phosphate rock to the upper gulf coast; (2) dry phos- phate rock shipments along the Atlantic seaports; and (3) dry phosphate rock exported from the country (Canterbury 1978). 134 o 00 in o o (/) «t ■o c E I/) i- CO I CM 00 T3 o to 2 o CO c 0) ■•-> O 2 0) , ■M — - 0) I- , CO -o o o ■»-> ■!-> (O o c E 3 O •r- T3 •>- ■M O ,— 00 S- r— UJ CL-r- E ITJ I/) 3 ■M to 01 o 0) E CM 00 cri CM CM «d- CO 00 00 0^ 0^ O^ CO CO o CO CO o 00 c • o CO 1-H XI c a> Q. le S- ro O c 0) , J3 <0 0) OJ (U o +J 00 S ■t-^ ■!-> +-> 4-> c fO flO (O o 3 ^ -o c c c oo o •I- C (0 (O (O 0) o 3: ^ cj o (O Q. -C o o • ••-> S- q: s- <*- o ■!-> 3 s- J- (0 +-> +-> CO CO c o ^^ o lO 3 A 4-> ^— * O a. 10 • #> C7> s~ c •r— 'oj g > (U (U -o CL >» •» J=l Q lO ■•-> <0 CD^ c • r- Q- C 3 c (tJ ■M i- Q. +-> to c 0) -o ^ (U Q. O O c f~~ 3 c .' o, ?.';'<: Proposed tracts tor sale 69 Area ot Industry Interest Statute miles Figure 5. Status of OCS lease areas off the Florida gulf coast (U. S. Depart- ment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managemenr 1980; Southwest Florida Re- gional Planning Council 1981). 141 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Onshore petroleum production in Southwest Florida is confined largely to Collier and Lee Counites. Oil and gas are produced in the Sunniland, West Felda, Lake Trafford, Bear Island, Leheigh Park, and Baxter Island fields. In 1979, these fields yielded 4,304,333 bbl of crude oil and 353,000 million cubic feet (MCF) of gas. The 1943 Sunniland discovery in Collier County was followed by the Lee County West Felda field in 1966 and the Lake Trafford field in Collier County. The Bear Island field in Collier County began production in 1972, and the Le- heigh Park field in Lee County began production in 1974. Table 5 gives esti- mated oil and gas reserves, 1979 production, and cumulative production in Southwest Florida. The Sunniland field, the most productive and largest producing field, has 37,685,118 bbl in reserve, and produces about 33% of the crude oil in South- west Florida. The West Felda field was the greatest producer in 1979 (2,176,321 barrels or 51% of the total crude oil production in Southwest Flor- ida). The West Felda field has a reserve of 142,857,143 bbl. The West Felda field produces the most natural gas; it has 11,428,571 MCF in reserves. Pro- duction in 1975 was 162,428 MCF which was about 67% and 46% of the region's reserves and production, respectively. Oil and gas production in Southwest Florida was valued at $42 million for 1978 based on $9.23/bbl for crude oil and $0.35/MCF for gas. This income is about 6% of the State's total value of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas for the same year. OCS OIL AND GAS PROJECTIONS USGS long-term oil and gas production forecasts for the Gulf of Mexico indicate a gradual decline in production and an ultimate depletion sometime soon after. Since production is not independent of technological innovation, economics and market forces, recovery in old, nearly depleted wells frun steam injections could increase recoverable reserves in existing fields. Break- throughs in oil platform design enabling cheaper and smaller production units could allow small, currently uneconomical fields to become economical for pro- duction. As the complex relationships of technology, economics and market forces change, estimates of recoverable resources also change. The Resource Appraisal Group (RAG) of USGS assessed undiscovered recover- able oil and gas resources and developed the production curves shown in Figure 6. The RAG and the Office of Resource Analysis (also in USGS) use occurrence modeling, search modeling, and production modeling. Data obtained from research are being used to develop a sophisticated model on the dynamics of petroleum reserves. The Clark-Drew Model is capable of determining (1) the field size distribution of total resources, (2) field size distribution of deposits discoverable at different levels of cost and technology, and (3) production curves over time using various socioeconomic assumptions (U.S. Department of the Interior 1980). 142 CO en ■o i. o I/) 3 o to •o OJ o E 0) T3 o (O "r- ^— 4J 3 O E 3 3 ■o O o O $- O 3 to T3 to O CD S- D. (U > S- (U ■o 4-) O — +-> 3 O E 3 3 -O o o o s- eC Q. o i- a. •o c « • ^— s (/) 00 i. (U S- s- o •^ 0) 4-> c 1— * T3 c ^_ •^ <4- o o ■*-> c • in 0) E 4J 1 " ^ #» •* CM t^ 00 ^O V£> ID i—t en LO i~-. CTv - --' •!-> O r— 3 •<- -o o o s- Cl. to > i- cu to T3 I— 1 o .-1 LD to 00 CM CO 1 --H CO CO CM 1 ■* •» #1 •» to CO to ^ o >— 1 r-- to I—t 1— 1 to OJ CO .— 1 CO CM r~ CM r- •1 #« o I— 1 en r-- 00 • o^ 00 o «t « CM CO CO to CO CO CO CO 00 to «* t-l o «^ o to ri #> r^ CO CM • ID to o CO I— t to (T5 r^ LO CO O .— 1 to «k •V CO 00 to CO o • CTv to 1— 1 A » to CM t-t 00 o CT> CO en CO (Ti CM LO CO CO o r~ 00 00 to «* «d- CO <—l «« ft M «« * «« t—l r~. (Tl «* LO .— 1 to r^ CM r~ tn o T— ( cr> CM I— 1 «t ft « «t «3- 00 CM CM to I— 1 o CO 00 CO ■^ CM 00 CO to CO I— t CO en "* cn I— 1 r^ ':1- o .—1 cn t— 1 A »t «i M «t o «* CM r- o Lf) 00 r-^ cn ir> I— 1 CO «* 00 h^ CO to to •t «k •t 9t M r~~ t— ( CM CO r-^ <—i «!a- CO o o CO #t o cn LO CM to CO to to CO CO o in o o CO «t o CM CO CM CO to CO #t r~ cn LO 00 to to OJ ,— -C +-> +-> o 3 I— o "O to (U +J +-> o fO I— ■!-> 00 CM 00 -a o (U cn+J (T3 to c 5 O ■!-> S- 3 O) O Q. t/1 00 cn o i- (U to O ■l-> ••*' Figure 1. 1974). Mean annual rainfall an^i temperature in Florida (Wood and Fernald 161 Florida has a wealth of natural resources that support outdoor recrea- tion. The State has 22 major natural springs that discharge over 3 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) to form lakes and rivers. The combined flow of all springs in Florida is about 5 Bgal/d. Florida's 7,700 lakes comprise over 3,200 mi2 of water area and it has about 1,700 rivers and streams that total nearly 12,000 miles in length. Florida's coastline is about 11,000 miles long, much of which is com- prised of high energy beaches. Florida's barrier islands provide a wide range of recreational opportunities including fishing, swimming, hunting, camping, and nature study, located in areas such as parks, natural areas, wildlife refuges, and national seashores. Barrier islands have numerous motels, restaurants, gift shops, amusement parks, marinas, golf courses, tennis courts, and swimming pools. Florida has 13 registered historic places and 7 national natural landmarks located on its barrier islands. Florida has 173 (more or less, depending on how they are classified) recreation sites. This includes 30 preserves, forests, and State parks (Fig- ure 2), 35 State aquatic preserves (Figure 3), 48 State wildlife management areas (Figure 4), and 32 special feature sites, 17 preserves, 7 museums, and 4 ornamental gardens (Florida Department of Natural Resources 1981). The per capita expenditures of U.S. residents for hunting and fishing for 1955, 1960, and 1970 is shown in Table 1. These data will be used later in this report to help estimate the magnitude and value of the fishing and hunt- ing industries in Southwest Florida. The Governor's office (1980) has developed a set of goals and priorities for 1981-83. Those relating to outdoor recreation are as follows: Goal : to improve outdoor recreation opportunities through devel- opment and implementation of a new outdoor recreation plan. Pol icies: (1) The State shall continue acquisition and develop- ment of State parks with emphasis on high quality resources and public accessibility. (2) The State shall provide recreation programs, sites, and facilities that best meet public demand. (3) The State shall expand recreational opportunities to include user- oriented recreation, particularly in and around urban areas to provide convenient and energy conservative outdoor recreation. (4) The State shall emphasize inter-agency coordination and cooperation in providing improved and diversified outdoor recrea- tion opportunities. STATE PROGRAMS The Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Recreation and Parks has the authority to acquire, develop, and operate State parks and recreation areas. The Division is responsible for administering a comprehen- sive recreation program. State funds from the Land and Water Conservation Funds are matched by Federal funds to purchase parks and recreation sites. The Division develops a State Outdoor Recreation Plan every 5 years and provides technical assistance on outdoor recreation to local governments through the 162 A L A » A M A f— •-■■•- -<"J ifcc^S=»-^^'^«f STATE pnesERve ^ Paynes Pralria STATE FORESTS A Slackwataf B Pine Log C Gary D Wlthiacoochee STATE PARKS 1 Fort Cooper 2 Blackwater RIvaf 3 Caladeal Island 4 Colller-Seinlnole 5 St. George Island* 6 Favar-Oykes 7 Florida Caverns a Fort Clinch 9 MIks Roess Gold Head Brancn 10 Highlands Hainniock 11 Hillsborough River 12 Hontoon Island 13 Ichetucknae Springs 14 John Pennekamp Coral Reef 15 Jonathan Dickinson 16 Lake Klsslmmee 17 Lake Louisa 18 Little Talbot Island 19 Manatee Springs 20 Myakka River 21 Ochlockonee River 22 O'leno 23 Prairie Lakes' 24 T.H. Stone Memorial St. Joe Peninsula 25 St. Lucie Inlef 28 Suwannee River 27 Tomoka 28 Torreya 29 Wekiwa Springs 30 Blue Spring ' Not Open to Public ;£0 RGl A ^ •19'^ — ^ ij \ •^•14 .^•'* '.\4, "■ Figure 2. 1979). State preserves, forests and parks (Florida Power and Light Co. 163 ALABAMA GEORGIA 1 Fort Pickens State ParK 2 Yellow River Marsh 3 Rocky Bayou State Park 4 St. Andrews Stats Park 5 St. Josepti Bay 6 Apalachleola Bay 7 Alligator Hartjor 8 St. Martin's Marsh 9 Pinellas County 10 Boca Clega 1 1 Lake Jackson 12 Cape Haze 13 Matlacha Pass 14 Pine Island Sound 15 Estero Bay 16 Rookery Bay 18 Coupon Bight 19 LIgumvltae Bay 20 BIscayne Bay 21 Loxahatchee River-Lake Worth Creek 22 North Fork. St. Lucie 23 Jensen Beach to Jupiter inlet 24 Indian Rlver-Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce 25 Indian River-Malabar to Sebastian 26 Banana River 27 Mosquito Lagoon 28 Weklva River 29 Tomoka Marsh 30 Pelllcer Creek 31 Nassau RIver-St. John's Marsh 32 Fort Clinch State Park 33 Cockroach Bay 34 Gasparllia Sound-Charlotte Harbor 35 Cape Florida Figure 3. State Aquatic Preserves (Florida Power and Light Co. 1979), 164 ALA I AM A OeORGIA •3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 1 La FloreaU Perdlda 2 St. Regis 3 Blackwater 4 Eglln 5 Point Wastilngton 6 Gaakin 7 G.U. ParKer 8 Edward Ball 9 Apalachee 10 Robert Brent 11 Joe Budd 12 Ochlockonee River 13 Talquin 14 Apalachlcola 15 Aucllla 16 Tide Swamp 17 Stelnhatcnee 18 Gulf Hammock 19 Fori McCoy 20 Citrus 21 Croom 22 RIchloam 23 Green Swamp 24 Hillsborough 25 Cypress Creek 26 Osceola 27 Uka Butlaf 28 Ralford Tract 29 Nassau 30 Camp Blanding 31 Guana River 32 Hudson 33 Lochloosa 34 Ocala 35 Relay Tract 36 Tomoka 37 Farmton 38 Bull Creek 39 Tliree Lakes 40 Avon Park 41 J.W. Corbett 42 Holey Land 43 Brown's Farm 44 Everglades 45 Cecil Webb 46 Lykes Brothers 47 Rotenberger 48 Big Cypress .^*^- -' Figure 4. State Wildlife Management Areas (Florida Power and Light Co. 1979) 165 Table 1. Per capita expenditures (in dollars) in the United States for fish- ing and hunting (Adapted from U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1960, 1970). Category 1955 1960 1970 Freshwater fishing Saltwater fishing Waterfoul hunting Small game hunting Big game hunting 77 91 60 50 73 95 101 46 60 55 127.17. 178.10 84.47 81.02 122.53 Gulf of Mexico only. Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program. The Florida DNR spent $483.85 million on parks and recreation in fiscal years 1971-72 through 1979- 80 and increased the number of employees in park and recreation programs from 424 to 767 (Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting 1981). The DNR Divi- sion of State Lands administers the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program designed to purchase environmentally endangered lands and recreation areas. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, which manages fresh- water fish and wildlife spent $16.99 million on freshwater fish programs and $13.63 million on wildlife programs ln number of employees in the freshwater 175, and in the wildlife program it Office of Planning and Budgeting 1981). fiscal years 1976-77 to 1979-80. The fishery program increased from 154 to increased from 71 to HI (Governor's The Florida Department of Commerce promotes tourism by advertising and by surveying tourists. The Department of Commerce spent $1.68 million for tour- ism programs in fiscal year 1972-73 to 1973-74 with plans to spend $5.5 million in fiscal year 1980-81. The number of employees in this department that worked in various tourism related programs" increased from 66 to 112 (Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting 1981). FEDERAL PROGRAMS The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) is the agency with primary respon- sibility for national parks and recreation related programs. Within the DOI, the National Park Service uses Land and Water Conservation Funds for purchas- ing parks and recreation sites. The National Park Service also evaluates and designates natural historic and cultural sites that qualify for the National Registry of Natural landmarks and National Register of Historic Places. The Service also manages an historic preservation fund that provides matching funds to the states. Since 1965, the State has acquired 73,023 acres of recreation areas from funds from the NPS, as well as the designation of six 166 national trails. The National Register of Historic Places in 1980 listed 347 sites. In addition, there were 19 NFS registered historic landmarks in Flor- ida in 1980. The National Park Service manages national parks and recreation areas, national seashores, and other natural areas. It also designates national environmental studies for these areas in cooperation with educational insti- tutions. Ten of these areas, comprising over 1.6 million acres of land, are in Florida. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 24 national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas in Florida that total over 451,000 acres. The Bureau of Land Management (Minerals Management Services) manages national lands including offshore bottoms beyond Florida's territorial waters. The U.S. Forest Service manages four national forests in Florida that cover about 1.3 million acres of land and contain 59 developed public recreation sites that total 1,313 acres. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with flood control and water management projects, developed 13 recreation areas of 775 acres. The U.S. Department of Defense allows public hunting within wild- life management areas on certain Air Force facilities in Florida. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Interior jointly manage 11 designated wilderness areas consisting of 1,379,612 acres in Florida (Flor- ida Department of Natural Resources 1981). OUTDOOR RECREATION IN FLORIDA Most of the data and information provided in this report were gathered from national surveys of fishing and hunting, marine recreational surveys, and surveys taken by the Florida DNR for their five-year outdoor recreation plans. The statewide outdoor recreation demand per capita, including residents and tourists for 1970, 1975, and 1980, is given in Table 2 and participation in various outdoor forms of recreation in 1980 are given in Table 3. Nearly 300 million man days of outdoor recreation (27% of the statewide total) were generated by Florida tourists in 1975. Bike riding and beach rec- reation account for about 50% of the total man days of recreation. Nearly 50% of the State's residents and 67% of the tourists participated at least once in beach recreation. According to a study of outdoor recreation in Florida in 1981, over 400 million man days of recreation (64% of total demand) were generated by tour- ists. Beach and outdoor swimming pool recreation accounted for about 40% of the total demand for outdoor recreation, and nearly 75% of all residents and 80% of the tourists went to the beach at least once in 1980. The demand by tourists was greater than that of residents for saltwater beaches, swimming pools, camping, picnicking, visiting historical and archaeological sites, freshwater swimming (nonpool), saltwater fishing (nonboat), hiking, nature study, and golfing. Since 1970, bike riding and saltwater beach activities characterized the recreation of residents, whereas tourists tended to engage more in recreational vehicle camping, and freshwater pool swimming (Table 2). Residents were least active in tent camping and canoeing whereas tourists were least active in hunting. 167 l- • o o 1— 1 -o 00 •M Oi 3 I-H O f- VO r-. oi .— 1 t- A 10 1-i (U r- >> CM t-H I- 0) (/» Qu (U I. c ;- M- m O Q. 0) > a* (O -o n •r- 10 >r- .— ( »d- in a> 1—1 CO t-H CM t-H t-H S- • • • • • • • • • • 3 CVJ f— t o o o o o o o o o 1— ■»-> ■o ^ If) CO CM CM CO o CO CO r~ ■^- • • • • • • • • • • to o «♦- IT) ^ r^ "^ CO en 00 in t! • 1 • • • • • • 1 • 3 C u M- 0) 10 ^—^ ■r— o i- +-> o CVJ en I-H CO CM CO «a- CM 3 3 • 1 • • • • • • • • o <: m 1 o t-l o o I-H o o o 1- 4-> CO ^i^^ ^ -o cu 3 I- en I-H I— 1 .—1 CO 1-H t-H CO t-H •r— X) C ^_^ o -o o o • • • • • OJ (O en c ■o I-H en c •I— c: •r- x: en c •r- .C (A 0) lO r~ •r— c lO «/> «n •r— i- 0) o r— o. en (O o •»— •^ t- u J3 o a> lO B c *i— >4- <*- Oj Q. c c lO •r— ^— Ol i- i- S- J_ o o Q. IT3 o (UO i-'—' s- ■o E O +J a> «4- ■l-> c +J 0) <0 •r— "o (O c +-> ro -M (0 o n} i- 10 u i. 0) 3 •r" lO O CO *^^ ^T 5 e J= € S ^ 3 +j x: +-> (U ■1^ E o t- ■!-> +J JC 01 CO c -)-> C 4-> d o x: c CO o 4-> 0) •r- .— O r^ O OJ o >, (O 2 •r— 0) □Q a: > 1— 3: « CO u. o o 168 o 00 CM -a C/) l/> O 3 O CM c 0) "O (/) ■O I— •1- 3 Qi« — o ITJ (U 1. o Q. >1 t-H CM o o o o CO CM o o LO 00 o Lf) 00 CM o LO CM 00 1^ • • I— I cr> o LO o CM lO OJ r» CO O o • • • 1 • 1 • o o o 1 O 1 o ID OJ CM I— 1 O • • 1 1 • * o o 1 1 o o in CM CO cn CD-r- -r-j CM t^ CM O O O CO 00 CM cyi CO «;!- CO CM I— t O O O CD c l«- >» -o s_ 3 a)—. 4-> ■U -)-> 0) c sz ja c J- •r" (/I c •^ 3 ■»-> (U o J^ ■l-> C s- c •^ «3 3 u_- — 31 Z 3: 0) o o c ••- •r- . jC jC >, lA to r— • T- ;-- c >>■+- M- Or- C J- r— 1- Q. O (O I/) lO CT) O. (O S- O) 3 C • S j«: J= •!- cr> >)■»-> +j «} to 4-> C .— r- (T3 ■— (1) C •1- C fO O S_ 3 E O i^ -Q c »4- JC E •-- •I- CT)>— E -«= ,— I— X C r- O -M r- .— • lO •!- lO J- •!- (O iO(OS (1)T- O) CDCDO) E *-XICC"03,— i- r-<4-i— ^^t— ,— r- C 3 C •!- -r- C -r- C e "3 1— «l/0>— lU-U-i— 1CQ«— "t03 169 Table 3. Types of outdoor recreation and available daily supply for partici- pating individuals in Florida in 1980 (Florida Department of Natural Resources 1981). Type or area of recration Available supply Freshwater and saltwater swimming (non-pool ) Sal twater beach Boat ramp: fishing, powerboating, water skiing and sailing Freshwater and saltwater fishing (non-boat) Historical and archeological sites Hiking Nature study Bicycl ing Hunting 2.5 1 inear ft of beach 100 ft^ of beach 160 users per single land ramp /day 6 linear ft of docking 384 users per site/day 1 mi of trail per 125 1 mi of trail per 250 1 mi of trail per 161 21 acres SPORT FISHING The 1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Survey of Fishing and Hunting provides expenditure and participation data on sport fishing for the Southeastern United States. The survey showed that in 1970 about 17% of the population fished in fresh water and 11% fished in saltwater (including those that fished in both). Most fishermen were in the $10,000 to $15,000 family income bracket. The percentage of people in the Southeastern United States that fished was about 20% in 1955, 21% in 1960, 24% in 1965, and 22% in 1970. About 2.38 million people from 1.07 million households fished for salt- water sport fish and shellfish in 1974 (U.S Department of Commerce 1977). About 2.1 million fishermen from 954,000 households sought sport fish and 989,000 sport fishermen from 419,000 households sought shellfish (includes those who fished for both). In all there were 24.68 million man days (trips) of finfishing and 8.0 million days of shell fishing. The average sport fish- ermen fished about 12 days for finfish and 8 days for shellfish. The 1975 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife and Associated Recreation included statistics for Florida. In 1975 about 1.7 million sport fishermen fished in marine and brackish waters and 693,000 fished in rivers and freshwater lakes. In Florida in 1975, fishing expenditures were about $770.8 million. Major expenditures were as follows: $166.0 mill ion for fish- ing supplies and equipment, $171.7 million for food, drink, and refreshments, $219.1 million for transportation, and $86.6 million for bait. Largemouth bass and other basses were the favored freshwater fish. The 1975 fishing cost for the 426,000 bass fishermen was about $41.8 mill ion. An estimated 377,000 big game fishermen in boats offshore (many chartered) spent $114.42 million, whereas the 285,000 nearshore and estuarine fishermen in boats spent $46.22 170 million. The 1975 survey reports that the average fisherman spent $324.26 a year to fish. Individual costs were $98.15 for bass fishing, $303.51 for off- shore big game fishing, and $162.17 for boat fishing. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 expressed Congres- sional concern for sport fishing. In the act, the definition of optimum sustained yield (OSY) includes sport fishing. At a minimum, the following data for any one year are needed for managing sport fisheries according to OSY guidelines: number of fishermen, average annual number of fishing days per fishermen, and the average catch per trip. Other helpful data that might be collected are: distance traveled to fish, average cost per trip, the number of trips, socioeconomic information on fishermen and their communities, and population statistics. The major problem concerning sport fishing in the Southeastern United States is the serious lack of data on catch and fishing effort. The rise in total real expenditures and the number of days fished annual- ly in recent decades probably is due primarily to the increased number of fishermen (Bell 1978), which may have caused a decrease in catch per unit of effort. According to Bell (1979), over $851 million in gross expenditures were spent by residents and tourists in 1975 for saltwater sport fishing in Florida (Table 4), which is about 15% of all taxable sales on recreation in the State. The saltwater sport fishery of Florida in 1976 supported about 44 million fishing days annually (Table 4) at a cost of about $9.00 per fisherman. About one-third of the fishermen were tourists (Table 4), a statistic used for esti- mating that there were 14.6 million tourist days of fishing in 1975. The expenditure per man day of fishing probably is the same for tourists and residents alike. The average daily expenditure for tourists was $31.47 in 1975 (Bell 1979). Using Florida Department of Commerce information on tourist expenditures. Bell estimated that the saltwater sport fishery for tourists in 1975 created $111 million in wages and salaries in the export sector and added $464 million to the nonbase sector. Based on National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates of retail jobs associated with sport fishing, salt- water fishing generated 34,700 jobs. Furthermore, the multiplier effect of the $464 million adds another 83,739 jobs. In all, the saltwater sport fishery supported over 118,000 jobs in Florida. The average saltwater sport fishermen spent about $19.75 a day. When multiplied by the number of tourist and resident fishing days, and applying a capitalization rate, the total value of saltwater sport fishing in Florida in 1975 was $18.7 billion. Bell (1978) also made the same calculation for freshwater sport fishing (Table 5). He stated that: 0 $526 million, in gross expenditures, is spent annually by residents and tourists on freshwater sports fishing or about 9% of all taxable sales on recreation in the state. 0 Gross expenditures per day for freshwater fishing was $4.78 or 54% of daily expenditures on saltwater fishing. 0 Tourist expenditures for freshwater fishing are estimated at $278 million. 171 Table 4. Gross expenditures and user values (both in millions of dollars) of the saltwater sport fishery in Florida in 1975 and the number of fishermen and fishing days (both in millions) according to Bell (1979). Origin of fishermen Gross expenditure User by fishermen value Number of fishing days (millions) Number of fishermen Resident Tourist Both $392' $459^ $851 $ 872'- $ 288 $1,160 44 15 59 1.64 0.54 2.18 ?$408.39 X 0.96. (in-state participation). ^Angler days x individual expenditures of $19.75 per day. Number of tourists divided by resident days x $31.47 (from 1975 Florida Tourist Study) Table 5. Freshwater sport fishing in Florida in 1975: estimated gross ex- penditures, user value, number of fishermen and fishing days (Bell 1979). Type of fishermen Resident Tourist Both Gross expenditure User by fishermen value $247. 56** $278. 23c $525.79 Number of fishing days (millions) $397.24' $ 96.13 $493.37 51.91 12.53 148.04 Number of fishermen 1.44 0.35 1.79 ?$272.135 million x 0.91 (in-state participation). Number of days of fishing x median user value per day ^Number of tourists divided by resident days x $22.20. (7.67). Freshwater recreational fishing by tourists creates around $70 million in wages and salaries in the export sector and an additional $293 million in the nonbase sector. All expenditures for freshwater recreational fishing generate about 21,775 jobs and applying the multiplier effect yields an overall total of 75,000 jobs generated by freshwater fishing. 172 0 Capitalizing the user value of freshwater fishing yields an overall user value of $8.4 billion. (User value per day is $7.67). HUNTING In 1970 about 3.5% of the population in the Southeastern United States hunted big game, 7.4% hunted small game, and 1.3% hunted waterfowl. About 25% of the hunters used public lands for hunting at one time or another. The percentage of the population in the Southeastern United States that hunted was 10.1% in 1955, 11.5% in 1960, 9.2% in 1965, and 8.1% in 1970 (U.S. Department of Interior 1970). In Florida in 1975 the 493,000 hunting licenses sold generated 10.53 million man days of hunting. Of this total, 330,000 hunted big game (3.48 million man days), 302,000 hunted for small game (4.0 million man days), 317,000 hunted for migratory birds (2.35 million man days), and 78,000 hunted for other birds and animals (652,000 man days). Of the hunters, 321,000 hunted deer (2.8 million man days) and 79,000 hunted wild turkey (454,000 man days). The hunters spent $103.1 million for big game, $54.3 million for small game, $30.4 million for waterfowl, and $1.9 million for other animals for a total of $196.6 million. In 1975, each hunter in Florida spent about $398.84 for hunting. Most of the expenses were for equipment, supplies, and transpor- tation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a press release in 1981, reported that 253,619 people in Florida spend nearly $3.7 million for hunting licenses. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA OVERVIEW FACTORS AFFECTING RECREATION AND TOURISM Resource Characteristics Socioeconomic and natural resource characteristics and factors that affect recreation and tourism in Southwest Florida are discussed in the fol- lowing paragraphs. The major socioeconomic factors for evaluating recreation and tourism are age, income levels, population size and density, and housing demand. In 1960- 79, the population of Southwest Florida increased 107% (from 1.1 million in 1960 to nearly 2.3 million people in 1979). The greatest increase was in Charlotte County (413.6%) and Collier County (399.6%). Different kinds of recreation are usually preferred by different age groups. For example, young people prefer canoeing, hiking, tennis, and camping, whereas older adults prefer golf and nature study. Those people with higher incomes usually prefer beach recreation and recreational vehicle camping, but those with a lower income usually associate more with neighborhood playgrounds. Because of increased leisure time and higher standards of living in recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of seasonal (second) homes. In 1972, there were over 5,000 second homes along the Florida gulf coast. 173 Public recreation on beaches is somewhat limited by the shortage of public access and, in heavily populated areas, beach space (Ketchum 1972). The farther beaches are from people of low income, the less likely they are to go there for recreation. Pollution, especially oil spills, sometimes limits beach use and restricts fishing. Major natural resources identified with recreation are aquatic life, plant communities, topography, and geological formations. Some of the inter- related socioeconomic aspects are mining, soils, climate, history, housing, industry, and institutions. Some of the most enjoyable aspects of recreation are watching ocean vessels, feeling sea breezes, watching a sunset, viewing dolphins, porpoises, or whales, or watching the waves break in the surf zone. Climate and geographical information for Southwest Florida is provided in Table R/T 7 in the Data Appendix. The total land area of Southwest Florida is 8,574 mi 2. Hillsborough and Monroe Counties together comprise about 25% of the land area. Average annual rainfall ranges from 38 inches in Monroe County to 57 inches in Sarasota County. The average summer temperatures range from 80''F in Sarasota County to 83°F in Monroe County and the average winter tem- peratures range from 60°F in Pasco County to a high of 70°F in Monroe County. Figure 1 shows mean annual rainfall and temperature for the Southwest Florida region. The marine mammal fauna of the Gulf of Mexico are discussed in a publica- tion by the State University System of Florida (1973). The marine mammal fauna of the Gulf of Mexico consists almost entirely of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees. Manatees are probably the most important species in shallow coastal waters, but they are threatened by power boats. The humpback whale and the sperm whale sometimes are seen in the gulf waters off Southwest Florida. Some of the more important birds include horned grebe, common loon, white pelican, brown pelican, cormorant, Louisiana heron, great white heron, great blue heron, common and snowy egret, wood stork, bald eagle, osprey, seaside sparrow, roseate spoonbill, and various plovers, sandpipers, terns, and ducks. According to a report on the Gulf of Mexico fishery, the most popular coastal fish are spotted seatrout, red drum, tarpon, Spanish mackerel, pom- pano, mangrove snapper, snook, and bluefish. The most common shellfish are blue crab, spiny lobster, scallops, clams, stone crab, and oysters. Offshore favorites are marl in, swordfish, sailfish, albacore, bonito, tuna, wahoo, dolphin, barracuda, cobia, and king mackerel. The sport fishery supports a sizeable bait shrimp and bait fish industry consisting largely of shrimp and small fish. According to the Florida Audubon Society, in 1978 there were 598 rare and endangered plant and animal species in South Florida. The list of species includes 70 species of reptiles and amphibians, 16 species of fish, and 107 species of plants. Monroe County has the greatest share of rare and endan- gered species. The barrier islands near Southwest Florida are most important for recrea- tion and residential development. The percentage of land area already developed as residential areas is 85% for Clearwater Beach Island, 83% for 174 Sarasota, 80% for Long Key, 78% for Treasure Island, 75% for Lido Key, 74% of Anna Maria Key, 72% for Estero Island, 70% for Sand Key, 61% for Manasota Key, 48% for Gasparilla Island, 33% for Marco Island, 30% for Longboat Key, and 20% for Sanibel Island. Relatively undeveloped (less than 10% of the area) bar- rier islands are Caoe Romano, Rice, Keewaydin, Pine, Bay Port, Big Hickory, and the Little Gasparilla Group. Barrier islands that are protected by Federal, State, or local ownership are Ten Thousand Islands, North Captiva Island, Cayo Costa, Casey Key, Passage Key, Egmont Key, Mullet Key Group, Caladesi Island, Honeymoon Island, and Anclote Keys. Tourism Usually the more export dollars an area earns, the greater the economic stability. This is true in Southwest Florida because the cost of community infrastructure and social services for tourists is less than that required by residents. Travel costs, population growth, and the rate of employment are useful indices for evaluating the recreation and tourism industry. Examples are food service, employment, lodging, and transportation related jobs. In Southwest Florida, the number of tourists increased from 2,611,716 in 1965 to 10,177,481 in 1979, an increase of 290%. Since regional statistics on tourism do not exist for tourist trade expenditures and length of stay, state- wide statistics are used for calculating regional statistics based on Florida Department of Commerce tourism studies in 1961, 1965, 1970, 1976, and 1980. In 1965, the amount spent per tourist per stay was. $159. By multiplying the $159 by the number of tourists visiting Southwest Florida in 1965, the esti- mated tourist expenditure was $415.3 million. Using similar calculations for 1980, the net economic gain since 1955 was estimated to be $2.3 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion (459%). In 1961-80, the greatest average expenditure per tourist was $346 in 1976 (for a total of $2.6 billion), but by 1980 the average expenditure per tourist declined to about $228. Nonetheless, tourist expenditures per tourist per day increased about $10 from 1976 to 1980, prob- ably because tourists stayed for a shorter time and spent almost as much. The abundance of tourists in an area can be judged partly by the number of restaurants and lodging places and their seating or sleeping capacities. Hotels, motels, motor courts, rooming houses, and apartments are the main lodging places. According to the annual statistical reporting units from the Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission, the number of restaurants in South- west Florida increased 79% (2,932 to 5,240) from 1955 to 1980 and seating capacity increased 165% (135,769 to 359,988). Although the number of lodging places decreased 8% (9,406 to 8,633), the number of units increased by 34% (135,299 to 180,677). A decrease in the number of restaurants and seating capacity in DeSoto County was in contrast to the 106% increase in the number of tourists. In the counties of Southwest Florida, the greatest percentage increases in the number of restaurants in 1955-80 was 225% for Charlotte County and 188% for Lee County. The percentage increase in seating capacity was greatest for Charlotte County (482%) and Pasco County (385%). In all, there was an increase of 2,308 lodging units (e.g., motel rooms). Another useful indicator of tourism is the number of people employed by lodges, restuarants, and bars. As shown in Table EMP 43 in the Data Appendix, employment in Southwest Florida in lodging establishments has increased nearly 180% (6,948 to 19,410) since 1956. In 1978, there were 19 employees per 175 10,000 tourists which was the highest of all county ratios. Employment in eating and drinking establishments in Collier County since 1957 increased from 165 to 2,379 and similar employment in Pasco County increased from 150 to 1,934. According to data provided by Mr. Ed Stalvey of the Florida Department of Revenue, the State of Florida collected over $455 million in sales taxes from all counties in Southwest Florida during fiscal year 1978-79. About 78% of the revenues came from Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Lee Counties. The 26-fold increase in sales tax receipts from 1955 to 1979 probably was due to the increase in the resident population and number of tourists. Sales tax per capita was $32.85 in 1960 and $20.02 in 1979. OUTDOOR RECREATION IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA RESOURCES AND RESOURCE VALUES If large Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas discoveries were made in the Gulf of Mexico near Southwest Florida, onshore environmental impacts could have some effect on recreation that is dependent on natural resources, e.g., estuaries and beaches. The following recreation could be affected by large scale oil and gas offshore development: boating, camping, biking, fishing, hiking, hunting, horseback riding, nature study, surfing, swimming, and water skiing. Beach recreation largely is made up of swimming, sunbath- ing, surfing, beach combing, and shell collecting. For boating. Southwest Florida has an ample supply of docks, boat ramps, and other facilities. Fishing is good and there are many fish camps, bridges, marinas, party and charter boats, and fishing guides. Hunting is an outdoor recreation that requires much land, sufficient quantities of game, and a high quality environment. In the forests, uplands, and wetlands in Southwest Florida, most hunting is done with a rifle, but bow and arrow hunting is becoming popular. Major game are turkey, squirrel, deer, wild boar, quail, dove, rabbits, ducks, geese, and coots. State and local government expenditures for recreation give some indi- cation of recreational demand and supply. County and local government expend- itures for recreation were examined from County Finances and County Fee Officers Reports for 1950, 1955, 1960, and 1965 and from the local government financial reports of the State Comptroller for fiscal years 1970-71, 1975-76, and 1978-79. A 300-fold increase in local government expenditures were reported for Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. Per capita expenditures from local governments for all of Southwest Florida in 1978-79 was $15.60. The greatest per capita expenditure for recreation was $25.40 in Hillsborough County. The Florida Department of Natural Resources spent $283.85 million on parks and recreation programs in fiscal years 1971-72 to 1979-80. In those years the average annual increase was about $4 million and the number of park and recreation employees increased 76%. 176 From 1976 to 1981, the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFWFC) spent nearly $17 million annually on freshwater fish programs and about $13.6 mil- lion on wildlife programs. Freshwater fish expenditures increased $114,000 annually and wildlife expenditures increased $312,000. The number of employees in freshwater fishery programs increased from 154 to 175. Florida is one of the most highly developed recreational areas in the United States. The major recreation areas are local. State, and national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, historical/archaeological sites, game preserves, and public and private beaches. The State recreation areas in Southwest Florida are listed in Table 6. Other recreational areas are scenic and wild rivers, canoe trails, and fish management areas. In Southwest Florida, the Hillsborough River in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties is under study by the State for designation as a scenic and wild river. The Federal Government also is studying the possibility of designating the Myakka River in Manatee, Sarasota, and Charlotte Counties as a scenic and wild river. Table 6. Recreation areas in the counties of Southwest Florida (Florida Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Recreation and Parks 1981). County Recreation area Collier Wiggins Pass, Collier-Seminole Hillsborough Hillsborough River, Ybor City Lee Koreshan Manatee Myakka River, Lake Manatee, Judah P. Benjamin, Madira Bidle Mound Monroe Bahia Honda, Indian Key, Pennekamp, Lignamvitae Key, Long Key, Fort Taylor Pinellas ^ Caladesi Island Sarasota Oscar Scherer State designated canoe trails or streams in Southwest Florida are the Pithlachascotee River (Pasco), Alafia and Little Manatee River (Hillsborough), Upper Manatee River (Manatee), Peace River (DeSoto), Hickey's Creek (Lee), Estero River (Collier) and Blackwater River/Royal Palm Creek (Collier). The National Park Service has a designated canoe trail in Monroe County located at Bear Lake and the Wilderness Waterway. The Florida Game and Fresh- water Fish Commission manages the following waters: Lake Moon (Pasco County), Lake Tayson and Lake Seminole (Pinellas), Lake Thonotosassa (Hillsborough), 177 Manatee Lake (Manatee) DeSoto Pond (DeSoto), Marl Pits 1, 2 and 3, and Webb Area Reservoir (Charlotte). The National Register properties located in Southwest Florida are the Seaboard Coastline Railroad in Naples Park, the Koreshan Unity Settlement Historic District, Mound Key on Estero Island, and the Sanibel Lighthouse and Keeper's Quarters on Sanibel Island. The counties primarily supply a combination of resource-based and user-oriented recreation areas. Typical city-owned recreational areas are playgrounds, swimming pools, ballfields, golf courses, and tennis courts. In 1980 there were about 58,567 acres of private recreational lands (Table R/T 21 in the Data Appendix). This includes 50,191 acres of hunting area, 594 boat ramps, piers, and marinas, and 5,752 linear ft of saltwater beach frontage. Of the counties, Lee County (35.9%), Collier (31.9%), and Charlotte County (30%) had the greatest percentage of private hunting areas, but Monroe County had the greatest number (194) of private boat ramps, piers, and marinas. Based on Tables R/T 17-20 in the Data Appendix, there were 2,282,515 acres of Federal, State, and local public recreation areas in Southwest Flor- ida. The saltwater beach frontage was nearly 80 miles long. Among the counties, Monroe County had the greatest percentage of recreation area (47.5%) and beach frontage (71.2%). Collier County had 39.8% of all public recreation area in Southwest Florida in 1980 and Charlotte County had 29.2%. Public rec- reation contributed nearly 40 times more recreation area (2.3 million acres) than the private sector (58,567 acres) and over 71 times more saltwater beach frontage (about 78 miles compared to 1 mile). Most public recreational lands are owned by Federal, State, county, and municipal governments. In Southwest Florida in 1980, the Federal Government owned 1,620,578 acres including 57,000 acres of hunting area and 18.2 miles of saltwater beach frontage. Monroe County (52.2%) and Collier County (37.5%) had the greatest percentage of all Federal recreation areas in the region. All hunting areas w^re located in Collier County. Nearly all (95,000 linear ft; 98.6%) of the federally owned saltwater beaches are in Monroe County. The J.N. Ding Darling, Key Deer, Great White Heron, Pine Island, Passage Key and Egmont Key Wildlife Refuges are located in Monroe County. In Southwest Florida the State owns about 637,370 acres or 28% of all public recreation areas. Collier County has 300,000 acres (47%) of all State owned recreation lands, and about 284,934 acres (69%) of all public hunting lands. Collier County provided 70.2% of all State hunting areas and Monroe County contributed 83.2% of the 237,896 linear ft (45.1 mi) of the State salt- water beach frontage. For recreation, county and municipal (local) governments own or maintain beaches, boat ramps, piers, and marinas. Of the 24,567 acres of local recrea- tion areas, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties contribute 31.2% (7,657 acres) and 29% (912 acres), respectively. Local governments also own and maintain HI boat ramps, piers, and marinas for boaters and sports fishermen. Local governments own 14.7 linear miles of saltwater beach frontage. In 1980, Southwest Florida had 4,032 historical and archaeological sites. Most (1,203) were in Monroe County and in Hillsborough County (999). Flor- ida's coastal zone management program in 1975 reported that there were 324 178 historical and archaeological sites, 169,199 acres of wildlife refuges, and 6,693 acres of forestry and game management areas in Southwest Florida. CURRENT RESOURCE USE AND PROJECTED RECREATIONAL DEMANDS Most of the observations in this section were taken from tables and figures in the Data Appendix (i.e.. Table R/T for Recreation and Tourism). More detailed information, especially for individual counties, can be had by further examining the appropriate tables and figures in the Appendix. The future demands for recreation and tourism in Southwest Florida and its counties were calculated by determining the ratio of man days of partici- pation (or trips) in Florida per 100 residents (e.g., 84 fishing days per 100 people in the population of Collier County). The ratio is multiplied by the number of residents in a particular year and county to get the projected demand. For continuity in this report, fishing intensity or any form of recrea- tion usually is expressed in man days or visits (e.g., the average annual number of days of fishing per individual times and number of fishermen). PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS The number of visitors at State parks and recreation areas in Southwest Florida increased about seven-fold from fiscal years 1955-56 to 1979-80. The change probably was caused by the addition of new parks and recreation areas. From fiscal years 1972-73 to 1975-76, the number of visitors to State parks decreased 60% probably because of increased transportation costs. Of the 2,067,262 visitors to State parks and recreation areas in 1980, about 511,000 attended Wiggins Pass or Collier-Seminole State Parks in Collier County. Nearly 800,000 attended the six State parks and recreation areas in Monroe County, of which 50% visited John Pennekamp State Park, the Nation's only underwater park. The U.S. Department of Interior (1979) reported about one million visi- tors each year in the Everglades National Park and National Seashore. SPORT FISHING This description of the fishing industry includes information on fresh- water and saltwater sport fishing, and on the economic impact of sport fishing based on computations by Bell (1978). The number of freshwater fishing licenses issued to out-of-state (tour- ist) fishermen and other related data are given in Tables R/T 35-40 in the Data Appendix. Licenses are issued for 5-day, 14-day and 12-month periods. In fiscal year 1954-55, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC) issued 4,930 out-of-state freshwater fishing licenses in Southwest Florida. In fiscal year 1979-80, this figure increased to 16,501 (235%). The sale of resident fishing licenses increased only 6.8% (46,147 to 49,267) from 179 1954 to 1980. In 1960, the ratio of resident freshwater fishing licenses issued to the population in Southwest Florida was six licenses per 100 resi- dents. By 1980, the ratio had decreased to two per 100 residents. The demand for freshwater fishing in Southwest Florida is expected to increase about 29.5% (from 1.8 million to 2.3 million fishing trips per year) from 1980 to 1990. Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties will contribute about 75% of the demand in the near future. The National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980) provided most of the following saltwater sport fishing statistics for the gulf coast including Florida. Major saltwater sport species by catch are spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosis), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), striped mullet (Mugil ~ephalus),~~a"nd sand sea- trout (Cynoscion arenarius). Seabass also is a popular species. In the Flor- ida gulf area, there were 9,530,000 fishing trips, of which 7,280,000 were by coastal residents, 27,000 by noncoastal residents, and 2,233,000 by out-of- state tourists. The estimated number of saltwater fishing trips in the Florida gulf area was 2,146,000, of which 1,243,000 were coastal residents, 5,000 noncoastal residents, and 898,000 tourists. The average annual number of trips per year per licensed fishermen was 5.9 for coastal residents, 5.4 for noncoastal residents, 2.4 for tourists; 4.4 for all. The average fishing trip lasted 3.8 hours and cost $10.20. In 1980, the average saltwater fisher- man fished 16.9 hours, spent $45.29, and traveled 248 miles. Annual capital expenditures for manufacturing, wholesale, and retail trades for tackle, boats, motors, and trailers was $1,225 million (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980). A recent decline in the total catch and catch per unit of effort by sport fishermen suggests possible overfishing in some areas. Most sport fishermen are restricted to inshore waters because their boats are too small for the sea. Southwest Florida is characterized by boats that cater to tourists. Spiny lobsters, the major commercial species, are taken during the regu- lar commercial spiny lobster season, and by sport fishermen during the special two-day sport season on 20-21 July (according to the Fishery Management Plan of April 1981). An estimated 2,478 boats with 7,607 divers caught 15,190 lobsters in Monroe County. The estimated sport catch from boats was about 448,000 pounds per year. Based on recent tagging studies, the sport catch of spiny lobster made up 9% of the total catch. Daily expenditures for spiny lobster fishing were $45 to $60 for interior county fishermen and $18 to $27 for coastal county fishermen. In 1975, divers for spiny lobsters spent $3.1 directly and $4.2 million indirectly for supplies, equipment, food, and travel. The income from those lobsters sold by divers was between $500,000 and $600,000. A conservative estimate of the number of employees associated with the spiny lobster fishery was about 1,700. About 10.5 million saltwater fishing trips were made in Southwest Florida in 1980 and about 12 million are expected in 1985 and 13.222 million in 1990 (Tables R/T 8-16 in the Data Appendix) for an increase of 26.4%. In 1980, the ratio of the demand for saltwater fishing to the total population (demand factor) was 84 trips per 100 people. A study of the structure and economics of the pay-boat fisheries of the Florida gulf coast and the Keys from Pensacola to Key West was made by Browder 180 et a1. (1978). A study identified offshore charter boats, inshore/offshore charter boats for bays, offshore guide boats for back country fishing, and head boats. Head boats carry large numbers of passengers and operate on a per customer basis rather than by charter (Table 7). In Southwest Florida in 1980, there were 253 offshore charter boats, 17 inshore/offshore charter boats, 129 guide boats, and 44 head (party) boats. Offshore charter boats fish largely near reefs for snapper and groupers in the spring and fall. Reef fishes and tarpon (Megalops atlantica) are the most important species caught by inshore/offshore boats. Tarpon are fished primar- ily out of Boco Grande and Tampa. Snook (Centropomus undecimalis), red drum (Sciaenops occelatus), tarpon, and seatrout also are taken in abundance, especial ly from guide boats. Snapper and groupers contribute about 65% to 75% of the catch by head boats, followed by grunts and seabass. The Key area has the greatest variety of fishing, about one-half of which is in the blue waters. Dolphin (Coryphaena spp.) and billfish, usually classified as big game fish, are abundant. Bonefish (Albula vulpes) and tarpon are the most highly valued guide boat species. The average number of fishermen per boat trip and the percentage of fish- ermen from out-of-state (in parenthesis) were 6.3 (63%) for all boats, 6.0 (78%) for inshore/offshore boats, 4.0 (49%) for guide boats, and 6.4 (60%) for head boats. The net revenue for offshore charter boats in 1960 was $5,106 per vessel in the Gulf of Mexico and $11,428 per vessel in the Keys. Inshore/offshore boat revenue was $4,371 per boat and guide boat revenue was $8,130 per boat. In 1960 there were 254 charter boats and 37 head boats; in 1977 there were 259 and 45, respectively. As indicated before, the total value of saltwater sport fishing in Flor- ida is $18.7 billion based on 58.74 million fishing days. On that basis, it Table 7. Location of charter fishing boat marinas (adapted from Browder et al 1978). Type of boat Activity center Offshore charter Islamorada, Marathon, Key West, Clearwater, Fort Meyers Beach, Naples, Marco Island Inshore-offshore Boca Grande, Naples, Marco Island, Key West Guide-boat centers Sanibel-Captiva, Marco Island, Everglades City, Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key Head boats Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon, Key West 181 is estimated that the total expenditure per fishing day was $318.35. Since there were 10.459 million man days of saltwater sport fishing in Southwest Florida, the total value of saltwater sport fishing was $3,333 billion. Based on a figure of 118,000 jobs related to saltwater sport fishing in Florida, ewery 1,000 man days of fishing supports two employees. Based on 10.459 mil- lion man days of saltwater sport fishing in Southwest Florida in 1980, the fishery supports 20,918 jobs. The value of the fishery is projected to be about $3,821 billion in 1985 and $4,210 billion in 1990. The number of jobs should increase from 24,000 to 26,400. Similar calculations apply to the freshwater sport fishing. Each man day of fishing adds $130.59 to the economy and each 10,000 man days supports 12 jobs (Bell 1978). As shown in Tables R/T 8-16 in the Data Appendix, the expected demand for freshwater fishing is 1.774 million fishing days in 1980, 2.083 million in 1985, and 2.297 million in 1990. The freshwater sport fish- ing industry in 1980 was valued at $23,670 million and supported 2,219 jobs. In 1985-90, the value of the fishery is expected to increase from $272,020 million to $299,970 million and the number of jobs should increase from 2,500 to 2,756. HUNTING A comprehensive analysis of the recreational value of the hunting indus- try and its effect on the socioeconomic structure was prepared by Gibbs (1975) from which some of the following observations were taken, and from Tables R/T 8-16 in the Data Appendix. The total value of all hunting in Florida was $294 million based on 6 million man days of hunting. Annual hunting expenditures in Florida are esti- mated at $116 million. The number of out-of-state hunting licenses issued gives some measure of hunting demand. The 10-day or 12-month licenses may be issued in a particular county, but the licensees may hunt in several counties. In 1954-55, only 195 out-of-state licenses were issued in Southwest Florida, but by 1979-80, 2,086 were issued. In 1965-66, one out-of-state hunting license was issued per 100,000 tour- ists, but in 1979-80 the ratio was one in 200,000. Based on the number of hunters and the area of available hunting grounds, 188 acres were available for each out-of-state hunter. The number of resident hunting licenses issued in Southwest Florida increased from 9,545 in fiscal year 1954-55 to 22,558 in fiscal year 1979-80, an increase of 136%. In 1960, 14 resident licenses were issued per 1,000 residents, but by 1980 the ratio dropped to 10 per 1,000. The largest number of resident licenses were sold in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. Based on the area available for hunting in Southwest Florida in 1980, there were about 17 acres per licensed resident hunter. The hunting area for both resi- dent and out-of-state licenses was about 16 acres per hunter. The intensity of hunting in Southwest Florida was 508,500 man days of hunting in 1980, projected to 726,100 in 1990, a 42.8% increase. Nearly 60% 182 of the expected demand for hunting will be in Hillsborough and Collier Coun- ties. The demand factor for hunting in 1980 was four trips per 100 residents and tourists. Based on the expenditure of $47.43 per hunting day (Gibbs 1975) the 1980 value of all hunting to the economy of Florida was $24 million. Projected values are $31 million in 1985 and $34 million in 1990. OTHER SPORT AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES The expected demands for various resource-based outdoor recreation in Southwest Florida in 1980, 1985, and 1990 are given in Tables R/T 8-16 in the Data Appendix. Activities include saltwater beach recreation, freshwater swimming (non pool), camping, nature study, canoeing, boating, hiking and bike riding. The projections given in these sections for Florida are based on the 1980 population of 12.4 million tourists and residents. Projected populations for the counties are pro- rated from the 1980 estimates. The demand factors are the number of man days of participation or visits per 100 people. Saltwater Beaches The projected number of man days of visits to beaches in Southwest Flor- ida is expected to be 48.1 million in 1985 and 49.2 million in 1990. The small (3.2%) increase is expected because of overcrowded beaches. The great- est demand for beach use will be in Pinellas County. The demand is 143 visits per 100 people (e.g., a county with one million people would expect 1.43 mil- lion man days of beach recreation). Freshwater Swimming In Southwest Florida the demand for freshwater swimming (ponds, lakes, and rivers) is estimated to be 1.9 million man days of swimming in 1985 and 2.0 million in 1990, an increase of 28.4%. The demand is 13 man days of swim- ming per 100 people. Recreational Vehicle Camping The demand for recreational vehicle camping in Southwest Florida in 1980 was 15.4 million man days of camping, 124 man days per 100 people. The pro- jected demand is 17 million in 1985, and 18.8 in 1990, an increase of 21.5%. Tent Camping In 1980-90, the man days of tent camping is expected to increase from 632,100 to 782,600, an increase of 23.8%. Nearly 90% of the demand will be in Monroe, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties. Greatest percentage increases will be in Charlotte, Collier, and Lee Counties. The demand is 5 man days of camping per 100 people. Nature Study and Historical and Archaeological Recreation In 1980-90 man day visits are expected to increase from 8.1 million to 11.2 million, an increase of 37.6%. The increase will be greatest in Lee 183 County (150%). About 70% of the future demand (site visits) will be in Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties. The demand is 6.5-man day visits per 100 people. Pleasure Boats Most of the data in this subsection is from Table R/T 28 in the Data Appendix. Pleasure boat registrations are the best indications of their value for recreation. In Southwest Florida, boat registrations increased fron 37,608 in fiscal year 1965-66 to 127,550 in fiscal year 1978-79, an increase of 239%. The increase in the number and percentage of boats was 1,215 to 7,710 (534%) in Pasco County, 1,248 to 6,276 (403%) in Charlotte County, and 1,670 to 8,308 (397%) in Collier County. The resident and tourist demand in 1980-90 for canoeing in Southwest Florida will increase from about 250,300 to 326,700 (30.5%). The demand is 2 man days of canoeing per 100 people. Hiking In 1980, there were 5,206,000 man days of hiking in Southwest Florida. By 1990, this demand is expected to increase to 6,945,700 (33.4%). Those counties showing the greatest increase will be Pasco, Charlotte, and Lee Counties. Over 55% of the demand for hiking is in Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. The demand is 4.2 trips per 100 people. Bike Riding From 1980 to 1990, the demand for bike riding in Southwest Florida is expected to increase from 13,608,300 trips to 17,295,800 trips. The demand is 110 bike trips per 100 people. User-Oriented Recreation Demand Golf, tennis, and pool swimming are the three most important user- oriented types of recreation in Southwest Florida. Demands for 1980, 1985, and 1990 are in Tables R/T 8-16 in the Data Appendix. The demand for golfing is expected to increase from 6,157,400 man days of golf in 1980 to 7,819,900 in 1990, an increase of 27%. Over 55% of the 1980 to 1990 demand will be in Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. Among the counties, the greatest predicted increase will be 409,400 to 557,900 (36.3%) in Lee County 206,300 to 298,000 (34.8%) in Pasco County, and 137,600 to 182,200 (32.4%) in Charlotte County. The demand is 50 man days of golf per 100 people. Tenni s In 1980, the demand for tennis in Southwest Florida was 3,459,100 man days. This demand is expected to increase by 28% in 1990. Those counties showing the greatest percentage increase in demand from 1980 to 1990 are Pasco County (50.9%), Charlotte County (41.7%), Collier County (32%), and Lee County (30.7%). Over 50% (2.35 million games) of the demand for tennis will be in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The demand is 30 man days of tennis per 100 people. 184 Pool Swimming The demand for days of swimming in pools was 20.5 million in 1980, and projections are for 23.0 million in 1985 and 25.4 million in 1990. The in- crease in demand from 1980 to 1990 will be 23.9%. About 75% of the demand for swimming in pools will be in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The demand is 165 man days of swimming in pools per 100 people. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF OCS OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT In 1974, about 60% of the public that was polled favored offshore drill- ing for oil in Florida in response to the energy crisis. In 1979 it was 69%. Most (60%) Floridians want to promote tourism even if the tourists reduce available supplies of gasoline. Only 25% of those polled oppose increased tourism because of a drain on the State's energy supplies (Bell et al. 1980). A report by Havran and Collins (1980) on OCS oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and their onshore impacts is valuable for assessing poten- tial environmental impacts on coastal Florida. Gulf of Mexico OCS production platforms in Texas and Louisiana are linked to shore by an extensive network of pipelines that transport oil and gas to nearby terminals. The production of oil and gas sometimes led to the growth of massive onshore industrial com- plexes that cause many environmental problems. The most severe onshore envi- ronmental impacts are apparent in frontier areas where few of the needs for onshore operations and facilities are available. Since port facilities along the Florida coastline are not geared for OCS oil and gas development, any high or moderate level oil and gas find along the Florida gulf coast could cause local economic and community upheavel . The potential for oil pollution is a major issue raised by offshore oil drilling. Leaks from pipelines and platforms potentially could have some damaging effects on sport and commercial fishing, saltwater beach recreation, and boating. Pipeline construction may disrupt the bottom habitat and destroy benthic organisms. Even buried pipelines may threaten beaches or residential sites. In addition to terminal sites and channels, turning basins may need to be dredged or maintained for deep draft tankers. Loss or alteration of coastal lands and water would reduce recreational potentials. A substantial work force may be required for the construction and opera- tion of the necessary onshore facilities for OCS oil and gas development. Tourists are not usually attracted to areas where onshore activities are heav- iest. Rapid industrial growth in some coastal areas could cause a decline in tourism. Because the recreation required in a community is a function of the size of the population and its demographic characteristics, population change due to OCS oil and gas activities would alter recreational demand and supply in the community. Funds for recreation may be sharply increased by revenue collected from offshore oil and gas extraction. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the major Federal grant program to the states for purchasing and developing out- door recreation areas. This fund also has been used to purchase recreation areas and endangered species lands in national forests, parks, wilderness 185 areas, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers. The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (1981) reports that 65% of the revenue for the fund are derived from bonuses, leases, and royalties stemming from explo- ration and production of oil and natural gas from Federal OCS areas. Oil spills from pipelines sometimes are caused by damage from dragging platform anchors and bottom trawls. Blowout spillage is caused by producing wells. A serious blowout in 1980 in the southern gulf area off the coast of Mexico threatened one of the world's richest shrimping and fishing grounds. Severe storms sometimes cause oil spills. In 1964, about 12,000 barrels of oil were spilled from storage tanks in Louisiana during Hurricane Hilda. Accidental oil spills from tankers and barges and oil discharged under normal operating conditions are the major oil spill sources. A large oil spill can kill birds and marine organisms, weaken key links in the food chain necessary to support . sport fisheries, and modify coastline habitats. In addition to these biological impacts, oil spills can create aesthetic and socioeconomic problems including the cost of beach cleanup, loss of recreational ly related businesses, and the fouling of fishing boats and gear. Potentially, any one of four levels of OCS oil and gas activity could threaten Southwest Florida (Hodecker 1981). Exploratory drilling likely would not cause measurable onshore impacts. A low-find scenario near the gulf coast of western Florida could require a small permanent supply base and repair and maintenance yards, and other ancillary services. Pipelines would be needed to carry the crude oil to marine terminals where the crude would be stored. Gas processing and treatment plants would be located at each landfall site. A medium-find scenario would require two permanent bases in Southwest Florida, two pipelines, two marine terminal facilities, and two gas processing plants if oil fields are located offshore from Sarasota and Collier Counties. For high-find oil and gas operations, at least two and possibly three bases would locate in Southwest Florida. Ancillary facilities, two pipelines, marine terminals, and gas processing plants would locate at each landfall site. A refinery may be needed in Southwest Florida if discoveries of oil and gas are high (Hodecker 1981). Based on data provided by the New England River Basins Commission (1976), Dzurik in his synthesis paper on "Minerals" provided tables of the general impacts from siting various OCS onshore facilities. These impacts, in terms of employment and land area needed for a high-find scenario, are given in Table 8. Over 3,000 acres of coastal land and 3,000 linear ft of waterfront would be needed for OCS onshore facilities. Some of this loss would be rec- reational land. Using the demand factors for various types of recreation, estimates of the number of recreation days required by the additional employ- ment related to OCS activities can be made (Table 9). Over 11,000 days of various recreation activities would be demanded by those employed by OCS related industry. 186 Table 8. Onshore facilities and number of jobs required to support a high- find of oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf near Southwest Florida (adapted from the New England River Basins Commision 1976). Facility Service bases Pipelines Berthing facilities (terminal and tank form) Land measure Number of jobs required 100 acres/base, 600 ft water frontage per base 80 jobs per platform during drilling and production 100 ft easement/pipeline 500 190 acres per pipecoating yd and pumping station 850 lineal ft of water frontage 150 acres 1,000 lineal ft of water frontage 75 Platform fabrica tion yards Onshore process ing and treat- ment facilities 800 acres 450 lineal frontage 75 acres ft water 60 Refinery 2,000 acres 600 Total 3,315 acres 1,315 187 Table 9. Estimated outdoor recreation needs by 2,110 employees in Southwest Florida hired in relation to OCS oil and gas development based on conditions in 1980. Type of outdoor recreation Average man i-days of participation Estimated man da per person (XlOO) of recreation 14 299 84 1,722 4 84 321 6,773 13 274 124 2,616 5 106 65 1,372 2 42 42 886 109 2,300 49 1,034 28 591 165 3,482 Freshwater sport fishery Saltwater sport fishing Hunting Saltwater beach recreation Freshwater swimming Recreation vehicle camping Tent camping Historical and archaeological Canoeing Hiking Bike riding Golf Tennis Swimming pool use Total 21,634 Average per person times 2,110. 188 REFERENCES Bell, F.W. Food from the sea: the economics and politics of ocean fisheries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1978. Bell, F.W. Recreational vs. commercial fishing in Florida: an economic im- pact analysis. Tallahassee, FL: Policy Sciences Program, Florida State University; 1979. Bell, F.W. et al . Energy, economic development and the environment in Flor- ida: a survey of these public policy issues and tradeoffs. Tallahassee, FL: Policy Sciences Program, Florida State University; 1980. Browder, J. et al . (University of Miami). Study of the structure and economics of the recreational paying-passing fisheries of the Florida gulf coast and keys, from Pensacola to Key West. Miami, FL: National Marine Fish- eries Service; September 1978. Carson, E. et al . Recreation in America life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub- lishing Co., Inc.; August 1968. Clawson, M. et al . The economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press; 1966. Comptroller of Florida. Comptroller's report of county finances and county fee officers. Tallahassee, FL; 1955. Comptroller of Florida. Comptroller's report of county finances and county fee officers. Tallahassee, FL; 1960. Comptroller of Florida. Comptroller's report of county finances and county fee officers. Tallahassee, FL; 1965. Comptroller of Florida. State of Florida, local government financial report. Tallahassee, FL; 1972-73. Comptroller of Florida. State of Florida, local government financial report. Tallahassee, FL; 1975-76. Comptroller of Florida. State of Florida, local government financial report. Tallahassee, FL; 1978-79. Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials. Biennial report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Park Service; 1955-57. Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials. Biennial report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Park Service; 1957-60. Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials. Biennial report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Park Service; 1965-67. Florida Department of Commerce. Florida visitor study. Tallahassee, FL; 1961. 189 Florida Department of Commerce. Florida visitor study. Tallahassee, FL; 1965. Florida Department of Commerce. Florida visitor study. Tallahassee, FL; 1970. Florida Department of Commerce. Florida visitor study. Tallahassee, FL; 1976. Florida Department of Commerce. Florida visitor study. Tallahassee, FL; 1980. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Outdoor recreation in Florida. Tallahassee, FL; August 1971. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Tabulation of park attendance (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; 1972-73. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Tabulation of park attendance (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; 1975-76. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Outdoor recreation in Florida. Tallahassee, FL; May 1976. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Tabulation of park attendance (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; 1980. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks. Outdoor recreation in Florida. Tallahassee, FL; April 1981. Florida Department of Revenue. Information from computer listings of county sales tax collections provided by Mr. Ed Stalvey; September 1981. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; April 1, 1955. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; January 1, 1960. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishment: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; January 1, 1965. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; July 1, 1970. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; July 1, 1970. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Locensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified totals (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; January 1975. Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission. Licensed public lodging and food service establishments: classified total (data sheet). Tallahassee, FL; July 1980. 190 Florida Power and Light Co., Environmental Affairs. Atlas of environmental jurisdictions in Florida. Miami, FL; March 1981. Gapinski, J.; Tuckman, H.P. Travel demand functions for Florida. Jj^ Trans- portation resources, Volume 10. January 1976. Gibbs, K. Economic impact of hunting in Florida. Gainsville, FL: Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sci- ences; March 1975. Governor's Office. Economic report of the Governor 1979-80. Tallahassee, FL; March 1980. Available from: Office of Governor, Revenue and Economic Analysis, Tallahassee, FL. Governor's Office. Economic report of the Governor: 1981 economic forecast. Tallahassee, FL; January 1981. Available from: Office of the Governor, Tallahassee, FL. Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting. Florida's ten-year summary of acquisition data 1971-72 through 1980-81, Volume 3. Tallahassee, FL; September 1980. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. EIS fishery management plan and regulatory analysis for reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. St. Petersburg, FL: National Marine Fisheries Service; October 1981. Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Fishery management plan: EIS. St. Petersburg, FL: National Marine Fisheries Service; April 1981. Havran, K.S.; Collins, K.M. Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and their onshore impacts: a summary report. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; September 1980. Hinman, K. Recreational fishing program area assessment. ln_ Record of the first annual review conference on marine resources development. Charles- ton, SC: Coastal Plains Regional Commission; 1978. Hodecker, E. A Florida scenario of oil and gas development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Tallahassee, FL: Executive Office of the Governor, Office of Planning and Budgeting; July 1981. Ketchum, B.H. ed. The water's edge: critical problems of the coastal zone. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institution o1^ Technology; 1972. Madow, P., ed. Recreation in America. New York: H.W. Wilson Co.; 1965. National Analysts. National survey of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-assoc- iated recreation: addendum for Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; 1975. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Who's minding the shore: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment; August 1976. 191 New England River Basins Commission. Onshore facilities related to offshore oil and gas development: fact book. November 1976. Pritchard, P.C.H., ed. Florida Audubon Society. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida (published in cooperation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission); 1978. State University System of Florida, Institute of Oceanography. A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. St. Petersburg, FL: 1973. Statton Commission. Our Nation and the sea. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; January 1969. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Working papers: establishing a 200-mile fisheries zone. Washington, DC; June 1977. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. Partici- pation in marine recreational fishing in the Southeastern U.S., 1974. Washington, DC; September 1977. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic and gulf coasts, 1979. Washington, DC; December 1980. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Final environ- mental impact statement: proposed OCS oil and gas sales 67 and 69. New Orleans, LA: New Orleans OCS Office; August 1981. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National survey of fishing and hunting. Washington, DC; 1960. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National survey of fishing and hunting. Washington, DC; 1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980 hunting and fishing license revenues continue to increase. News release. Atlanta, 6A: U.S.F.W.S., Region 4; 1981. U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. Alternative policies for protecting barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States and Draft EIS. Washington, DC: December 1979. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Managing the socio- economic impacts of energy development: a guide for a small community. Washington, DC; September 1977. Wood, R. and Fernald, E. The new Florida atlas. Tallahassee, FL: Trend pub- lications; 1974. Available from: Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 192 COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES Ed Joyce Route 1, Box 1804 Tallahassee, FL 32312 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW The State of Florida is known for its valuable coastal resources and their potential. The State has 11,000 mi of tidal shoreline (second longest in the United States) and over 15 major estuarine systems. Climatic condi- tions range from subtemperate to tropical. The vegetation ranges from tropical hammocks of the Keys to the massive mangrove stands of southwest Florida, and to the juncus and spartina marshes of northwest Florida and the panhandle. These habitat types are undergoing more and more stress. About 75% of Florida's more than nine million residents (1980 Census) live within a few miles of the coastline and over 60% of the 36 million tourists who come to Florida annually engage in fishing, swimming, sun bathing, boating, beach combing, and other water-related forms of recreation. In combination, these activities are depleting or threatening Florida's natural coastal resources. This paper concerns the sport and commercial fishing industries, the fishes and their biology, and fish production, value, and management. Much of the catch data are from the National Marine Fisheries Service annual catch reports. Much of the economic analysis is provided in publications by Cato (1973), Prochaska (1976), Prochaska and Cato (1977), Prochaska and Morris (1978), and Prochaska et al . (1981) at the University of Florida in Gaines- ville. Much of the biological data are from Steidinger (1980). Southwest Florida (Pasco, Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties) has some of the most beauti- ful beaches in the State and valuable sport and commercial fisheries. Rapid population growth in Southwest Florida and intensified residential and indus- trial development are destroying or altering natural coastal environments. The massive dredge and fill operations that created waterfront-canal home sites in Boca Ciega Bay, Pinellas County, is an example of extreme habitat alteration with thousands of acres of productive estuarine habitat being dredged and filled. Another example of a major change was the modification of freshwater flow through the Everglades for flood control and land reclamation. The reduced and otherwise modified seasonal freshwater flow has contributed to excessive change in the salinity of estuaries. Long-term salinity changes may have far reaching effects on the distribution and abundance of fish and shellfish. 193 Despite these and the many other changes wrought by man. Southwest Flori- da still has an abundance of valuable estuarine and marine resources. Because of its productivity, estuaries have natural ecological characteristics and resources that should respond well to habitat restoration measures currently being developed in Florida. Some areas cannot be restored, such as some of the large coastal suburban developments, but vigorous environmental planning for new developments will provide new opportunity for habitat protection, mitigation, or restoration. COASTAL RESOURCES Southwest Florida has some of the richest and most productive estuarine and nearshore marine areas in the world. There are nine major estuaries (Tampa Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Estero Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, Whitewater Bay, and Florida Bay) and many small tidal creeks, rivers, and lagoons, most of which are connected by the Intracoastal Waterway. The coastal waters extend over a very broad continen- tal shelf which increases as little as one foot in depth per mile seaward in the more northern counties. Because of the shallow water and lower salini- ties, the nearshore waters of the coast function almost like an estuary, which add greatly to the productivity of the coastal waters, and help compensate for some of the damage done to coastal wetlands and estuaries. The nearshore waters of Southwest Florida support extensive sport and commercial fisheries according to Moe (1963). He divided the coastal area into the upper west coast (characterized by a gentle gradient to the 50-fathom contour almost 100 mi from the shore), the lower west coast (characterized by a broad coastal shelf as deep as 100 fathoms from 117 to 150 mi offshore), and the Florida Keys (characterized by a chain of islands composed of coral rock). The coastal waters, characterized by rock outcroppings, ledges, cliffs, gullies, and other perturbations on the bottom provide an abundance of good sport and commercial fishing spots. COASTAL CURRENTS The prevailing oceanic currents of the Gulf of Mexico are complex and help characterize the biology of Southwest Florida. Drift bottle data and monitoring via satellite imagery are contributing to a better understanding of the diverse factors influencing mass water transport in the region. These methods for tracking currents show that coastal currents of Southwest Florida are highly variable and depend on the pattern of Loop Current development (intrusion, spreading, eddy formation, and drift), which is unpredictable and affected by short-term weather variations and prevailing local winds (Williams et al. 1977). Although unpredictable, the Loop Current, its eddies, wind effects, and other variables closely link Florida's western shelf with other coastal waters of the State. These currents have already been documented in studies of the red tide (Steidinger 1981). With drift bottle and bloom transport verified, the possibility of even more dangerous substances, both natural and manmade, being readily transported from the lower west Florida coast to the Northwest coast or the east coast is very strong depending on the condition of the surface current pattern and structure at the time. 194 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Commercial and subsistence fishing has been a practice of long standing in Southwest Florida. Extensive Indian shell middens attest to the importance of this food source in past centuries. Even in its simplest form in the early 1900's, commercial fishing required substantial investment in gear or equip- ment, such as boats, beach seines, and gill nets. Marketing was severely limited by the lack of proper storage, preservation, and transportation. Unless a day's catch was dried or salted, most had to be sold on the same day they were caught. In contrast, much of today's modern fishing industry is a complex of vessels, sophisticated electronic equipment, freezing and storage facilities, transportation, and marketing systems. Fishery resources may provide a reliable supply of low-priced protein. This is particularly true for schooling nearshore estuarine species such as mullet, croaker, trout, and redfish. A recent survey conducted by the Bureau of Marketing and Extension Services of the Florida Department of Natural Resources revealed the importance of low-priced commercial fish in ethnic diets. This survey is important because commercial fishing with nets is becoming increasingly unpopular with the general public and further restric- tions on that kind of fishing will reduce the catch of less expensive fishes. Excellent and detailed economic analyses of a variety of fisheries in specific areas have been reported by Cato and Prochaska (1975, 1976, 1977). Statistical data on the composition of the commercial fish and shellfish land- ings for Florida and Southwest Florida and its counties are given in tables FSH 1-42, pages 182-236, Volume II, Data Appendix, this report. FISHERY RESOURCES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Over one hundred species of finfish and shellfish are caught by commer- cial and sport fishermen in Southwest Florida. Unfortunately, very little information is available for sport catches and none on a regular or annual basis. The National Marine Fisheries Service has attempted nationally through direct interviews and telephone surveys to get some feeling as to the magni- tude of this catch (Deuel and Clark 1965, Deuel 1970, 1975, 1979, U.S. Department of Commerce 1975, 1979). A creel census-interview study by Flor- ida DNR (Irby 1974) looked intensively at a small relatively pristine area (Choctawhatchee Bay). Efforts are now underway to establish continuing commercial and sport catch statistics, through State/Federal cooperative agreements. Most of the following discussion is based on commercial statistics, but existing evidence indicates that for those species actively sought by both sport and commercial fishermen, sport catches often equal or exceed commercial landings. Reports on commercial landings, value, and prices of the coastal fishes of Florida were published by Cato and Prochaska (1975, 1977); some of the data are used in the following sections. In any review of commercial landings, care must be exercised to avoid oversimplification in analyzing the data. For example, several years of steadily declining catches do not neces- sarily indicate that the species is overfished. For example, the decline in catch may be caused by normal annual fluctuations or a decline in commercial 195 fishing intensity. Descriptions of some of the major fish and shellfish are given in the following sections. FINFISH Ordinarily, seafood is divided into finfish (referred to as fish here- after in this report) and shellfish (e.g., oysters, shrimps, crabs). In addition to their commercial value, finfish support a highly valued sport fishery. Snappers and Groupers Seven species of snappers are taken in the Florida fishery. Red snapper is the most valuable and makes up most of the catch. Red snapper landings in Southwest Florida averaged about 995,000 lb annually in 1970-80 (about 25% of the statewide red snapper landings). Commercial landings of groupers in Southwest Florida have been relatively stable, averaging a little over 5 million pounds annually since 1965. Monthly catches also are relatively stable except for slight declines in January and February. The landed value in 1980 was just under $1.00 a pound. Relatively little is known about the early life history of snappers and groupers. Only a few of the larvae among the snapper species have been described and specific areas of spawning are unknown. Most fish probably spawn in deeper coastal waters in spring, summer, and fall and the pelagic larvae are transported by prevailing currents to shallow coastal waters and estuaries which are used as nursery grounds (Beaumariage and Bullock 1977). As juveniles they move from shallow reefs or grassy areas to deeper holes or hard bottom outcroppings. Adults seldom stray far from hard rock outcrop- pings, reefs, or corals because of their need for cover in protective holes and crevices. The size and growth rates of each species of grouper varies. Although the biological characteristics of each species of grouper may vary, the gag (Mycteroperca micro! epis) has been studied the most. This species in its second year of life is about 14 inches long and weighs between 2 and 3 lb. Most of the largest groupers landed commercially are 5 or 6 years old and average 20 to 25 lb. Maximum age is about 30 years. Sexual maturity is reached in 2 to 4 years, and most groupers are protogynous hermaphrodites which begin life as females. Transformation to males begins at about age six, but not all become males. Factors causing sexual change are not understood, but the purpose probably is to prevent the loss of males from the highly territorial populations found in the relatively isolated reef areas. Red snappers are long lived (up to 20 years), slow growing, deep reef dwellers (Futch and Bruger 1977). They are essentially non-migratory except for seasonal inshore-offshore movement. They eat shrimp, crabs, other crusta- ceans, and fish. The increasing competition for snappers and groupers by commercial and sport fishermen in Florida may be reducing the abundance of these species to relatively low levels. The closing of Mexican fishing grounds to Southwest Florida fishing fleets has diverted even more fishing pressure toward the 196 snapper and grouper populations near Florida. The increasing use of fish traps to catch snappers and groupers in Southwest Florida waters has been strongly opposed by sport fishermen and has led to various legislative actions to restrict or prohibit the use of fish traps. King Mackerel King mackerel (Scombermorous cavalla) is a valuable sport and commercial fish in the coastal waters of Southwest Florida. Annual commercial landings in Florida averaged 2.7 million lb in 1970-80, but the sport catch was roughly estimated at about three times that much. The fishery management plan cur- rently under preparation by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils (Public Law 94-265) seeks to allocate 9 million lb annually to the commercial fisherman (approximately 5 million lb to nets and 4 million lb to hook and line) and 29 million lb to sport fishermen. Competi- tion between sport and commercial fishermen (and even between various types of commercial fisheries) has been severe and stimulated legislative attempts to control one type of fishing or another (e.g., make net fishing illegal, or declare the species a game fish which cannot be taken by commercial fishing). These proposals have been highly controversial and none has become law, but legal attempts for greater control undoubtedly will continue. Yearly landings of king mackerel in Southwest Florida ranged from 1.2 million lb in 1972 to over 6 million lb in 1974, and averaged about 2.7 million lb. Seasonal catches are quite pronounced. Heaviest landings are usually in December through March whereas lowest landings are from June through September. The value of the 1980 catch of $1.8 million in Southwest Florida was less than half the total State value of $4.5 million. King mackerel usually first spawn at ages three (males) and four (fe- males) primarily from May to September. Spawning has been well documented off Texas and Northwest Florida, and from Florida to North Carolina along the Atlantic coast (Beaumariage 1973). Relatively little is known about the juve- niles, which are seldom seen except for a few taken near shore in shrimp trawls. The adults may live 13 or 14 years but most are less than 7 years old. Adult mortality is estimated to be about 50% per year. Tagging studies have shown extensive migrations. King mackerel tagged in winter along the Southeast Florida coast usually migrate into the Gulf of Mexico in spring and move as far west as Texas and eastern Mexico in the summer. A return migration in fall and winter has also been documented. Fish tagged in Southeast Florida have been caught as far north as Virginia. These and other continuing studies indicate that there are probably two popula- tions of king mackerel with some evidence of mixing in the south Florida area. Despite heavy exploitation of king mackerel, biological evidence indi- cated that the abundance of the species has remained relatively stable for many years (Beaumariage, personal communication). The availability of the fish stocks sometimes change sharply because of their migratory habits and response to changing currents, climate, and other conditions. Whatever the cause, sport and commercial fishermen tend to blame each other when their catches are below their expectations. 197 Spanish Mackerel The sport and commercial importance of the Spanish mackerel (Scomberomo- rus maculatus) is similar to that of the king mackerel, but it is smaller in size, and does not live as long (8 years). They first spawn at age group II over the inner continental shelf at depths of 40 to 165 ft from May through September (Powell 1975). Spawning has been documented from Cape Sable to off- shore waters of Mobile Bay and from Georgia to Chesapeake Bay. Little is known about the juveniles, but they grow rapidly and enter the fishery at age one (second year of life), which is also the dominant age group of the catch. Migratory patterns are suspected to resemble those of king mackerel, but large scale tagging studies have not been attempted. Spanish mackerel landings vary considerably from year to year in Florida waters. In 1970-80, Southwest Florida landings ranged from 1.1 million to 7.5 million lb annually, and statewide annual landings ranged from 6.4 million to 17.3 million lb. Catches are highest in October through April. Landings of 11.9 million lb in 1980 were valued at just over $3 million dockside. Spotted Seatrout The spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) is highly sought by sport and commercial fishermen (Perret et al. 1980). Although there are no sport catch statistics, the sport catch probably equals or exceeds commercial landings. Commercial catch data are complicated by the large proportion of trout in the market that were caught by sport fishermen and sold. Some markets in Florida are heavily dependent upon sport catches to meet their demands. Commercial landings of speckled trout in 1970-80 in Southwest Florida have been remarkably stable, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 million lb annually and averaging 1.5 million lb--about half of the State total. The State's landed value in 1980 was almost $1.7 million, an average of 68it per lb. Landings were heaviest from October through January. Commercial landings in 1951-76 declined markedly in some areas of Flori- da, possibly because of over fishing, but more likely because of the altera- tion of habitat. Examples are dredge and fill operations, pollution, low freshwater inflow into estuaries, and the conversion of wetlands to residen- tial and industrial use. The spotted seatrout is an estuarine-dependent fish that spends most of its life in estuaries. Some populations are so distinct that they exhibit different racial characteristics among major estuaries. Speckled seatrout spawn in the deeper waters of estuaries in spring and summer months in April - July. (In southern Florida some spawn year round.) Males first spawn when 1 to 2 years of age; females at 2 to 3 years of age. Adults may live to be 10 years old. Striped Mullet The black or striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) is one of five species of mullet in Florida and is the most important mullet commercially (Cato et al. 1976). Landings in Southwest Florida averaged about 16.6 million lb annually from 1970-80, and ranged from 15.9 to 20.1 million lb. Statewide landings 198 varied from 18.6 million lb in 1976 to 30.9 million lb in 1980. Monthly land- ings are highest from October through December and lowest in February, March, and April. The landed value in Southwest Florida in 1980 was $3.6 million, which was over half the total value of mullet landed in Florida. Striped mullet spawn in offshore waters from October to January. Larvae have been collected from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast as far north as Cape Cod, MA in depths to 900 fathoms. When 20 to 30 mm long, the larvae move into the estuaries and, except for spawning or seasonal movements to offshore waters, they probably live the remainder of their lives there. Adults first spawn when 2 to 3 years old and females typically grow larger and live longer than males. Adult mullet sometimes inhabit fresh waters, and move long distances up rivers. Land-locked populations have been reported in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. Maximum age is 6 to 7 years, and maximum length is about 18 inches. Juvenile and adult striped mullet are pri- mary consumers that feed largely on diatoms, algae, and benthic detritus. They have a muscular gizzard that helps grind their food. Despite high production, striped mullet are probably under utilized. When fresh, it is ranked by some consumers to be one of Florida's finest eat- ing fish, but because it is a relatively oily fish subject to early rancidity, it has an extremely short shelf life. Mullet are taken commercially primari- ly in the fall and early winter when they tend to school prior to moving offshore to overwinter and spawn. This strong seasonal availability is troublesome because the markets are glutted and prices fall. Currently, there also is a strong market in Japan for mullet roe. This relatively new demand has helped the fishing industry in Southwest Florida. Pompano Pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) has long been considered the aristocrat of Florida's fishes (Berry et al. 1967). Fishermen received as much as $2.70 per lb dockside in 1980. Catches in 1970-80 from Southwest Florida made up a majority of statewide landings. Annual production ranged from 1.4 million lb to 0.7 million lb and averaged about 942,000 lb. The commercial catch is limited and most production is sold to restau- rants. A closely related species, the permit (Trachinotus falcatus), also enters the catch and has potential for an expanded fishery. A brief descrip- tion of the biology of the pompano is given in the following subsections. Spawning. The exact location of spawning of pompano is unknown, but the appearance of larvae in offshore waters suggests offshore spawning. Ripe females have not been collected in inshore waters. The spawning season is apparently protracted, extending from April to October, and in some areas as early as February. Most spawning is from April through June. Juveniles. Juveniles grow fast--about one inch per month. Preferred habitat of juveniles is open beach areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast where the bottom is predominantly sand and there is a diverse and abun- dant invertebrate fauna. The pompano is taken in large quantities in the surf zone where wave action uncovers food organisms. Pompano live in bays and estuaries and have a wide range of salinity tolerance. 199 Adults. The pompano is a relatively small fish, averaging 1 to 2 lb, but some reach 4 to 6 lb. Most pompano probably live to be 3 to 4 years old. There are some indications that pompano migrate north in the spring and summer and return south in fall. Pompano command the highest price per pound of any fish in the southern United States; nearly 90% of total U.S. production comes from Florida waters. Diet. Juveniles feed on a wide variety of organisms. Adults are more selective in their feeding and primarily consume coquinas and other mollusks. Other Fish Species Estuarine and marine fishes in Florida are used commercially for food, bait, oil, fish meal, and pet food. Commercial fishing for tarpon, bonefish, and sailfish is prohibited, but they are highly sought by sport fishermen. Annual fishing tournaments for these species are common. The value of products of the commercial and sport fishery and their related or dependent industries or services (such as fuel, fishing equipment, boats, nets, ice, storage, and processing) must be considered before the total value of the fishery resources of Southwest Florida can be accurately estab- lished. SHELLFISH The most valuable coastal shellfish species sold in Florida markets are shrimp, lobster, blue crab, and stone crab. Of these, the most important are shrimp. In Southwest Florida, pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) makes up almost the entire catch although there are several closely related species that may occasionally be landed. Rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris) is also produced and its importance grew considerably in the 1970"^ Landings of shrimp from Southwest Florida ranged from 15.7 million to 22.9 million lb from 1970-80 and generally represent over 50% of the total State landings. Because of the large volume and relatively high dockside prices, shrimp is Florida's most valuable commercial species (landed value over $41 million in 1980). The importance of the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico has been reported by Christmas and Etzold (1977) and for the south Atlantic United States by Eldredge and Goldstein (1975). A description of the biology of the pink and rock shrimps is given in the following subsections (Joyce 1965, Farfante 1969). Pink and Rock Shrimp Spawning. Pink shrimp spawn year-round at depths of 12 to 26 fathoms but most spawn in the spring and fall. Rock shrimp spawn at depths of 20 to 70 fathoms in winter and spring. About 500,000 fertilized eggs are released into the water column by each female. Females may spawn several times in one season. 200 Larvae. The larval stage is 15 to 30 days long depending upon the water temperature. Larvae remain in open waters until attaining the postlarval stage at which time they use tidal currents and salinity gradients to enter nursery areas. Pink shrimp use various portions of bays and tidal marshes for nursery areas whereas rock shrimp use higher salinity bays and nearshore areas out to depths of 10 fathoms. Juveniles. Growth is rapid; they require only 3 to 4 months to mature. When water temperatures cool in the fall and the shrimp are 3 to 4 inches long, they emigrate from nursery areas using tidal currents for transport to offshore spawning grounds. Shrimp that do not emigrate may overwinter in deeper portions of bays until spring and then move offshore. Adults. Major fishable concentrations of pink shrimp are along the southwest coast from Fort Myers to Tortugas. Major populations of rock shrimp live near Apalachicola Bay and from Cape Canaveral to Georgia, and to a lesser extent in the Tortugas area. Pink shrimp mature when about 3.5-4.0 inches long. They arrive in the offshore spawning grounds in fall and early winter when they are 6 to 8 months old and about legal size (47 whole shrimp per lb or 70 tails per lb). Maximum age is about 2 years, but few survive beyond 12 to 14 months. Diet. The larvae are planktivores that feed on algae and zooplankton. Postlarvae, juveniles, and adults are omnivores, and feed on detritus and microorganisms. Blue Crab The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) supports a major shellfish fishery in Southwest Florida and most are taken by traps (Adkins 1972). Baited longlines and dip nets have been used with some success, but they generally are too labor intensive. The annual blue crab catch for Florida in 1970-80 averaged about 17.3 million lb of which less than 16% were caught in Southwest Florida. Monthly catches were generally heaviest from April through September. The landed value of the 15.6 million lb State catch in 1980 was about $3.5 million, and the dockside price was about $0.22 per lb (Prochaska et al . 1981). A brief description oi^ the life history of the blue crab is given in the following subsections (Perry 1975, Van Engle 1958). Spawning. Spawning is year-round except in northern waters of Florida when water temperatures sometimes drop below 60°F. Longshore migration on the west coast towards Apalachicola Bay by some females suggests this may be a primary spawning area for the Florida gulf coast. Females spawn at least twice, producing 700,000-2,000,000 eggs each time. Spawning usually peaks in April -June. Larvae. The larval go through seven zoea stages lasting 31-49 days and one megalopa stage lasting 6-20 days. Zoea are planktonic until molting into the megalopa stage. Megalopa utilize tidal currents to move into estuarine waters where they molt into the first crab stage [2-3 mm carapace width (CW)]. 201 Juveniles. Small blue crabs (<1.6 inches CW) live in a variety of shallow water habitats in the estuary (e.g., grass beds, muck bottoms) and gradually move to deeper water as they grow larger. Adult size (>120 mm) is achieved after 18-20 molts in 12-14 months. Adults. The size range of adults usually is 4.7-5.5 inches CW; they enter the commercial fishery at 4.5 inches CW. Adult crabs are known to live at least one more year, and a few may live 3 to 4 years. Primarily a shallow- water species (<115 ft deep), adult blue crabs live in a variety of habitats ranging from gulf waters with 34 ppt salinity to inland freshwater rivers up to 121 mi from the coast. Diet. Blue crabs eat fish, aquatic vegetation, mollusks, (clams, mus- sels, snails), crustaceans (amphipods, isopods), and insects and annelids. Little is known of the food habits of larval crabs, but laboratory-maintained animals have been successfully reared on photosynthetic dinoflagellates, brine shrimp (Artemia) and sea urchin eggs (Arbacia). The megalopa is omnivorous and will eat fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants. Stone Crab The stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) is another major Florida seafood delicacy, but only its claws are used for food. Because new claws may be regenerated, Florida law requires that stone crabs be released alive after legal-sized claws are removed. Statewide stone crab landings increased steadily from 1970 (1.6 million lb) to 1980 (3.9 million lb). Southwest Florida catches dominated statewide landings and showed a similar increase. Stone crabs also are one of the five most valuable seafoods. In 1980, the average dockside price was $1.43 lb and the total value was over $5.5 million. A brief description of the life his- tory of the stone crab is given in the following subsections (Sullivan 1979). Spawning. Adults spawn throughout the year, but primarily from April through September. Most spawning females have a 2.25 inch carapace width (CW) and are approximately 2 years old. The number of eggs is believed to increase with the size of the female. Claws of legal size (3.5 inches minimum CW) are first produced at 3 years of age. Larvae and juveniles. Stone crab larvae go through five zoea (plank- tonic) stages and one megalopa (benthic) stage. Juveniles develop within a month after hatching and first appear on shallow rock and shell substrates in late spring or early summer. Juvenile crabs have been found in all adult habitats. Adults. Adults are benthic, burrowing animals. They live at depths up to 200 ft, but the fishery is largely confined to depths less than 100 ft. Although some inshore to offshore movement is associated with reproduction, no mass migrations have been reported. Males first enter the fishery as age group II in the fall and as age group III in the winter. Most females of the same age enter the fishery somewhat later. Most trapped crabs are 3 years old and possess two legal-sized claws. Crabs 4 and 5 years old contribute jumbo claws, and sometimes regenerated claws, to the fishery. 202 Diet. Larvae are plantivorous. Juveniles and adults are nocturnal car- nivorous predators and scavengers. Claw regeneration. Claws regain most (70%-80%) of their size after 2 molts. Claws regenerate to legal fishing size within 12 months. Over 20% of the legal-sized crabs trapped in a 1975-76 FDNR study had regenerating or regenerated claws, suggesting a heavily fished population and good survival rates of declawed crabs. Management considerations. No trapping for stone crabs is allowed without a State (FDNR) permit; the crab season is closed between May 15 and October 15. Legal claw or claws (forearm 2.75 inches) may be taken, but live crabs must be released. A fishery management plan in effect for the Fishery Conservation Zone includes the above regulations as well as a boundary line to separate stone crab and shrimp fishermen in the spring. The boundary line is necessary to prevent territorial conflicts between the expanding stone crab and shrimp fisheries. The stone crab fishery is still increasing in intensity and production, but it may soon reach saturation, and new management decisions may have to be made. Research into the effects of dehydration on survival indicate that current fishing methods may not provide for maximum yield from the resource. Additional research must be done to determine whether current management practices need to be changed. Suggested changes in stone crab management have included various schemes for taking only one claw from a crab to enhance its survival and develop a new crusher claw. Information on claw regeneration and claw reversal indicates that declawed crabs survive ade- quately if not held out of water too long after being boated, and claw reversal is not frequent enough to increase the abundance of crusher claws. Spiny Lobster Spiny lobsters (Panulirus argus) are one of the most valuable seafood species landed in Florida (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishing Manage- ment Councils 1981). In 1980 their value was $13.7 million dockside, and the average price was $2.10 per lb. Annual catches in the first half of the 1970' s averaged over 10.3 million lb, but in 1975 the Bahama government pro- hibited Florida fishermen from lobster trapping in that island area. In 1975-80, annual catches in Florida ranged from 5.3 to 7.4 million lb and averaged only about 6.2 million lb. A brief description of the life history of the spiny lobster i? given in the following subsections. Reproduction. Mating, which involves deposition of an external sperma- tophoTTc mass {"tar") on the female thorax, is performed principally from March through July in the Florida Keys. During spawning, the female extrudes the eggs, passes them over the spermatophore where fertilization occurs, and attaches them to the underside of the abdomen. Eggs are carried by the female for 3-4 weeks, then they are released as larvae in waters bordering deep reefs adjacent to the Keys and Southwest Florida. They spawn from April through October, but predominantly in May through July. A female may carry from 300,000 to more than 1,000,000 eggs and spawn twice in a season. Larvae. The spider-like phyllosome larvae pass through 12 planktonic stages in oceanic waters for about 8 to 9 months, then metamorphose to a transparent, swimming postlarval stage called a puerulus. The puerulus swims directional ly until acceptable juvenile habitat is encountered, at which time 203 it settles out, molts, and begins juvenile development. Pueruli arrive predominantly during the new moon and first quarter (dark) phases of lunar months. In Florida, lobsters spawn year-round, but peak in the spring. Juveniles. Growth of juvenile lobsters averages 3-5 mm per month until maturity (70-90 mm). Major estuaries (Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay) are the principal juvenile nursery areas for Southwest Florida's spiny lobster popu- lation. Juveniles initially take up residence in fouling assemblages or grass beds, aggregating in rocky dens as they attain sizes of about 35 mm CL (cara- pace length). As the juveniles grow, they move to deeper parts of the nursery area and migrate to seaward reefs when they near maturity (70-90 mm). Adults. Most lobsters mature when 85-95 mm CL, and about 3+ years of age. A stable, unfished population consists principally of lobsters 100 mm CL or greater. Diet. Larvae feed largely upon zooplankton, but pueruli are not known to feed. Juveniles and adults are omnivores, feeding principally upon mollusks and small crustaceans. Predators. Larvae and postlarvae are eaten by pelagic fishes such as small tuna. Juveniles and adults are preyed upon by octopus and fishes, particularly groupers. Management considerations. State laws specify fishing methods and practices (e.g., trap design and buoy markings) which include a minimum size of 76 mm (3 inches) CL and a closed season during the major spawning period (1 April through 24 July). A special two-day sport fishing season (20-21 July) is allowed. Sport bag limits are imposed during the regular and special fishing seasons. Preparation of a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (promulgated by the latter) to regulate the spiny lobster fishery in the Fishery Conservation Zone is nearly complete and may become effective by FY 81-82. Management options selected for the FMP differ little from those already in effect in Florida. The Florida spiny lobster fishery is currently overinvested in traps, boats, and fishermen. Recent estimates disclose that commercial production (4 million to 6 million lb annually) could be maintained with about one-third to one-fifth of the current fishing intensity. The current illegal fishery for undersized lobsters ("shorts") may be 20% to 50% as large as the legal catch. Such practices undoubtably reduce poten- tial landings. Lobster growth is reduced by injury from sport and commercial fishing practices because some of the growth energy is redirected to regeneration. Reduction in lobster growth has been as great as 40% in areas where injury rates are high (e.g., juvenile nursery areas such as Biscayne Bay), delaying entry of juveniles into the fishery. Sport and commercial fishing sometimes is widespread in areas abundant with juvenile lobsters, and injuries of the juveniles probably reduce production potentials. 204 Escalation of trapping intensity has created demands that cannot be satisfied by supplies of traditional baits. Some fishermen have adopted the practice of baiting traps with live undersized lobsters. Because lobsters are gregarious, traps containing undersized lobsters will catch about three times more lobsters than empty traps or traps using other baits. The practice of transporting "shorts" aboard vessels to bait traps was allowed by State statute several years ago. The Florida Keys lobster fishery currently attempts to maintain more than 1 million shorts as bait in traps. Recent FDNR research indicates that the practice of baiting traps with shorts may cause about 20% mortality. Mortality as high as 40% has been reported for bait lobsters held out of the water for 4 hours. Similar exposure-related mortality among shorts held in sorting boxes has been reported from western Australia. Holding in traps also leads to weight loss from starvation and may expose survivors to increased predator-related mortality (e.g., octopus). The practice of baiting with shorts in Florida may seriously reduce catch potentials. The source of recruitment for Florida's spiny lobster stocks remains unproved. Several theories espouse either recruitment from local stocks or transport of larvae to Florida from Caribbean sources. The latter seems more likely considering the oceanic environment and length of time necessary to transit the larval period. Appropriate current patterns exist to accomplish such Caribbean transport. Extended spwawning periods in the Caribbean may explain year-round Florida recruitment. Finally, recent studies indicate spawning potential of the Florida population to be reduced 88% from that of a "natural" population, yet there is little indication of decline in recruitment to Florida stocks, as might occur if recruitment were dependent upon local spawning. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Fishery Management Plan reports that potential Florida lobster landings should be twice as great as the 1980 landings. About 20% to 40% of this difference may be accounted for by unreported but legal commercial and sport landings. Other Shellfish (Invertebrates) In Southwest Florida blue crab, stone crab, pink shrimp, and rock shrimp make up over 95% of the total invertebrate catch. The only other invertebrate species taken are hard clams, bay and calico scallops, conchs, and sponges. Because of greater concern over the sponge fishery, less restrictive legisla- tion has been proposed to aid in its recovery. The sponge industry had declined primarily because of competition with cheap plastic sponges but diseases, restrictive fishing regulations, and high costs of production con- tribute to increased rates. Members of the sponge industry believe that removal of some of the old non-biological ly based laws will help restore the fishery. Publications relevant to the Florida shellfish fishery and the biological characteristics of several species are in the list of references. 205 PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THE STATUS OF RESEARCH Before 1950, yery little was known about the biology of the relatively few estuarine and marine fish and shellfish sought by sport and commercial fishermen. Following World War II, interest in fishing as a vocation and an avocation began to increase and with it the need to understand the life his- tory of the more important species. In the 1950' s and 1960's many papers were written about a variety of marine resource topics and collectively new biolog- ical concepts began to emerge. Most significant among the findings was that most coastal fish and shellfish are estuarine dependent. Studies revealed that at least part of the life cycle of over three- fourths of the major com- mercial and sport species along the coast of Florida depended upon the shallow estuarine areas (nursery grounds) where food and protection were abundant. The biological richness and importance of these nursery grounds were difficult to convey to the general public, and thousands of acres were lost to indis- criminate dredge and fill projects before protective legislation finally was passed. Research, now more advanced and better funded, reflects even more the importance of estuaries for sustaining fish and shellfish. Some of the fish- ery research needs or requirements in Florida were reported by Cato (1979). HABITAT ALTERATION For the majority of fish species studied, the quantity and quality of habitat is a major limiting factor in species abundance. The alteration of habitat has been greatly reduced in Florida by protective regulations. No longer can developers move freely into marshes or estuarine areas and indis- crimately dredge and fill to create waterfront (canal) home sites such as Boca Ciega Bay, near St. Petersburg. Although dredging determined to be "in the public interest" continues, the massive projects of the 1950's and 1960's now are a rarity. Habitat loss today is more subtle; an acre or two, a small boat channel, a causeway, all of which have cumulative effects. Not only are estu- arine areas being reduced, but the productivity of the remaining areas is declining. The decline in productivity is caused largely by the loss or diversion of freshwater inflow in estuaries and by municipal and industrial pollution. The dependence of most coastal fish and shellfish on estuaries is clear evidence that increased coastal habitat protection is paramount. Some of the current water and land use changes and development practices that are still damaging to estuaries are (1) diversion of freshwater inflow from estuaries, (2) diking or impounding estuarine marshlands for mosquito control, (3) indiscriminate spraying of pesticides in or near estuaries, and (4) the con- struction of causeway, bridges, and other structures that seriously disrupt normal water current patterns. Land management practices several miles upstream from brackish waters also may have serious effects on the estuarine habitat. For example, clear cutting can cause siltation and rapid salinity changes downstream that are 206 detrimental to an estuarine system. Agricultural pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers may pollute downstream estuaries and damming, and altering of seasonal river flow may alter salinities in estuaries. In view of man's destruction and alteration of estuaries, many possibili- ties for restoration have been examined. For example, a new spoil island or an eroding dune can be artificially vegetated to increase stability and estab- lish a viable habitat. For essential projects where habitat destruction is unavoidable, mitigation may be required. Under certain conditions, natural areas may be made more productive by the addition of new habitat features. For example, artificial fishing reefs on flat or low relief bottom areas have been shown to attract and concentrate fish so that they are more available to sport fishermen. The construction of shell reefs in appropriate waters may sharply increase the area for attachment of oyster spat and increase oyster abundance. Oysterbeds or reefs constructed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources in Apalachicola Bay since 1949 now account for a major portion of the oyster fishing grounds of Florida. This and other forms of restoration of lost or damaged habitat and even the improvement of natural estuarine areas have been made possible through extensive research and should be a prime consideration in marine resource management. SPORT FISHERIES The clear definition of a sport and a commercial fisherman is a debatable issue. There are, of course, commercial fishermen who fish for pleasure and sport fishermen who sell their catch. Both tend to seek the same species, sometimes in the same fishing grounds. Among the fishes that cannot be sold no matter how they are caught are sailfish, tarpon, snook, and bonefish. Almost all mullet and shrimp are taken commercially. Sport fishermen some- times catch and sell fish caught with small seines, gill nets, and cast nets. For some species in Southwest Florida, the sport catch probably equals or exceeds the commercial catch. In Florida, the economic value of the sport fisheries is considerable. There are now about 1/2 million registered boats, many of which are used by sport fishermen, and 36 million annual tourists, many of whom go sport fish- ing. Major sport fishes are king and Spanish mackerel, grouper, red snapper, spotted seatrout, redfish, cobia, flounder, and whiting somewhat in that order. Large numbers of other species also are caught. For example, a year long creel census in Choctawhatchee Bay (Irby 1974) showed that although speckled seatrout was one of the most popularly sought fish, fishermen actu- ally landed more pin fish. In Choctawhatchee Bay, party and charter boat fishing accounted for 50% of the fishermen and 75% of the sport catch, whereas bay sport fishing from private boats, piers, and shore accounted for only 35% of the sport fishermen and 16.4% of the catch. Tourists comprised 95% of the fishermen using party and charter boats. In Southwest Florida, a large number of fishing tournaments are conducted annually. Some tournaments sponsor competition for catches of sailfish, tarpon, and sharks. Fishing contests for sport fish are common along the Florida coast. 207 THE BAIT INDUSTRY The great increase in sport and commercial fishing since about 1950 has created a great demand for natural bait. Almost any fish species can be cut up and used for bait, but only a few enter the trade in large quantities. Favorite baits are squid, shrimp, silver mullet, ballyhoo, halfbeaks, her- rings, and small jacks such as cigar minnows and goggle eyes. With the exception of shrimp, most of the bait sold is frozen or fresh dead. Silver mullet, ballyhoo, and some of the herring species are usually sold whole, especially those prepared for sailfish, billfish, and king mackerel fishing. The majority are sold to party and charter boat anglers and the success of the trip often depends on the availability of the proper bait. The most valuable and useful bait is live shrimp. Live bait shrimp are caught primarily in estuaries where food shrimp fishing is banned. Part of the justification for this leniency is the self-limiting nature of the bait fishery. For shrimp to be kept alive, the vessel must be equipped with recir- culating water holding tanks and a small shrimp trawl that is towed for only a short time (10 min). Short hauls with small trawls help keep shrimp mortality at low levels and reduce the catch of other fishes. MARI CULTURE Mariculture is the commercial cultivation of estuarine or marine fish or shellfish. The high reproductive potential of most species and the increasing value of most seafoods has drawn much attention to the possiblity of "farming the sea." Most of the mariculture experiments in Florida used pompano, fresh- water shrimp (Macrobrachium), and saltwater shrimp (Penaeus). Several attempts have been made to raise saltwater shrimp. One company invested several million dollars and produced several hundred thousand pounds of shrimp in a year. Although this production was insufficient for reasonable profit, experimental culture is still underway. Their greatest success was achieved in two 300-acre ponds in which the cultured postlarval shrimp were stocked and fed until they were of harvestable size. In earlier years, shrimp mariculture was attempted in 2,500 acres of fenced bay bottom, which required the first State "mariculture" lease. A continuing series of problems ranging from hurricanes and high tides, to nets that sunk from an accumulation of fouling organisms (such as barnacles) forced them to abandon this method. Despite these and other experiments, mariculture in Florida is still in the developmental stage. Major problems were the high cost of labor and land, low winter water temperatures, and biological problems associated with mass culture. The most successful mariculture projects in Florida were moved to Central or South America where these problems are less troublesome. One of the better potentials for mariculture in Florida is in saltwater aquaria cul- ture. Since some of the brightly colored reef fishes now sell for as much as $50 each, their culture could be highly profitable. However, the high prices are an artifact of their scarcity and a successful culture effort will result in a great decrease in price. This in turn brings the cost within the range of many more aquarium enthusiasts. In summary, there is potential (as there is in several species), but a successful effort will be long term, well funded, and not directed toward quick returns. 208 RESOURCE CONCERNS AND ISSUES FLUCTUATIONS IN CATCH One of the long-established characteristics of estuarine or marine fish is their fluctuating abundance. Despite many years of study, there is little information that points to the cause. There is speculation that unusual weather changes may be partially responsible. Unusually low water tempera- tures may cause high mortality among estuarine fishes. Low freshwater inflow may cause excessive salinity in estuaries and poor reproduction. Low salini- ties after major floods may produce the same results. Little is known about fish and shellfish abundance except relative meas- ures reflected by commercial and sport catches. For Southwest Florida, sport catch data are scarce and the only commercial catch statistics available are those collected by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Changes in commer- cial catches require careful analysis. For example, when statistics show a decline in production for several years, it does not necessarily reflect an actual decline in the abundance of the species. The decline may simply reflect a change in fishing intensity or some other cause, but catastrophic declines or long-term trends usually become clearly apparent. THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY The abundance of shrimp stocks (based on commercial landings) in South- west Florida has been high in recent years. Although generally it is probably not possible to overfish shrimp, the loss or alteration of the estuarine nur- sery grounds is a sizeable threat to future production. Economics is the major problem currently confronting the shrimp industry. Fuel costs have risen rapidly over the last several years and imported shrimp constitute continuing competition, particularly those from Mexico where fuel costs of production are lower. Because of the high price for shrimp, which usually exceeds the price of red meat, almost 80% of all shrimp is sold to restaurants. These economic problems are creating demands for limited entry which would reduce the number of shrimpers (which now greatly exceeds the number of necessary to catch the available shrimp) and increase individual catches and profits. Limited entry and other controls would require major legislation. In some states where limited entry is in effect, the method has not always been helpful. It often creates as many problems as it solves. If limited entry is not established for the shrimp industry, the results may be the same because without some assistance, many of the smaller boat owners will be forced out of business which would reduce the number of boats in the fishery. Opponents of this "laissez faire" method feel that the shrimp industry will be severely damaged. In addition, once the industry stabilizes again, and becomes profitable, more ships will re-enter the fishery and the cycle will start over again. Most commercial fishermen appear to favor limited entry, but usually only when they think it will not affect them. In many limited entry proposals, there is a grandfather clause allowing anyone already in the industry to continue to fish. In effect such a scheme would only stop "new" 209 shrimpers from getting started. Since there are probably already many more vessels than necessary to catch available stocks, a grandfathered limited entry would not provide immediate relief, but it might be the long-term solution. Another major problem of the beleaguered shrimpers is the incidental catch of threatened and endangered species of marine turtles. Turtles are caught in shrimp trawls during normal fishing operations and are killed if held underwater by the net long enough. Emotion over this problem is so great that some people and agencies have suggested that the shrimp industry should be closed down. The shrimp industry is taking steps to keep the mortality at a minimum. The shrimpers have agreed that trawling time will not exceed 90 minutes per drag in areas where turtles are abundant. The National Marine Fisheries Service is experimenting on net designs that usually will not catch turtles. Recent designs in the excluder trawl look very promising and large scale testing is planned. These nets have other advantages as well. By excluding large amounts of trash and other debris of unwanted species (such as some types of jellyfish and fish too small to sell) they reduce drag, increase catch, and perhaps save fuel. In summary, the shrimp fishery is the most valuable fishery in Florida yet it is confronted with economic problems that threaten almost all industries. A regional management plan for the shrimp fishing of the Gulf of Mexico, United States, was reported by Christmas and Etzold (1977). LEGISLATION AND COOPERATIVE ACTION The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-265), which extended United States jurisdiction of fisheries from the territorial sea out to 200 miles, is probably the most far reaching fishery regulation of this century. To accomplish its purpose, eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils were formed and these quasi Federal agencies were given the respon- sibility for developing fishery management plans for those fish species that live primarily from the outer boundary of the territorial sea to 200 miles offshore (Fishery Conservation Zone FCZ). The law gives U.S. fishermen first rights over all fishing stock in the zone. Foreign fishing is permitted by the councils only when they determine that a surplus exists beyond that which U.S. fishermen can catch. Although Florida is a member of two councils (the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council), South- west Florida Fishery Conservation Zone is under the gulf council, which has enacted or is working on fishery management plans for the following fish and shellfish: stone crabs; shrimp (white, pink, brown, and related species); reef fish (snappers, groupers, and related species); king and Spanish mackerel (cooperative plan with South Atlantic Council); spiny lobster (cooperative plan); groundfish (primarily species taken incidental to shrimp trawling); sharks; coral (cooperative plan); and bill fish (a four-way cooperative plan with South Atlantic, New England, and Caribbean councils). Central to the development and approval of fishery management plans are the Seven National Standards that the act requires must be met. They are as follows: iilO 1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. 2. Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best scientific information available. 3. To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coor- dination. 4. Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes neces- sary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equi- table to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. 5. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. 6. Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisher- ies, fishery resources, and catches. 7. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. In addition to protecting and providing for proper utilization of fishes beyond the territorial sea, this act may profoundly affect inshore fisheries as well. As fishery management plans are approved and the results (both successes and failures) are available for review, the potential exists for individual states to enact similar regulations that may better protect their own fisheries. Success of the act will depend on how well the councils are able to deal with particularly difficult issues such as limited entry, pre-emption of a state's fishery regulations, and allocation of limited or diminishing resources. PL 94-265 has the potential for assuring maximum/optimum sustained yield of our country's marine fishery resources. FEDERAL FUNDING Federal support for fishery development and research in Florida has never been great. In contrast to the Northwest Pacific Coast states, (which favor salmon). Federal aid in the Gulf of Mexico has never been in proportion to fishery production in Southwest Florida. Probably the most beneficial Federal 211 aid has been provided through Public Law 88-309, "The Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 1964." It has provided research and marketing funds on a matching basis through the Florida Department of Natural Resources. These funds have been responsible for accelerated research and for the devel- opment of the largest seafood marketing program in the Southeastern United States. Florida's share of PL 88-309 was $240,000 in 1980. The Anadromous Fisheries Research and Development Act (PL 89-304) was designed primarily for northwestern states with strong anadromous fishery resources such as salmon. Benefits to southern and Gulf states were reduced because anadromous species there are scarce. Florida received 89-304 funds for studies of Alabama shad and sturgeon, which do not occur in Southwest Florida. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-265 already discussed) also provides funds for fishery resource and development. The individual fishery councils of the Gulf of Mexico may contract state or pri- vate organizations for needed research. Although council funds for such outside work are limited, they do not require matching funds. Funds for marine fishery development also are available from Saltonstall- Kennedy funds (SK), that are derived from an excise tax on imported seafood products. In past years, these funds have been used sparingly, but funds were made available to aid the seafood marketing and other industry oriented programs. Another major Federal program affecting marine resources is the National Sea Grant Program. In Florida, it is based at the University of Florida in Gainesville, but it is a consortium of State and private universities, each applying for funds to do research pertinent to marine resources. The programs in Florida have been highly successful in a number of areas particularly in fishery economics. The grant program also has established a statewide network of marine extension agents designed to help fishermen, as county agents help farmers. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 also represents a potential source of Federal funds that may be used in a variety of ways and could strongly benefit coastal living resources. A prime accomplishment in South- west Florida connected with this program was the designation of the Rookery Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. This designation provided funding for the purchase of additional lands crucial to protecting the environmental integrity of the system, as well as funding for the first 3 years of operation of a sanctuary office. In the case of the Apalachicola Sanctuary, these lands, when pur- chased, will be added to several thousand acres already purchased by the State for the same purpose. The designation will also make it very difficult to make any alterations that might negatively affect the system. The coastal management program also has been designated by the Reagan administration for deletion and the current status of any future funding appears bleak. CZMA also releases funds to help endangered species projects and studies on marine species or habitats. The National Science Foundation issues grants on fishery and coastal environments. 212 REGULATORY PROBLEMS Florida's marine fishery resources currently are regulated by the State legislature. The Florida Department of Natural Resources has rule-making authority, but only to clarify the legislation and establish ways and means for enforcing the regulations. The advantage of a legislated regulatory authority is that any new law requires approval by the House and Senate and the governor. This procedure serves to relieve political pressure on the Department and allows it to avoid making a long-term decision in the heat of a confrontation. The disadvantage is that it does not always work that way. Far too many laws still are enacted in the heat of confrontation and many are controversial and ineffective. In summary, resource laws should be based on the resource needs, not on the votes of any special interest groups. This requires good biological judg- ment and data and an ability to avoid the power of pressure politics. Flor- ida's law says that the marine resources are to be managed for the benefit of all citizens. That should include sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, and seafood consumers alike. When the resource is shown scientifically to be in jeopardy, then all resource users should share the burden of restoring the resource. The Seven National Standards quoted earlier represent the Federal attempt to ensure these rights to all fishermen in the FCZ; perhaps Florida needs a national "Standards" for State legislation as well. Florida also has "local laws." These laws that govern fisheries may apply only to one county or legislative district and are not necessarily con- sistent with other laws based on biological principles or evidence. Partly in response to this problem, the Florida Legislature passed an act in 1980 that established a Saltwater Study and Advisory Council to review all fishery management needs and problems and to establish criteria and guidelines for such management. The work of the Council is extremely important to the citi- zenry of Florida and the results of their work were completed in 1982. Industry Concerns Numerous problems confront the fishing industry. The cost of fuel is causing serious concern. The scarcity and high cost of fuel is a continuing consideration among fishermen. Although expensive, current supplies of fuel are fully adequate, but an allocation system may be necessary in the future. Currently, most fishermen feel they will be given preference for fuel on the same basis as farmers; this has relieved some concern. Gasoline and sales tax exemptions and fuel allocation procedures, as a relief for commercial fisher- men, was reported by Cato (1973). Direct Federal assistance to members of the fishing industry has been small although general assistance, such as the use of Sal tonstall -Kennedy funds for marketing programs, has been helpful. The most recent example of Federal assistance to the fishing industry of Southwest Florida was the aid made available to members of the lobster industry when Bahamian waters were closed to U.S. fishermen. Some Federal assistance is also available through the Small Business Administration (SEA) and other similar agencies for low cost loans. These are 213 loans, however, and must be paid back with interest. The advantage of such loans is their availability and lower interest rate. The licensing of commercial fishermen currently is not required in Flori- da despite 5 years of attempts by commercial fishing organizations to pass self-licensing regulations. Such a license would better identify full-time and part-time commercial fishermen and would provide a revenue that might be directed toward the solution of problems in the fishing industry such as quality control . QUALITY CONTROL AND MARKETING Quality control is a serious concern of the industry and increasingly strict regulations designed to protect the public health add to the cost of seafood products. Although quality control codes generally are enforced by several State and Federal agencies, enforcement often is inadequate. Some of the more pro- gressive fishery companies employ their own quality control standards to assure safe and high quality products. Although Florida boasts some of the largest and most modern seafood plants in the Southeastern United States, a large portion of the fishing industry consists of small operations. To increase fishery production and to extend the markets more for underutilized species, an extensive marketing- consumer promotion is required that is beyond the capacity of most members of the fishing industry. To meet this need, the State of Florida has established a seafood marketing-extension program supported by the industry through a self-imposed production tax, Federal matching money, and State revenues. This program emphasizes underutilized species. A new species source brings several benefits. The development of new fisheries and new fish products often divert fishing from traditional fisheries and reduce fishing intensity there. The fish will sell at a lower price and more people will be hired by the industry. One of the best examples is rock shrimp. Prior to an extensive marketing and educational program, rock shrimp in the catches usually were discarded. Now rock shrimp support a multimillion dollar fishery. Marketing successes in Florida led to the establishment of out-of-state offices funded by the seafood and marketing extension program, and funds and assistance from the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, National Marine Fish- eries Service, and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Development Foundation. Their cooperative actions also have supported extensive seafood promotion in the midwest. More recently international marketing of Florida and southeast- ern U.S. seafood products has been highly successful and may possibly lead to the establishment of a cooperative European office under the auspices of some State or Federal agency. Limited Entry The production of some fish and shellfish appears to be at or near maxi- mum sustained yield and has been for many years, but rapidly rising prices have stimulated increasing competition for fish and individual catches and profits have declined. In most fisheries, there are more fishing vessels and 214 fishermen than are actually needed for optimum or maximum production. Because of this excess, the idea of limited entry is receiving extensive discussion in Florida and already has been initiated in some states. Limited entry is defined as limiting the number of fishermen or fishing boats in a fishery. The object is to conserve fish stocks, increase the income of individual fishermen, and possibly reduce market prices. The only limited entry in Florida is directed toward eventual elimination of the food shrimp fishery in the St. Johns River. Food shrimp production is illegal there without a permit, and only those holding permits can renew them. Since permits are invalidated when the holder dies or discontinues fishing, the number of permits eventually will decline to zero. So far the number of permits has declined from about 650 to about 130. The lobster fishery is being considered for limited entry. The Rosenstiel Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami in cooperation with the Florida Department of Natural Resources, under a Ford Foundation Grant, evaluated economic advantages and disadvantages of limited entry for lobsters. The study did not recommend limited entry (Austin 1978). Limited entry sometimes can best be justified when the abundance of the resource is diminished by excessive fishing. Limited entry for economic reasons (i.e., to increase the profits of the fishermen) is not generally highly regarded. Number 5 of the Seven National Standards under PL 94-265 for the Fishery Management Plans in the Fishery Conservation Zone is a serious obstacle to economic allocation. Reluctance is expressed by those who believe that the free enterprise system will solve the problem because if the catch is divided among more and more fishermen and their profits decline, some will eventually leave the industry (intentionally or through bankruptcy). The best fishermen will survive and profit. If this happens before the population is seriously depleted, a "limited entry" will have been achieved without govern- ment control. This condition is only a temporary advantage because as soon as the fishery becomes profitable again, more vessels will start fishing and the cycle is repeated. For example, recent studies by economists Cato and Prochaska of the University of Florida, have shown that for every 10 cent increase in the price of a pound of shrimp, approximately 200 more boats enter the fishery. Limited entry workshops were held in Denver, Colorado in 1978 and Jack- sonville, Florida in June 1981. In general, those conferences concluded that limited entry was but one tool for fisheries management and that although there might be instances where its use would be appropriate and effective, it is not a panacea and it would probably best serve as a last consideration. Another concern of the fishing industry is the competition between sport fishermen (particularly those who sell their catch) and commercial fishermen (particularly those with larger and more sophisticated equipment) for the same stock of fish. For some species, the sport catch often equals or exceeds that of the commercial fishermen (e.g., king mackerel and speckled trout). The competition is greatest in bays and estuaries where small boats are seaworthy. Because of the political influence of sport fishing interests, commercial fishing has been eliminated or severely restricted in some areas. Some commercial fishermen fear that if this trend continues, the effect could be to slowly legislate commercial fishermen out of the business in nearshore coastal 215 waters and estuaries. To avoid this, the commercial fishing lobby is strengthening its position on these matters. The conflict between sport and commercial fishing is unfortunate because they share common problems (lower catches) for the same reasons (loss of natural habitat and consequent reduction in abundance). A concerted effort by both groups, directed at the real problems would be more effective. DATA GAPS Despite decades of scientific research on marine and estuarine-dependent fishes, detailed information on the life history, abundance, and distribution of many species is relatively scarce. Although there are many data gaps on how fish species live and interact with each other and their environment, the major data gap is the lack of reliable sport and commercial catch statistics. Commercial landing statistics gathered by the National Marine Fisheries Service are helpful, but the data generally are insufficient for the needs of today's fishing management requirements. Reliable or useful data on sport fish catches is virtually nonexistent. Nationwide sport fishing surveys by the National Marine Fisheries Service provide about the only data available. Reliable and timely catch statistics for fishing mortality analysis must be available before some of the most basic fishery management questions can be answered. Although Federal and some State funds have been provided for sport fish- ing surveys (Florida in 1980 contributed $100,000 to the National Marine Fisheries Service to increase the number of Florida interviews in an effort to achieve better accuracy), their continued funding is also in question because of fiscal constraints. Some surveys such as mail questionnaires, are subject to major, innate weaknesses, such as reliance upon information "remembered" by fishermen. These mail surveys are complex and difficult because the total population is sampled rather than only fishermen. A sport fisherman list is possible only if the fishermen are licensed. The best technique may be to count and interview during or just after fishing. Because of the critical need for catch statistics and the scarcity of funds for such surveys, licensing of sport and commercial fishing may be con- sidered. Proponents say that a sport and commercial license would at least identify all the fishermen (making surveys more efficient), and provide a roster that could be used in fishermen surveys. Opponents simply feel it is another unnecessary tax. The commercial license has been strongly supported in Florida by the commercial industry for several years, but it has been extremely controversial despite the three major national recreational fishery organizations that are strongly in favor of it. A general feeling in the State and Federal governments is that the resource users should bear the brunt of costs related to that resource. As governmental funds begin to decline, the public attitudes toward a sport license may change as well. A proper license would be inexpensive, yet it would provide funds and information long needed for effective marine resource management. Coastal habitat is necessary for producing marine resources, yet we know little of how much there is, how much has been altered, and how much of that 216 remaining has been adversely affected by man's alterations or threatened by it. This deficiency is a major data gap. Documentation of habitat loss will be time consuming and expensive. Satellite imagery is a relatively new tool, but one which can, by comparing old and new aerial photographs, identify habitat change. This information will be beneficial in documenting not only the importance of habitats in general, but also in evaluating any new or pro- posed action that will result in habitat loss or alteration. It may identify areas where restoration will be most beneficial. 217 REFERENCES Adkins, G. A study of the blue crab fishery in Louisiana. La. Wild!. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull. 3: 1-57; 1972. Allen, D. M. Biological aspects of the calico scallop, Arqopecten gibbus, determined by spot monitoring. Nautilus 93(4): 207-119; 1979. Berry, F.; Iverson, E. Pompano: biology, fisheries, and farming potential. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 19th annual session: 116-128; 1967. Beaumariage, D.S. Age, growth, and reproduction of king mackerel, Scombero- morus cavalla, in Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources Laboratory, Fla. Mar. Res. Publ . 1. Contrib. 226. 1973; 45 p. Beaumariage, D.S.; Bullock, L.H. Biological research on snappers and groupers are related to fishery management requirements. Bull is, H.R., Jr.; Jones, A.C. eds., Proceedings: colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant Col- lege Program Rep. 17. Contrib. 270: 86-94; 1977. Cato, J.C. Gasoline and sales tax exemptions and fuel allocation procedures for Florida commercial fishermen. Gainesville: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marine Advisory Bulletin; December 1973; 9 p. SUSF-SG-73-001. Deuel, D. 1970 salt-water angling survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; National Marine Fisheries Service; 1970; Unpubl . rep. Deuel, D.; Clark, J. The 1965 salt-water angling survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service; 1965; Unpubl. rep. Eldredge, P.J.; Goldstein, S.A. The shrimp fishery of the South Atlantic United States: a regional management plan. South Carolina Marine Research Center: Tech. Rep. 8; 1975; 66 p. Evink, G.L. Some aspects of the biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, on Florida's gulf coast. Gainesville: University of Florida; 1976. 67 p. Farfante, I. P. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. Fish. Bull. 67: 461-591; 1969. Futch, R.B.; Bruger, G.E. Age, growth, and reproduction of red snapper in Florida waters. Bull is, H.R., Jr.; Jones, A.C. eds. Proceedings: col- loquium on snapper-grouper fishery resources of the western central 218 Atlantic Ocean. Florida Sea Grant College Program Rep. 17 (Contrib. 275): 165-184; 1977. Galtsoff, P.S. The American oyster Crassostrea virqinica (Gmelin). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 64: 1-480; 1964. Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Fishery management plan, environmental impact statement, and regulatory impact review for spring lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. April 1981; Unpubl . rep. Ingle, R.M. Spawning and setting of oysters in relation to seasonal and environmental changes. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 1(2): 111-135; 1951. Joyce, E.A., Jr. The commercial shrimps of the northeast coast of Florida. Florida Board Conserv. Prof. Pap. Ser. 6; 1965; 224 p. Joyce, E.A. , Jr. A partial bibliography of oysters, with annotations. Flor- ida Department of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Lab. Spec. Sci. Rep. 34. Contrib. 193; 1972. 846 p. Kennedy, F.S.; Crane, J.J.; Schlieder, R.A.; Barber, D.G. Studies of the rock shrimp Sicyonia brevirostris Stimpson, 1871, a new fishery resource on Florida's Atlantic shelf. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ . 27; 1977; 69 p. Lassuy, D. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements (Gulf of Mexico)--the spotted seatrout. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services; FWS/OBS-82/11.4; 1982; 13 p. Livingston, F.J.; Joyce, E.A., Jr., eds. Proceedings of the conference on the Apalachicola River drainage system. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 26. Contrib. 293; 1977; 177 p. Livingston, R.L. Field and laboratory studies concerned with the effects of various pollutants on estuarine and coastal organisms of the Apalachicola Bay system (North Florida, U.S.A.). Report to Florida Sea Grant Program Project R/EA-1; 1975; 551 p. Mathis, K.; Cato, J.C.; Degner, R.L.; Landrum, P.D.; Prochaska, F.J. Commer- cial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida: Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties. Industry report 78-5. Gainesville: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida; July 1978a; 24 p. Mathis, K.; Cato, J.C.; Degner, R.L.; Landrum, P.D.; Prochaska, F.J. Commer- cial fishing port development in North Florida. Industry report 78-6. Gainesville: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida; September 1978b; 169 p. Miller, G.D.; Allen, D.M.; Costello, T.S.; Hudson, J.H. Maturation of the calico scallop, Argopecton gibbus, determined by ovarian color changes. Northeast Gulf Sci. 3(2): 96-103; 1979. 219 Moe, M. A survey of offshore fishing in Florida. St. Petersburg, FL: Flor- ida State Board of Conservation Marine Laboratory; January 1963. Nakamura, E.L; Bui lis, H.R. eds. Proceedings of mackerel colloquium. Gaines- ville, FL: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; No. 4; March 1979. Osterling, M.J, Reproduction, growth, and migration of blue crabs along Flor- ida's gulf coast. Florida Sea Grant Publ . SUSF-SG-76-003; 1976; 19 p. Perret, W., et al . Fishery profiles of red drum and spotted sea trout. Gulf States Mar. Fish. Comm. Rep. 6; 1980; 66 p. Perry, H.; Van Engle, W. eds. Blue crab colloquium. Ocean Springs, MS: Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission; Publ. No. 7; 1982; 235 p. Perry, H.M. The blue crab fishery in Mississippi. Gulf Res. Rep. 5(1): 39-57; 1975. Powell, D. Age, growth, and reproduction in Florida stocks of Spanish macker- el, Scomberomorus maculatus. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 5, Contrib. 243; 1975; 21 p. Prochaska, F.J. Seafood marketing research needs and opportunities: an eco- nomic perspective, seafood marketing research needs: workshop proceed- ings. Washington, DC: National Sea Grant Office; 28-41; March 1976. Prochaska, F.J.; Cato, J.C. An economic profile of Florida commercial fishing finms: fishermen, commercial activities, and financial considerations. Gainesville: State University System of Florida Sea Grant Rep. 19; February 1977; 24 p. Prochaska, F.J.; Morris, R.A. Primary economic impact of the Florida commer- cial fishing sector. Gainesville: State University System of Florida Sea Grant Rep. 25. November 1978; 60 p. Prochaska, F.J.; Cato, J.C; Keithly, W. An analysis of dockside prices in the Florida blue crab industry. Perry, H.S.; Van Engel , W., eds. Pro- ceedings: colloquium on the blue crab. Call inectes sapidus. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 7; 1981 (in press). Quick, J. A.; Mackin, J.G. Oyster parasitism by Labyrinthomyxa marina in Flor- ida. Florida Department of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Lab. Prof. Pap. Ser. 13; 1971; 55 p. Roe, R.B.; Cummins, R. , Jr.; Bull is, H.R., Jr. Calico scallop distribution, abundance, and yield off eastern Florida, 1967-68. Fish. Bull. 69: 399-409; 1971. Sastry, A.N. Reproduction of the bay scallop, Aequipecten irradians Lamarck. Influence of temperature on maturation and spawning. Biol. Bull. 125: 146^153; 1963. Steidinger, K. (Reported by). Bioprofiles of selected Florida species. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory; 1980; Unpubl . 220 Steidinger, K.; Haddad, K. Biologic and hydrographic aspect of red tides. BioScience 31(1): 814-898; 1981. Sullivan, J.R. The stone crab, Menippe mercenaria, in the southwest Florida fishery. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ . 36; 1979; 37 p. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1979 marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts current fisheries statistics 8063. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service; 1979 (published annually). U.S. Department of Commerce. The 1975 southeastern regional angler survey. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service; 1975. Van Engle, W.A. The blue crab and its fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Part 1, Reproduction, early development, growth, and migration. Comm. Fish. Rev. 20(6): 6-17; 1958. Williams, J.; Grey, W.F.; Murphy, E.B.; Crane, J.J. Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises: drift bottle analysis of eastern Gulf of Mexico surface circu- lation. Florida Department of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Lab. Vol. IV, Pt. Ill, Contrib. 300; 1977; 134 p. Whitfield, W., Jr. Construction and rehabilitation of commercial oyster reefs in Florida from 1949-71 with emphasis on economic impact in Franklin County. Florida Department of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Lab. Spec. Sci. Rep. 38; 1973; 42 p. 221 MULTIPLE-USE CONFLICTS Dr. Andrew A. Dzurik Associate Professor Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 INTRODUCTION Southwest Florida, consisting of ten coastal counties, contains numerous bays, estuaries, and wetlands, and hundreds of miles of relatively unspoiled sandy beaches. Among these natural resources are the major population centers of Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota, Bradenton, and Fort Myers. Southwest Florida has been and is growing rapidly, particularly in metropoli- tan areas. As the population increases, socioeconomic/environmental conflicts associated with this growth become more and more troublesome. In view of the conflicts common to rapidly growing relatively affluent areas as described in this report, it is prudent to protect and manage Flor- ida's natural coastal resources through long-term planning to help minimize serious conflicts, alterations, or losses. The real problem is paradoxical, i.e., to keep the expanding population from excessively desecrating, defacing, scarring, or polluting the highly valued environmental characteristics and natural resources that attracted them there. This paper focuses on conflicts that arise from competing uses for land and resources. It gives a brief history of land development in the State and in Southwest Florida and discusses current multiple-use conflicts. An over- view of the legal and institutional constraints on development is given and a major section is devoted to environmental and socioeconomic conflicts on Rook- ery Bay and Marco Island, Charlotte Harbor, the Big Cypress area, the Florida Keys, and Sanibel, a major barrier island. BASIS FOR CONFLICT The following is a list of socioeconomic and environmentally oriented problems and conflicts that relate to Southwest Florida. 0 The economy of Southwest Florida is heavily dependent on tourism and the beauty of the water and beaches. Anything that threatens these resources threatens the economy of the region. 222 0 The intensity of the demand and competition for residential, recrea- tional, industrial, and commercial development of coastal lands and waters, and the concerns of the environmentalists, are the basis for multiple-use conflicts in Southwest Florida. 0 Residential areas are frequently developed with little regard for potential hurricanes and associated floods. 0 Coastal wetlands and estuaries are vital to Florida's commercial and sport fishing industries, but these resources are usually ignored by planners and developers. 0 New or expanding coastal residential and industrial development will further compound the problem of rapidly diminishing coastal land and water resources. 0 Reduced groundwater supplies and accelerated runoff from rainfall are symptoms of major changes in land use (e.g., displacement by streets and buildings). 0 Excessive use of groundwater supplies for municipal use or from individual wells may cause a shortage of freshwater, and invite saltwater intrusion. 0 The construction of housing, roads, bridges, piers, and jetties on barrier islands is certain to destabilize the beach environment. 0 Extensive new onshore industrial developments may cause fiscal pro- blems for local governments. During first construction, local governments may be confronted with tax deficits created by the increased population and demand for public services prior to any increase in property tax revenue. In the long run, economic gains from increased property tax revenues are likely to more than compen- sate for early financial deficits. 0 Sewage disposal in new, and sometimes even old residential areas may cause serious public health and environmental problems. Faulty sep- tic tank systems could cause seepage of contaminated wastes into the ground water and in some coastal waters. 0 Wetlands may be filled in or covered to provide onshore urban facil- ities, which results in a loss of essential food and shelter for coastal fish and wildlife and a loss of natural storage of flood waters. 0 Contaminants and wastes discharged by industry may pollute the water and endanger aquatic organisms and human health. 0 Potential Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas production in the eastern gulf, if extensive and without adequate consideration for the environment, could in some areas seriously damage or destroy estuaries, marshes, beaches, and fish and wildlife populations. 223 Oil and gas pipelines built on wetlands could increase open water areas, destroy emergent vegetation, increase sedimentation and tur- bidity, and cause serious concern for the disposition of the spoil. Water may be polluted by dredge and fill practices, offshore con- struction of platforms, and discharges of clays and drilling liquids and wastes during drilling. GENERAL RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS COASTAL ESTUARIES AND WETLANDS Southwest Florida's rich natural resources provide a wide spectrum of environmental, economic, and social benefits. Its bays, estuaries, wetlands, and beaches are subject to intense residential, industrial, and recreational developments that usually are associated with rapid increases in population. Considering these developments, particular attention must be given to natural systems, freshwater recharge, optimal water quality, coastal integrity, and biological productivity. The coastal wetlands of Southwest Florida have many socioeconomic values. The major ones are listed below. 1. Coastal wetlands provide a buffer against storm sturge and flood damage by dissipating wave energy and storing flood waters. Barrier islands also serve as natural buffers, protecting mainland areas from the full force of storms. 2. Wetlands function as natural water filters, serving to maintain wa- ter quality and to reduce adverse effects of urban and agricultural runoff. They are particularly efficient in absorbing and filtering out sediments, particulates, nutrients, and organic materials. 3. Coastal estuaries, fed by freshwater rivers, provide productive natural habitats, breeding and nursery grounds, cover, and food supplies for a vast array of fish and wildlife. 4. Coastal estuaries and contributing rivers are essential for sus- taining Southwest Florida's highly valued commercial and sport fisheries. According to recent studies, about 80% of the income from Florida's Gulf of Mexico fisheries is from estuarine dependent species; consequently, maintaining wetlands, estuaries, and near- shore waters is of high priority. 5. Coastal wetlands serve as a reservoir to store water, to recharge groundwater aquifers, and to provide hydrostatic head that protects groundwater supplies from saltwater intrusion. RECREATION, TOURISM, AND INDUSTRY The recreational value of Southwest Florida is of considerable economic and social importance. Tourism is the leading industry in Florida, and the 224 gulf coast is one of Southwest Florida's major tourist attractions. The beaches and related facilities play a major role in the economy throughout the year, especially in the winter. Coastal waters and major tributaries provide routes for waterborne tran- sportation of goods and supplies, such as oil and agricultural products. They also provide sites for ports and harbors, and for other economic activities that rely on coastal resources. The coast is a primary site for large electric generating facilities, and in some areas it supplies an abundance of sand, shells, and oil and gas. OCS OIL AND GAS Offshore oil and gas development, deepwater ports, processing and shipping of petroleum products, and other OCS-related activities potentially could have major environmental, economic, and social impacts on Southwest Florida's coastal wetlands, natural resources, and communities. A major environmental threat is the potential for oil spills during drilling and transporting of oil. A major oil spill could be devastating because of the coast's vulnerable environment and its heavy reliance on its beaches for tourism. Intensive OCS exploration and development usually generates new onshore activity that causes additional environmental, economic, and social impacts (either beneficial or detrimental). These impacts are discussed in the chapter on Mineral and Oil Resources. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMPETITION FOR LAND AND WATER LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENT Historical Background Florida was acquired by the United States Government from Spain in 1821, but was not granted statehood until 1845 when its population was about 55,000. Upon statehood Florida received title to very little land, only 202,000 ha (500,000 acres) for internal improvement purposes, and one section (259 ha or 640 acres) in every township for education purposes. The state did, however, become owner and trustee of the bottoms of all navigable waters. It was not until 1850 that the State gained title to 8.3 million ha (20.5 million acres) of swamp and overflow land. The remaining land stayed in Federal ownership or was conveyed directly to individuals by the Federal Government. An early goal of the State and the Internal Improvement Board (created in 1851) was to encourage internal improvement. The primary tool for achieving this goal was by disposing of land, its most plentiful commodity. In the late 1800's the railroads received approximately one-third of the land or 4.45 million ha (11 million acres) in exchange for laying 1,800 km (1,100 mi) of track, an average 4,047 ha (10,000 acres) per mile of track (Landers 1975). 225 Swamp and overflow land also was similarly disposed of by the State. By the end of the Civil War, several railroad companies that had built lines into Florida were bankrupt or otherwise disbanded, and their property reverted to the State. The Internal Improvement Board underwent financial hardship as a result and was forced into receivership. To solve this problem, the State sold 1.6 million ha (4 million acres) of Southwest Florida land to Hamilton Disston of Philadelphia for one million dollars (25 cents per acre). In the latter half of the 19th century, Florida remained largely un- touched and out of the way of national development. The land was inexpensive, but it was also swampy and poorly served by transportation. By 1900, the State had about half a million residents, most of whom lived in the northern part of the State. Shortly after the beginning of the 20th century, practical methods were devised for filling submerged land. The State immediately began disposing of its submerged land and the rush of development that began then shows no signs of slowing today. Population Growth The population of Florida grew from 55,000 in 1845 to almost 10 million in 1980, and it continues to increase at an average rate of about 7,000 people per week. Sand dunes have been leveled, bays have been polluted, estuaries have been dredged and filled, rivers have been channelized, and the State has increasingly had to cope with multiple-use problems of development. A recent feature article in Sports Illustrated (January 1981) has gained some notoriety in Tallahassee and the rest of the State. The title of the article, "There's Trouble in Paradise," gives an indication of its tone. According to the authors, "in no state is the environment being wrecked faster and on a larger scale" (Boyl6 and Mechem 1981). Although the article is largely an editorial statement and subject to dispute, it does emphasize the socioeconomic and environmental problems confronting Florida as a result of urban development, and clearly illustrates many types of multiple-use conflicts. A number of major developments have taken place in Southwest Florida over the past several decades. Perhaps the most significant one has been the sub- division of wetlands for residential development to accommodate the rapidly growing population. Development has been especially intense near the coast where growth is the most environmentally damaging. Subdivision expansion into wetlands has been especially acute in Lee, Collier, and Charlotte Counties. Current Status Florida's past experience has shown that the allocation of land and water resources often provides short-term losses to the public as a whole. In recent years the State has recognized that large water-related coastal projects often have major adverse environmental effects and is attempting to develop several approaches to minimize the damage. The ongoing, rapid development of the State and Southwest Florida continues to create conflicts among the many competing uses for the land and water resources. 226 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS Several laws and programs relate to multiple-use conflicts in Florida. This section gives an overview of the State's Coastal Management Program, the Environmental Land and Water Management Act (particularly the sections on Developments of Regional Impact, and Areas of Critical Concern), industrial siting and environmental permits that affect industry, and the Coastal Con- struction Control Line Program. A more thorough discussion of environmental legislation is in the Chapter on "Environmental Issues and Regulations." COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583) was adopted by the U.S. Congress as a means of protecting and enhancing the Nation's coasts by helping the states develop and implement programs for managing their coastal areas. Florida has received grants for developing its management program, and has recently finalized its program (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 1980). Florida's coastal zone management program dates back to 1970 when the Coastal Coordinating Council was established. The council members and staff worked with coastal planning until 1975 when the council was abolished by the legislature and its duties and functions were transferred to the Department of Natural Resources. Among the notable works by the council staff was the pre- paration of a massive coastal atlas and the identification of coastal lands suitable for either habitat preservation, fish and wildlife conservation, or urban/industrial development (Florida Coastal Coordinating Council 1974). In 1977, the legislature transferred the powers and duties of coastal management to the Department of Environmental Regulation. The legislature acted to strengthen coastal management in 1978 with passage of the Florida Coastal Management Act (ch. 380.19 F.S.). The enabling legislation states that "... the environmental aspects of the coastal areas of this state have attracted a high percentage of permanent population and visitors and that this concentration of people and their requirements has had a serious impact on the natural surroundings." The Coastal Management Program developed over the past two years attempts to provide more guidance and predictabli ty to the private sector, and empha- sizes the strengthening of the administration of existing State laws. These laws can be very effective in regulating coastal development. The program also seeks to reduce unnecessary legal and administrative procedures and identify gaps in existing laws and regulations, and it aims to gain increased control for the State over Federal actions by way of the Federal consistency clause of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The tentative date for completion of the final environmental impact statement for the Florida Coastal Management Program is April 1981, and it is hoped that the program will receive final approval by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management in June 1981. 227 Because the Florida Legislature has directed the Coastal Management Pro- gram to be based on existing laws and regulations, the entire State has been designated as the coastal zone because most of the existing laws are of state- wide applicability. Of particular interest regarding multiple-use conflicts is the section of the program dealing with coastal development issues, and the appendices on energy facilities planning and coastal shorefront areas. DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT The Florida Environmental Land and Management Act of 1972 includes pro- visions to involve the State in controlling land development. Developments of regional impact (DRI) are subject to a review process. A "development of regional impact" is defined as: Any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county [380.06 (1). F.S.]. Developments presumed to be of regional impact were adopted as Ch. 22f-2 of the Florida Administrative Code and include twelve different types of development. Determination of their classification as a Development of Regional Impact depends primarily on the size of the development. Although the rule creates a presumption, projects not on the list or not meeting threshold criteria may still be determined to be DRI's if sufficient facts regarding the project support the statutory definition. Briefly, and in broad terms, a developer proposing a project that is determined to be a DRI must file an "application for development approval" with the local government having jursidiction. The appropriate regional planning council must prepare an impact report and submit recommendations to the local government having jurisdiction. The regional planning council must prepare an impact report and submit recommendations to the local government. The report must determine whether the development will have a favorable or unfavorable effect on the environment and natural resources of the region and whether it will unduly burden water, sewer, solid waste, or other needed public facilities, affect housing, or create an additional demand for energy [380.06(8), F.S.]. Clearly the requirements of the DRI process force local governments and regional planning agencies to address multiple-use conflicts relating to a proposed project. DRI's basically apply to large projects that have major environmental as well as social and economic impacts. The process highlights conflicts between the DRI and natural systems and between the DRI and manmade systems. In most instances, the conflicts can be minimized and the DRI pro- cess encourages reduction of negative impacts. Occasionally, a project will be rejected in the DRI process because of major conflicts that cannot be resolved. A notable example is the denial of development approval for "The Estuaries," a proposed residential development near Fort Myers that included 26,500 dwelling units on 2,620 ha (6,500 acres) in Lee County. A majority of the proposed site (91.9%) is classified as wetlands, about 1,130 ha (2,800 acres) are predominantly red mangroves, and 730 ha (1,800 acres) are black mangroves (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1976). 228 AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN The second major provision of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act relates to "Areas of Critical State Concern" (ACSC). The act authorizes the designation of the following three types of areas as ACSC's. (1) An area containing or having a significant impact upon environmental or natural resources of regional or state- wide importance, including, but not limited to, state or federal parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, aquatic preserves, major rivers and estuaries, state environmentally endangered lands, outstanding Florida waters and aquifer recharge areas, the uncon- trolled private or public development of which could cause substantial deterioration of such resources. (2) An area containing, or having significant impact upon, historical or archaeological resources, sites, or statu- torily defined historic or archaeological districts. The private or public development of which could cause sub- stantial deterioration or complete loss of such re- sources, sites, or districts. (3) An area having a significant impact upon, or being significantly impacted by, an existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major public investment including, but not limited to, highways, ports, airports, energy facilities and water management projects [380.05 (2) (a), (b) and (c), F.S.]. 229 The procedure for designating an ACSC is detailed and lengthy and re- quires substantial preliminary analysis. As part of designating an ACSC, a set of development priciples applicable to the area must be prepared. There- after, any developments taking place within the critical area must be in conformance with the development principles. The main thrust of the ACSC pro- vision of the act is to protect certain important resources of the State from uncontrolled development. To date, the three ACSC's in Florida that have been so designated by the legislature are the Big Cypress, the Green Swamp, and the Florida Keys areas. INDUSTRIAL PERMITS Industrial development, including power plant siting, often conflicts with other land and water uses such as housing, recreation, and conservation. These conflicts are especially pronounced in coastal areas where competition for limited resources is intense. Industrial activity is a necessary concomi- tant of economic development, however, and provisions must be made to accom- modate it at suitable locations. The attempts of industry to comply with Florida's environmental and siting laws have been onerous and frequently in a state of disarray, prompting the enactment in 1979 of a streamlined Industrial Siting Act (ch. 288 F.S.). The act, passed to attract new industry, is con- sistent with the protection of the State's natural resources and environment. A "Catalogue of Regulatory Procedures" was prepared by the State prior to the Industrial Siting Act in response to the confusion surrounding the State's multiple regulatory programs (Florida Department of Administration 1979). Among the regulations covered in the catalogue are those that deal with envi- ronmental issues and industry. This process of meeting numerous regulations for the issuance of indus- trial permits is commonly referred to as the "old method," with the "new method" referring to Florida's more recently enacted (1979) Florida Industrial Siting Act (ch. 79-147, Laws of Florida). Neither process supersedes the other. Instead, industries are given an option by the State to select which method of issuing permits they choose to follow. The major difference between these two procedures is the time and cost for obtaining a permit. Of the 17 permit programs outlined in the catalogue, twelve apply to the procedural methods for setting industrial permits. They include permits for the following: dredge and fill, water pollution sources, solid waste disposal plants, air quality systems, drilling freshwater wells, public and private water supply systems, power plant construction and operation, mined land rec- lamation, open burning, and for protection of historic sites and properties. The new process is designed to take seven months from application to com- pletion (approval or denial). Should any delays be requested, the hearing officer in charge of that particular request will determine the validity of the request in deciding whether to grant the delay. The Siting Act also is designed for the applicant to submit all requests for permits to one central office, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). This causes the Siting Act to be commonly known as "One-Stop Permitting." 230 These two elements reflecting the time schedule differ considerably with the "old method." Although the old method denotes certain schedule completion requirements, the overall process often took up to several years for an indus- try to obtain all the desired permits. This was primarily due to the require- ment that applicants submit requests for permits to several different State agencies and wait for each individual permit process to be completed. Some- times, one permit process had to be completed before another permit could be requested. Cost is another difference between these two optional processes. Minimal fees are required by the old method. Depending upon the number of permits requested, the entire process would cost $20 to $200 or more; each permit costing about $20. "One-stop Permitting," on the other hand, is more expen- sive. Fees for this process range from $2,500 to $25,000. These fees are to be used to pay for all costs incurred to process the application. An expendi- ture and balance statement is given to the applicant. These fees are deter- mined during a pre-appli cation process and vary according to the number of permits that are requested by a particular industry. The siting of power plants with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) or more is regulated by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (ch. 403 F.S.). The act was originally passed in 1973 to deal with the many environmental impacts of electrical generating facilities. Siting licenses are issued by the governor and cabinet and are the only license required under State law for the construction and operation of facilities. The application and approval process requires extensive information on design, location and potential impacts of a proposed power plant. Studies and reports are required of several State agencies and hearings are conducted prior to issuance of the license. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE The Beach and Shore Preservation Act (ch. 161 F.S.) addresses the problem of construction along Florida's coasts. The act establishes a coastal con- struction setback line 50 ft landward of the mean high water line. It also provides for a coastal construction control line that supersedes the 50 ft setback line when it is established based on field studies using engineering and environmental criteria for the sandy beaches of each coastal county. Coastal construction control lines are established on an individual county basis to define beach areas where special structural design considerations are required to insure protection of the beach and dune system, upland structures and adjacent property [ch. 161.053(1) F.S.]. After establishment of the coastal line, permits are required for any excavation and construction seaward of the line and vehicles are prohibited on dunes located seaward of the line. Permits may be granted if the State's Department of Natural Resources determines that engineering and topographical data indicate a permit is justified, or if the structure forms a part of a pre-existing line of structures seaward of the line and the pre-existing structures have not suffered unduly from erosion, or if the construction is a pier or pipeline that will not cause erosion (Florida Department of Environ- mental Regulation 1980). 231 MAJOR CONFLICTS Most of the multiple-use conflicts in Southwest Florida are caused by population growth. As the region has grown, major urban and industrial devel- opments have either been proposed or completed, and the growth shows no early sign of abatement. Inevitably, growth led to conflicts between those who would completely preserve existing natural ecosystems and those who would alter land use for development to the maximum extent possible. The Big Cypress area is an example of how the degradation of one area adversely affects nearby areas. The Sanibel Island conflict traces citizens' action to preserve their natural resources and way of life on this barrier island: Charlotte Harbor illustrates the multi -faceted problems that beset a major residential development. This section discusses six areas of major conflicts in Southwest Florida over the past quarter century. They are Rookery Bay, Marco Island, Florida Keys, Big Cypress, Sanibel Island, and Charlotte Harbor. These areas were selected to give broad geographical coverage and to illustrate some major examples of conflicts arising from rapid growth and urban development. There are many other major multiple-use conflicts in the region, some of which date back many years, such as port development in Tampa Bay, and oil development in Collier County. COLLIER COUNTY Collier County consists of 526,000 ha (1,300,000 acres) of flat sandy lowlands, wetlands, mangroves, and estuaries. Its coastal area (80,900 ha or 200,000 acres) is a fragile ecosystem of mangrove swamps, estuarine meanders, thin barrier beaches, and sandy low-lying shorelands. The county's estuarine resources were virtually undeveloped until the early 1960's when the heavy demand for waterfront development began. It was then that the construction of drainage canals in the interior watershed, dredging of estuaries, and the destruction and filling of mangrove swamps around Marco Island began in earn- est (Clark 1974). The process of urbanization has continued, and today the county's leading industry is residential construction. Collier County currently is attempting to resolve the impacts of its growth and its effects on cultural, economic, and ecological stability. The current major problem is the shortage of fresh water. The drought of 1981 led to serve restrictions on water use and caused saltwater intrusion. Massive fill and land drainage projects helped aggravate the problem. A conflict between environmental protection of wetlands and residential development is illustrated by the Rookery Bay Wildlife Sanctuary and the Marco Island residential subdivision. Rookery Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Because of increasing residential, industrial, and recreational devel- opment in the immediate and adjacent areas of Rookery Bay, there has been 232 considerable interest in preserving this relatively unspoiled area. In an attempt to save at least part of Rookery Bay, county citizens organized the Collier County Conservancy in 1963 and, in cooperation with the Nature Conser- vancy, purchased 2,000 ha (5,000 acres) of the coastal corridor just south of Naples to create the Rookery Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. Today, the Sanctuary consists of 2,200 ha (5,400 acres) and is privately maintained by the Collier County Conservancy, National Audubon Society, and the Nature Conservancy. In addition, this area has been designated as the Rookery Bay Estuarine Sanctuary by the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration. This designation earmarks Federal grant money for the acquisition of additional lands which may increase the area to well over 3,600 ha or 9,000 acres (U.S. Department of Commerce 1977). Studies conducted in 1967 and 1970-73 by the Conservation Foundation supplied environmental baseline data for Rookery Bay and proposed recommenda- tions for continuing management of the sanctuary and the adjacent land and water areas. Baseline data gathered by that study included information on ecosystem components and processes, and water quality. The three major water regimes of the Rookery Bay sanctuary are surface runoff, underground flow, and estuaries. The water areas associated with land drainage include cypress domes, sloughs, natural swales, marshes, creeks, bays, and manmade drainage canals. Groundwater flow is generally assumed to parallel surface flow moving to the southwest. Estuaries include wetlands, bays, and all bordering areas of marshes, mangroves, and tidal flats. These water regimes help form habitats for a number of endangered spe- cies, including the bald eagle, brown pelican, and the manatee. In addition to endangered species, the Rookery Bay area provides excellent habitat for many valuable species such as oysters, mullet, snook, snapper, redfish, and spotted sea trout (See the Chapter on Commercial Fisheries for Collier County marine landings statistics). Water quality in the sanctuary i$ generally good; it is relatively unpolluted except for high concentrations of copper and intermittently high col i form counts caused by sewage discharges. In fact, the bay was closed to shellfishing (oysters, clams, lobster, and shrimp) by the State Water Pollu- tion Board in 1970 because of the potential health hazard of pathogenic organisms in shellfish (Clark 1974). The bay is still closed to shellfishing. High turbidity in Rookery Bay in recent years has reduced light penetra- tion and photosynthesis of seagrasses and subsequently, their abundance and distribution. The major source of these suspended particles is surface run- off, especially near drainage canals, silt from dredging operations, and spoil placement (Clark 1974). Another aspect of the sanctuary is the integrity of that system to func- tion as an integrated unit. Water quality and circulation, vegetated estuarine areas, nutrient sources, benthic composition, shellfish beds, and vital habi- tat areas were assessed in studies to determine the ecological characteristics of the sanctuary. Apparently flushing of the bay waters occurs only during the wet summer months, consequently, in dry months a combination of low fresh- water inflow and high industrial and municipal discharges substantially increases the chances of pollution. 233 Recommendations for managing lands and waters immediately adjacent to the sanctuary were as follows: Land areas. (1) Excavation for site preparation should be specifically designed to protect the water regimes; (2) residential subdivisions should be designed to retain much of the expected rainfall and release it at a natural rate and acceptable quality; (3) existing artificial drainage facilities should not be expanded either in capacity or length; (4) new drainage systems should be designed to enhance natural drainage; (5) soil from the project should not be removed from the area; (6) impervious surface area should be reduced to a minimum. Water areas. (1) Improvements should be restricted largely to elevated (above water and vegetation) light-duty recreational and access structures; (2) piers and docks should be built above the 10-year flood return height; (3) vehicular access should be restricted to existing roadways; (4) excavation, grading, and filling without a permit should be prohibited; (5) disturbed lands should be restored to their natural condition; (6) No pollutants should be released into water areas; (7) development within a specific buffer zone surrounding the sanctuary should conform to recommendations for water areas (Clark 1974). Marco Island Marco Island is an example of a conflict between a large scale residen- tial development and an area of considerable ecological value. Deltona Corporation began development of Marco Island in 1954. The initial Marco Island development, 4,200 ha (10,327 acres) of uplands and submerged lands on and around Marco Island, was purchased for $7.5 million. The corporation planned to develop homesites in the area, and was unopposed until 1967. In the late 1960 's and early 1970' s, environmentalists were alarmed to learn that the dredge and fill methods and creation of finger canals (dead end canals) were detrimental to coastal ecosystems. Deltona finished two of five sections of development before their dredge and fill permits were denied. The denials came after new Federal environmental regulations were passed and after landmark court decisions were made regarding the National Environmental Policy Act. Two of the dredge and fill permits that were denied involved 13.9 million meters 3 (18.2 million yd3) of fill material. The dredging would destroy 297 ha (735 acres) of seagrass and 850 ha (2,100 acres) of mangrove swamp. Deltona offered the State 1,619 ha (4,000 acres) of land in Caxambas Sanctuary south of Marco Island as mitigation for the dredge and fill permits on Marco Island, but no action has been taken. Deltona currently is still embroiled in appeals and requests for vari- ances to previous permit denials. Marco Island subdivision consists of 1,600 ha (3,900 acres) of essentially manmade land in the swampy wilderness on and around Marco Island's 6,000 ha (15,000 acres). Marco Island appeared to be environmentally sound in the beginning, but as the environmental conse- quences were revealed, new restrictive regulations were passed. 234 FLORIDA KEYS The Florida Keys extend about 130 miles from the southern tip of the Florida mainland to Key West. There are 97 small low-lying islands in the chain. Key Largo is the largest, over 72 km (45 mi) long, and Key West is the best known. Thirty-five of the islands are connected by U.S. Hwy. 1 from Key Largo to Key West. Factors that led to multiple-use conflicts in the Keys were a rapid popu- lation increase, a limited supply of public services, especially fresh water, intense and divergent land-use demands, historical preservation, a potential for oil and gas exploration and development, and a vulnerable natural envi- ronment. The Keys are the home of many unusual animal species and plant communities. The living coral reefs are a unique and valuable feature. Before completion of the Overseas Railroad (now U.S. Hwy. 1) in 1913, nearly all of the intensive land use in the Keys was concentrated around Key West. The railroad, followed by the Overseas Highway and Navy pipeline, stim- ulated development throughout the Keys. In 1974, much of the developed land was either single family residential, or under site preparation and construc- tion (Table 1). The population of Monroe County, which includes the Keys, rose from 47,921 in 1960 to 52,586 in 1970 and to 61,562 in 1980. Population projections for Monroe County are reported in the chapter on population and demographic characteristics. Key West's population in 1960-80, however, showed little increase. Its population was 26,433 in 1950, 33,965 in 1960, 29,312 in 1970, and 30,252 in 1980. These fluctuations were a result of a change in the num- ber of military personnel stationed near Key West. The population is much higher during the tourist season. For example, the tourist and resident popu- lation combined was approximately 80,000 in Key West in March 1974 (Florida Department of Administration 1974). Economic Factors The major sources of income in the Keys are tourism, commercial and sport fishing, residental construction (including second homes and retirement homes), and the military. Approximately 550,000 out-of-state tourists and 400,000 Floridians living outside Monroe County visited the Keys in 1972. (See the chapter on Recreation and Tourism for additional tourist informa- tion.) The gross income generated by tourists in 1972 ranged from 100 million and 150 million dollars (Florida Department of Administration 1974). Various factors contributed to the economy of the Keys. The largest single element of the Monroe County economy is military. In 1972 the Key West Naval Air Station provided 29% of all employment and 36% of all personal income in Monroe County. Its impact on Key West is even greater (Table 2). The construction of second homes and retirement homes have contributed substantially to the economy of the Keys. In 1970, about 28% of the house- holds were temporary winter residences. The influx of retired people increased the population and demand for residences. About 13.3% of the County's popula- tion was 60 years old or older. The Florida Department of Commerce reports 235 a> i- o. o o >> :S •I- « oj u lo -O 3 D. S. 1- (/) O. c O O) o ■»-> o •4- (/) Q) CJ> fO ■M C 0) u s- g. s. • o <^-^ « ««■ r-~ a^ to 1—4 c re lO s- _l +-> (/) •r— • C I— 1 i , ■l-> •^ •^ ^— ^— •^ •r* O z: (O L) C Q O) Ll- o in (T3 •I- T3 S_ O 3 E O E I— O O (J O O o 4-> CO 3 X3 C s- T3 c 0) s- «:£ CO 3 VI c CO in CO t-H CT> o CVJ t-H 1— I ^ lO 00 00 «* t-H cri r^ Kf fo cvj «a- C\J C\J CVJ o I— I CM in o LO r-. CO Cvi .-I ro "* 10 ^ ^ o ■o ■o to s- Q. O. to 0) i- i- +-> -o 3 >1 • r- .— >, • O •I- I— OJ c E .,- E •.- lO E O 14- (O jC •(-> 4- O 0>4-> .,- lO •r- 3 O O t>os: s Q ITS J3 O TD 236 that construction industries provide approximately 5% of all the Keys' employ- ment, personal income, and gross sales (Florida Department of Administration 1974). Table 2. The percentage of services and retail sales attributed to the mili- tary in Key West (Florida Department of Administration 1974). Expenditure Percentage City electric system (sale to military bases) 36 Commercial banks (military only) 40 Savings and Loan Association 30 Automobile sales 65 Recreation outlets (military and civil service) 80 Food sales (military and civil service) 60 Clothing sales (military and civil service) 50 Newspaper sales 32 Saltwater commercial fish landings in Monroe County in 1973 were about 16% of the State total, (see chapter on the commercial and sport fisheries for statistics). The sizeable shrimp fishing grounds near Dry Tortugas, 105 km (65 mi) west of Key West, are of particular importance. The quality of sport fishing in the Florida Keys is famous throughout the United States and is a major attraction to tourists. Public Services The increasing population in Monroe County has placed severe demands on the freshwater supply, wastewater treatment, and transportation facilities. The delivery of urban services to a string of islands tied together by a ser- ies of bridges is more susceptible to interruption than most areas. The Keys, because of their location and low-lying topography, are especially vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes. Supplying fresh water is perhaps the most important public service in the Keys. The high salinity of the aquifer underlying the Keys requires desalina- tion. The new desalination plant at Stock Island, near Key West produces about 3 mgal/d. The primary source of fresh water is the mainland. It is delivered by an 18-inch pipeline that follows U.S. Hwy. 1 from Florida City to Key West. This pipeline was constructed in 1940 and has a capacity of 6.2 mgal/d. The 40-year-old pipeline is currently (1981) being replaced by a 24-inch pipeline that will deliver 13.5 mgal/d. The new pipeline will extend to Marathon in early 1982, and to Key West in 1985 (Personal communication Bruce Adams, SFWMD 21 September 1981). In the event of a breakdown in the supply of fresh water from Florida City, there is a 3-day supply at the present level of usage stored in 30 mgal/d storage tanks. The water supply is a limiting factor to population growth. In 1979, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Fed- eration were opposed to the new pipeline and new desalination plant because 237 the greater supply would encourage even more urban development which would replace or damage the few remaining natural areas of the Keys. As a deter- rent, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Farmer's Home Administration agreed that any new construction in a 1,620 ha (4,000 acres) area throughout the Keys would not be supplied with fresh water (Horvath 1981). Waste treatment facilities capable of properly treating and disposing of solids and liquids are vital for the public health of the Keys community. New regional wastewater and solid waste plants were prepared in 1974, when there were about 200 private package plants (small sewage treatment plants) that served the commercial establishments and residential areas. The percentage that used individual septic tanks in unincorporated areas was 95 for the upper Keys, 80 for the middle Keys, and 57 for the lower Keys. In Key West, un- treated wastes were discharged into the Gulf Stream through a 4,700 ft outfall pipe. Since 1974, the capacity of the waste handling facilities of the Keys has increased, but accurate information is not available at this time. Climatic Factors The physical characteristics of the Florida Keys (small coral islands, 90% below 5-ft elevation, maximum 18 ft) provide little protection from hurri- canes or tropical storms. Sixteen major hurricanes have struck the Florida Keys since 1900 (Table 3). The two of exceptional force were the Labor Day Hurricane in 1935 and Hurricane Donna in 1960. Both of these hurricanes had wind gusts of over 180 mph and forced water levels about 13 ft above sea 1 evel . Table 3. Major hurricanes affecting the Florida Keys (Basil lie et al . 1980). Date Coastal area affected 1906, Oct. 11-20 Florida Keys and Miami 1909, Oct. 6-15 Florida Keys and Miami 1910, Oct. 11-13 Key West to Tampa Bay and Jacksonville 1911, Aug. 9-14 Key West to Pensacola 1919, Sept. 2-14 Florida Keys 1929, Sept. 22-Oct. 4 Florida Keys to Tampa Bay 1935, Aug. 31-Sept. 8 Florida Keys to Cedar Key 1935, Oct. 30-Nov. 8 West Palm Beach to Miami and Key West to Ft. Myers 1941, Oct. 4-12 Miami to Florida Keys and Everglades to Cedar Key 1945, Sept. 12-19 Florida Keys to Miami and northeast coast 1947, Oct. 9-15 Key West to Miami 1948, Sept. 19-25 Key West to Ft. Myers and Ft. Pierce 1948, Oct. 4-8 Florida Keys to Ft. Lauderdale 1950, Sept. 1-7 Key West to Cedar Key 1960, Sept. 9-11 Florida Keys and south gulf coast 1965, Aug. 27-Sept. 12 Florida Keys and Louisiana 238 Hurricane shelters in the Keys only hold about 3,550 people in the upper Keys (above Seven Mile Bridge) and 4,450 in the lower Keys. These shelters, located at elevations of 12 ft or less, are susceptible to storm waters and hold less than 15% of the Keys year-round resident population. Evacuation to the mainland requires travelling along the Overseas Highway with its two lane width, many bridges, and low elevation. The majority of the population is at Key West, over 130 mi from shelter on the mainland. The National Hurricane Center cannot predict a storm's track or intensity more than 24 hours in advance of the storm with any assurance of accuracy; therefore, most of the people living in the Keys do not have time to evacuate to the mainland (Balsillie et al . 1980). Ecological Values The ecological importance of the Florida Keys is reflected by the large commercial and sport fishing industry of Monroe County. A wide variety of flora and fauna inhabit the unique ecological communities and there are more endangered species here than any other region of the State. The mangrove communities are perhaps the most valuable in the Keys area. The mangroves contribute an abundance of nutrients, function as nursery areas, provide shel- ter for juvenile fish and other marine organisms, and help absorb potentially destructive waves and currents. Other highly productive biological communi- ties of the Keys are seagrass beds and coral reefs. To help protect some of the natural and ecologically important communi- ties, three national wildlife refuges (National Key Deer, Great White Heron, and Key West), several State reserves and parks, and an area of critical State concern were formed. BIG CYPRESS AREA The Big Cypress Area is a loosely defined, but clearly recognized physio- grahic province in southern Florida. It includes most of Collier County, and small parts of Monroe, Broward, Dade and Hendry Counties. The area of th^Big Cypress watershed in Southwest Florida is about 634,000 ha (2,450 mi or 1,568,000 acres). It has a circular configuration and measures approximately 96 km (60 mi) east to west and 80 km (50 mi) north to south. Several features of the area are the Big Cypress Swamp, Big Cypress National Preserve, Ever- glades National Park, the Ten Thousand Islands, the Naples urban area, the Big Cypress Federal Seminole Reservation, the Florida Miccosukee Indian Reserva- tion, and the Immokalee Community. Alligator Alley (Everglades Parkway) and Tamiami Trail (US-41) traverse the area (Florida Department of Administration 1973). Legislative Action The Florida Legislature passed the Big Cypress Conservation Act of 1973 so that the Big Cypress watershed could be designated as an area of critical State concern as authorized by the Land and Water Management Act of 1972. The 1973 legislation also authorized a $40 million State contribution for the establishment of the Federal Big Cypress National Fresh Water Reserve (Carter 239 1974). Acquisition for and management of lands within the National Reserve are the responsibility of the National Park Service. Water Regimes The Big Cypress Area has unique natural features. Its watershed is a major hydrologic unit characterized by a low-lying, poorly drained, sand and limestone flatland. The elevation ranges from mean sea level to 7.6 to 9.0 m (25 to 30 ft), but most of the area is below 4.6 m (15 ft) in elevation. Slopes range from 0.2 to 0.5 ft per mile north to south and 0.3 ft per mile east to west, and are covered with extensive areas of standing and slowly moving water during the wet season. Much of the area consists of marshes, strands, and sloughs (Florida Department of Administration 1973). The Big Cypress Area is one of the Everglades National Park's primary water sources. Any further urban development of the Big Cypress A'^ea would reduce the vital southward flow to the park and potentially pollute the water with pesticides, sewage, and other wastes. During the rainy season the area soaks up water like a giant sponge. The runoff flows into the park, but much of the rain recharges the shallow aquifer on which Collier County depends for its freshwater supply. Nutrient levels in nearby estuaries are partly depen- dent upon the runoff from the Big Cypress Area and unusually severe interrup- tions or changes in flow could damage fish or shellfish nursery and fishing grounds (Blake 1980). The shallow aquifer of Southwest Florida is the primary source of potable groundwater for the Big Cypress Area and urban and agricultural use in adja- cent areas. Sometimes saltwater intrusion occurs inland of coastal areas during dry years, so it is important to maintain the Big Cypress Area's capac- ity for shallow aquifer recharge. The water resources of the Big Cypress Area also provide other natural habitats. The sloughs, hammocks, and cypress-domes are inhabited by nearly all wildlife species native to semi tropical Florida, as well as nine threat- ened or endangered species. Estuaries of the Big Cypress Area and the adjacent Everglades National Park are important as natural resources because they com- prise the single most important commercial and sport fishing nursery grounds in the State of Florida and they provide recreation, particularly boating and fishing, for millions of residents and tourists (Florida Department of Admin- istration 1973). Urban Development and Drainage The conversion of agricultural or undeveloped land to residental, commer- cial, or industrial urban uses replaces valuable natural habitats and usually alters the quantity, quality, and flow of water in the area. Drainage canals lower ground and surface water levels because they are designed to drain a site for urban or industrial construction. Canals form artificial water tables that tend to reduce the natural storage capacity of the aquifers. The seriousness of the effects of canal drainage is dependent upon the location, size, and design of the canal. In some areas canal drainage has increased the incidence of forest fires. 240 Canals in the Big Cypress Area drain storm waters so rapidly that the normal salinity of the estuaries is altered. Canals that are directly con- nected to estuaries sometimes discharge excessively large volumes of storm water, sewage, and urban runoff during the wet season. Moreover, during either the wet or dry season, disrupted water flows may change estuarine salinities, alter the availability of nutrients, and change water levels that are essential for more productive estuarine fisheries. Canals also affect the level and the quality of the ground water. The water table may be reduced because of excessive rapid runoff and loss of ground water due to seepage into canals. Saltwater intrusion is likely where water table levels have been drastically lowered by drainage canals and where saltwater barriers have not been provided in the canals. Contaminated urban runoff sometimes seeps into the ground water. Urban development of wetlands and other low areas usually requires the filling of wetlands and raising the natural grade of the land. By displace- ment, dredge spoil may completely alter the surface area and water flow pat- terns of a particular area. For example, runoff from any new construction may cause excessive soil erosion and turbidity downstream during the construction phase. Other adverse effects generally associated with urban displacement of wetlands are the reduction of aquifer recharge, increased urban runoff because of the abundance of impermeable surfaces, increased saltwater intrusion due to low ground water, and contamination of the ground water caused by improperly encased, valved, or sealed deep water wells. Residential Development Most new environmental stresses in the Big Cypress area may be traced to the rapid population increase of the city of Naples as a winter resort in the 1960's, and population increases in Collier and Lee Counties. The Gulf Amer- ican Land Corporation and its successor, GAC Properties, purchased about 150,000 ha (371,000 acres or 5802 mi) for suburban development in Collier County, one of the largest land sale ventures of its kind. Gulf American's largest land sale promotion in Collier County (and west- ern Big Cypress Swamp) was "Golden Gate Estates." This subdivision covers 45,731 ha (113,000 acres) and is located some 24 km (15 mi) from Naples. Golden Gate Estates was marketed as "semi-improved" land because the area contained a grid of flood control canals and roads. The sales practices of GAC Properties led to court suits and were cited in congressional hearings of the mid-1960 's that led to the passage of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968. Damage to the land and water resources caused by the Golden Gate Estates subdivision was extensive. This subdivision stretches across the Big Cypress Swamp about 40 km (25 mi) north to south and nearly 21 km (13 mi) east to west. Approximately 172 km (107 mi) of canals and 1,200 km (807 mi) of roads were constructed to serve residential development. The grid of roads and canals was planned and built before proper consideration was given to its effects on water resources and wildlife. 241 The network of canals dug by GAC in the Big Cypress Area has impaired freshwater resources, and contributed to forest fire potentials. The canal system drains 101,000 ha (390 mi^), an area over twice as large as the subdi- vision alone. Apparently, the water table in the Big Cypress Area has fallen between 0.6 and 4.6 m (between 2 and 15 ft) as a result of the Golden Gate Estates development. In 1970-72, the volume of fresh water lost through GAC Properties' Fahka Union Canal was equivalent to the total water needs of about 2 million people. Because of the "artificial drought" conditions caused by the drainage canals, the Big Cypress Area is more susceptible to destructive fires, flajor fires occurred in 1971, 1973, and in the spring of 1981. In addition to stresses on the natural resources by Golden Gate Estates, heavy burdens have fallen on local governments. Collier County has assumed maintenance responsibility for a large part of the road and canal system of this subdivision. The roads have deteriorated rapidly, but receive so little use that to maintain them is pointless, especially at an estimated cost of over $314,000 per year. The canals have become choked with water hyacinths and other exotic water weeds (Carter 1974). BEACHES AND BARRIER ISLANDS The barrier islands that are the most important ecologically and a boon to tourists are Caladesi Island, Treasure Island, Captiva Island, Sanibel Island, and the Florida Keys. In their natural state, barrier islands are a coastline's first line of defense against hurricanes and tropical storms. The islands absorb enormous wave, wind, and tidal forces and their beaches and dunes may shift substan- tially as a result of these forces. Some grow larger through deposition, and some recede through wind and wave erosion. Although barrier islands generally are physically unstable for suburban development, they tend to be ecologically stable despite their dynamic nature (LaRoe 1980). When left in its natural state, the coastal environment generally is highly resilient. Beach erosion is a natural and continuing process that affects all of the barrier islands along the gulf coast. Erosion often results in economic loss because of severe physical damage to residential and commercial structures, roads, beaches, and other features. The extent of erosion in Southwest Flor- ida is summarized in Table 4. When residential and commercial developments are imposed on a barrier island, the environment tends to destabilize. Manmade structures, especially engineering attempts to stabilize beaches, often disrupt the natural process with disastrous results. The action usually results in a new stress that upsets the balance of natural processes. When beach erosion develops, artifi- cial attempts sometimes are made by adding sand to the depleted beaches. The cost of beach renourishment, which is by no means a permanent solution, is near $3 million/mi in Florida (Greene 1981). Despite the erosion and instab- ility of barrier island beaches, residential, commercial, and recreational development is continuing at a fast pace there. 242 Table 4. Beach erosion (in miles) in Southwest Florida (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 1980). County Beach length Cri ti cal ( Pinellas 35.4. 4.0 Manatee 14.0 12.4 Sarasota 35.0 5.0 Charlotte 14.0 4.4 Lee 44.0 6.7 Collier 35.4 13.0 Non-critical erosion 16.0 0 6.0 0 2.0 22.4 Total 177.8 45.5 (26%) 46.4 (27%) Critical erosion applies to urban-related developed shoreline areas where buildings and public facilities may be threatened. It does not relate to the rate of erosion. Non-erodable beaches, 91.9 miles, 47% of the total. When residential and commercial developments are imposed on a barrier island, the environment tends to destabilize. Manmade structures, especially engineering attempts to stabilize beaches, often disrupt the natural process with disastrous results. The action usually results in a new stress that upsets the balance of natural processes. When beach erosion develops, artifi- cial attempts sometimes are made by adding sand to the depleted beaches. The cost of beach renourishment, which is by no means a permanent solution, is near $3 million/mi in Florida (Greene 1981). Despite the erosion and insta- bility of barrier island beaches, residential, commercial, and recreational development is continuing at a fast pace there. Sanibel Island Sanibel Island, located near the mouth of the Cal oosaha tehee River off the coast of Lee County, generally is representative of the conflicts that surround the barrier islands in Southwest Florida. In Sanibel Island, resi- dents have attempted to preserve the natural beauty and resources that are necessary for the island's continued prosperity. The causeway built in 1963 linked the island to the mainland and stimu- lated a steady increase in the population. In 1963, the population of the island was less than 1,000, but by 1980 it increased to 3,868 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1981). To protect their island from indiscriminant developments such as were seen on Marco Island, Miami Beach, and St. Petersburg beaches, county residents began a drive for home rule in 1974. 243 Sanibel Island residents did not want the fate of their island to be in the hands of county commissioners who at the time were prodevelopment. There was strong opposition to the incorporation charter by county developers and the Chamber of Commerce, and in 1974 each side of the conflict took their cases to the State Legislature. The decision by the legislature, after months of political maneuvering by each side, was to grant Sanibel Island a charter for incorporation, but the conflict was far from over. After approval of the charter, county interests for further suburban development filed two court suits in an attempt to block a referendum vote by the island's residents that would ratify the charter. Both of these suits were dismissed and on 5 November 1974 the City of Sanibel was incorporated. On 16 December 1974 the first city council took office and governmental ties with the county were severed. The mode of development of Sanibel Island is uncertain. Although the newly established government has taken steps to protect the island's natural resources, the legacy of urban development remains. Many of the people are seasonal residents. In 1970, the population was only 1,000, yet there were 1,569 condominium units. Moreover, between the date of the referendum and the date the new city cotranissi oners took office, Lee County Officials granted 74 building permits valued at $9,618,400 (Lotz 1975). CHARLOHE HARBOR Areas of Critical State Concern In April 1975, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida nomi- nated several coastal regions of Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties as Areas of Critical State Concern. The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Ch. 380, Florida Statutes) established the term "Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)", as a protective designation for areas that meet certain criteria outlined earlier in this report. The Florida legisla- ture is the final designating body for an ACSC (Stroud 1979). To date, only three areas have been so designated, but several others have been nominated. After an extensive study centered in the Charlotte Harbor area by the former Division of State Planning, it was concluded that this area contained resources and public investments of regional and statewide importance. Two events led the Division of State Planning not to recommend this area as an ACSC. First, the First District Court of Appeals ruled that the critical areas section of Ch. 380 was an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Also, the Division recommended a Resource Management and Planning Program instead of an ACSC designation. Favorable experience from a program for the Apalachicola River Basin, with a combined multi -agency management and planning program, together with the uncertain legal future of critical areas, induced the Divison of State Planning to recommend a similar program for the Charlotte Harbor Area (Florida Department of Administration 1978b). The Charlotte Harbor Resource Management and Planning program has the following objectives: 244 (1) Assist the State's interest in protecting the resources of the Charlotte Harbor area. (2) Unify the multitude of State, regional, and local programs, plans, and policies for this area to avoid costly duplication of effort and to eliminate local confusion of the State goals in the area. (3) Provide a stimulus for the implementation of the State, regional, and local plans, programs, and policies. (4) Provide the local governments with an opportunity to strengthen and coordinate their land-use management capabili- ties without the statutory time constraints of a critical area designation. Harbor Characteristics and Growth In general, these objectives are designed to address the current and anticipated problems and conflicts that plague the Charlotte Harbor area. The governing board of the Charlotte Resource Management and Planning Program will decide in the fall of 1981 if the program has been effective. The board may recommend the Charlotte Harbor Area for ACSC designation if the program has proved ineffective (Personal communication R. McKee, Bureau of Land and Water Management, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL; Fall 1980). Bordered by barrier islands in the Gulf of Mexico and fed by meandering rivers to the east, the bays and estuaries of the Charlotte Harbor area nour- ish and shelter some of the richest commercial and sport fisheries in Florida. The beaches of Gasparilla, Sanibel, Captiva, and Cayo Costa are well known nationally. These unpolluted beaches and bays draw tourists and new residents from all over the United States. In fact, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties are among the fastest growing counties in the Nation, and Lee County is the fast- est growing county. Many factors are responsible for this phenomenal growth. Perhaps the most conspicuous was the nationwide land sales by several large land develop- ment companies in the 1950's. These companies bought large tracts of land, subdivided them, and offered the lots for sale in aggressive promotional cam- paigns. These enormous sales have, in effect, saddled Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties with a potential two million additional residents. Among the largest land sales developments were Port Charlotte, North Port Charlotte, Rotunda, Lehigh Acres, Punta Gorda Isles, and Cape Coral. Hundreds of thou- sands of lots in these developments were bought by out-of-state residents, mostly as investments or as future retirement homesites. A brief discussion of one of these subdivisions. Port Charlotte, will provide some insight into the effects of population growth and urban develop- ment. 245 Port Charlotte 2 2 Port Charlotte, a 479 km (185 mi ) subdivison on Florida's gulf coast, is the General Development Corporation's (GDC) earliest and largest project. This area lies at the end of Charlotte Harbor, a few miles from the Gulf of Mexico, at a point where the Peace and Myakka Rivers enter the harbor. The site stretches across the largely rural counties of Charlotte, Sarasota, and DeSoto and contain approximately 200,000 platted lots. Today about 85% of these lots have been sold, but only 5% (35,000 persons) has established resi- dence there. This subdivision alone has the capacity for increasing the area's population by some 700,000 residents (Allen et al . 1977). Three major conflicts arose since sales began in 1956. The first con- flict concerned a small parcel of land known as Grassy Point at the south end of Port Charlotte's development. GDC began dredging and filling this 61 ha (150 acre) mangrove area in 1970. Because they did not have a permit, GDC was issued a cease and desist order by the Corps of Engineers in January 1971. Final resolution of this conflict came in November 1971 when the Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control ordered the developers to restore this area to its original condition. A second area of conflict over which GDC encountered legal problems was South Gulf Cove, a mostly swampy and low-lying area with mangroves at the water's edge, which was platted and almost completely sold on the basis of a design that called for extensive finger canals. The developers, realizing that they would have difficulty in obtaining permission to dredge an access canal to this site, modified the original plans to incorporate a navigation lock and interceptor lagoon. This mitigation won GDC approval of the original plan. The Muddy Cove area, platted as the Myakka Estates, had development con- straints similar to those of South Gulf Cove and GDC again offered construc- tion modifications to gain development approval. This time there were new regulations for development. The Developments of Regional Impact provision of the Florida Statutes mandated closer review of projects that have regional implications. Since GDC could not show any real need for the housing to be created by this subdivision, plans for it were not approved (Allen et al . 1977). Water Supply and Demand Rapid population growth stimulates demand for new services which, in turn, simulate the economy, but the growth is an added strain on limited local budgets, and a stress on limited water resources, waste treatment facilities, and transportation systems. Many homesi tes in the Charlotte Bay area were developed by converting tidal marshes and inland swamps. As this type of development took place, few people were concerned about the future of three million potential residents along the shores of Charlotte Harbor. In the last few years, however, there has been an increased awareness of the environmental consequences of the resi- dential construction boom in the past three decades. Now the major issue is the supply and demand of potable water. 246 The quantity of water used in Florida is regulated by permits from the State's water management districts. The Southwest Florida study area is divided between two districts. The Southwest Florida Water Management Di- strict consists of the following counties: Desoto, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota and western part of Charlotte. The South Florida Water Management District includes Collier, Lee, and Monroe Counties, eastern part of Charlotte County. The two districts have quantifying water use data (Tables 5 and 6). and the different methods of Table 5. in 1980. Water use (expressed as Mgal/d) permits issued for Southwest Florida County Pub! ic supply Ag ricul ture Industrial Misc. Total Charlotte^ 9.7 26.0 0 1.3 37.0 Desoto 6.2 128.7 7.9 5.4 148.2 Hillsborough 214.2 125.1 129.6 3.4 472.3 Manatee 24.5 161.1 13.4 0.1 199.1 Pinel las 60.1 8.6 0.1 0.2 69.0 Sarasota 20.7 51.6 0 0.7 73.0 Charlotte County is split between two water management districts. Table 6. Average daily water supply allocation (in Mgal/d) and daily irriga- tion requirements for South Florida (Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Monroe Counties) in 1980. County Public supply average daily allocation Ag ricul ture-irrigation, maximum month on a daily basis Charlotte* Collier Lee Monroe 0 34.0 32.1 1.4 197.8 1,401.8 370.4 0.3 Charlotte County is split between two water management districts, 247 Except for the two urban counties (Hillsborough and Pinellas) and Monroe County, more water is used for agriculture than for the public water supply. Monroe County is made up of the Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys. The counties of Southwest Florida represent a continuum of water from almost totally urbanized Pinellas county to the rural Desoto county. The Charlotte Harbor area is becoming rapidly urbanized. Existing platted subdivisions have the potential for two million addi- tional people in the Charlotte Harbor area. The water supply requirements to accommodate such a population would be eight times greater than current con- sumption, and would have to be met through new capacity storage. The Charlotte Harbor area does not have a reliable water supply. Fresh water comes primarily from seasonally intermittent streams, and from aquifers with low water quality. The Hawthorne aquifer is increasingly subject to saltwater intrusion because of a lowered water table caused by increased domestic and industrial use of ground water. The water supply in the aquifer has been reduced partly because most urban development greatly accelerates runoff. Water regimes also have been changed by accelerated runoff. The estuaries and wetlands now receive larger volumes of fresh water after each rainfall and less fresh water during dry periods. The extremes of high and low input widen the range of salinity conditions in the estuaries, which may upset the life cycle of some animals and plants. The increased rate of runoff also reduces the time water is subject to the natural filtration. Nutrients are flushed directly into creeks, streams, and bays where excesses may cause undesirable algal growth. A spill of phospate slime in 1967 killed an estimated 90% of the fish stocks in the Peace River, but by 1971 the fish population almost completely recovered. With supplemental fish stocking, the fish population made signifi- cant gains within 15 months (Bell 1977). The demand for water in Southwest Florida is not limited to domestic use. The phosphate mining district of Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties in the upper reaches of the Peace River and its tributaries is a case in point. Large volumes of fresh water used in phosphate mining and processing are dis- charged into slime ponds (which hold millions of gallons of phosphatic clays) near the Peace and the Myakka Rivers. If phosphate mining and processing increases along these rivers, threats to public water supplies and to estua- ries will become greater. For example, in In 1971 an earthen dam surrounding a 250-acre phosphate slime pond ruptured and released an estimated one billion gallons of phosphatic clay slime into Widden Creek, a tributary of the Peace River. The slime entered the Peace River and continued downstream through Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties and into Charlotte Harbor. The spill caused a severe ecological disaster that affected not only aquatic communities and water quality, but associated terrestrial life as well. An estimated 95% of the freshwater fish stocks on Widden Creek and Peace River were killed. Another potential threat to the water supply of Southwest Florida is from the leachate of gypsum piles or stacks, a byproduct of the phosphate indus- try's chemical processing plant. Rain collects on top of these gypsum stacks 248 I and seeps through the pile to the ground below. The gypsum contains various acids, hazardous chemical wastes, and radioactive residues. The U.S. Geolog- ical Survey (USGS), working with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the phosphate industry is now studying the effects of water seepage from gypsum stacks on the ground water. The findings of this study will be reported in late 1981 (Personal communication with Cynthia Cosper and Geoffrey Watts, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL; Fall 1980). Electrical Power Plants Coastal sites often are chosen for power plant sites because marshland prices are low and water for cooling is abundant. Southwest Florida has only one power plant which is near Ft. Myers. As Southwest Florida grows the demand for electricity may require additional power plants. The potential for environmental disturbance by power plants is usually greater than other large- scale industrial developments. Construction of the plant may destroy some important estuarine habitats and discharge thermal pollutants and sediments in coastal waters. Thermal pollution can have adverse effects on aquatic life and damage grass beds. Power plants are critical to economic growth for the whole of southern Florida. Restriction and regulation of power plant location and/or operation (e.g. closed-cycle cooling) for environmental purposes will increase the price of energy from this source. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The coastal environmental crisis in Southwest Florida is an example of an entire coastal ecosystem that has been seriously altered by the industrial, residential, and commercial developments and too little regard for the integ- rity of the natural environment. The design of these developments has been imposed by an economic system that largely invests in urban uses that promise high profits rather than protection of the natural environment. The development of institutional procedures for responding to the fail- ures of the private enterprise system to consider environmental planning is indeed a difficult task. Enforcing regulations to control or reduce ecolog- ical damage may appear to be prohibitively expensive, but protection of the natural environment in the near future is imperative. The trade-offs between the economy and the environment will depend on society's evaluation of the need for maintaining viable coastal ecosystems as opposed to further residential and industrial development. Local government zoning commissions may become instrumental in developing balances among needs. The topic of multiple-use conflicts is broad and does not lend itself to clearly defined sets of data. Several issues addressed in this paper were based upon a limited amount of information drawn from a variety of sources. Most needed is accurate land use data that reflect the type and intensity of development, value of land, and value of improvements. Assessments of the 249 impacts of development on the environment would be more accurate if there were better information on industrial pollution and costs of investments in pollu- tion control . The subjects selected for discussion in this chapter were chosen because they were areas of special concern. The Charlotte Harbor, Big Cypress Swamp, and Florida Keys have been studied as Areas of Critical State Concern. The Areas of Critical State Concern study process has generated more data about these areas than are available for other areas of Southwest Florida. Rookery Bay, Marco Island, and Sanibel Island were areas where public controversy generated the need for data. The level of data in some of these areas is exceptional, while others are found wanting. 250 REFERENCES Allen, L., et al . Promised lands: subdivisions in Florida's wetlands. Vol. 2, New York, NY: Inform 1977; 542 p. Balsillie, J.; Wilkerson, R.S.; Wilson, J.D. Analysis of the hurricane emer- gency response capabilities in the Florida Keys. Tallahassee, FL: Flor- ida Department of Community Affairs; May 1980; 63p. Bell, F. Economic damages from a fish kill in the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor, Florida Cities Service Company incident, 3 December 1971. Talla- hassee, FL: Department of Legal Affairs, Attorney General; 2 March 1977; 18 p. Blake, M. Land into water - water into land. A history of water management in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: University Press of Florida; 1980; 344 p. Boyle, R.; Mechem, R.M. There's trouble in paradise. Sports Illustrated; 9 February 1981: 82-96. Carter, L. The Florida experience. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; Resources for the Future, Inc.; 1974; 355 p. Clark, J. Rookery Bay: Ecological constraints on coastal developments. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation; December 1974. Clark, J. The Sanibel report formulation of a comprehensive plan based on natural systems. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation; 1976. 305 p. Conservation Foundation. Coastal zone management 1980: a context for debate. Washington, DC; March 1980; 132 p. Florida Atlantic University. Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Technical assistance manual: measuring the onshore impacts of offshore oil and gas. Fort Lauderdale, FL: 1981; 88 p. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council. Coastal Zone Management of Florida; 1974. Tallahassee, FL; 1974. Florida Department of Administration, Division of State Planning. Final report for the Big Cypress area of Critical State Concern. Tallahassee, FL; 1973; 75 p. Florida Department of Administration, Division of State Planning. Final report and recommendations for the proposed Florida Keys area of critical state concern. Tallahassee, FL: December 1974; 52 p. 251 Florida Department of Administration, Division of State Planning. Beach and inlet task force reports. Tallahassee, FL; August 1978a; 48 p. Florida Department of Administration Division of State Planning. Charlotte Harbor: a Florida Resource. Tallahassee, FL; 1978b; 41 p. Florida Department of Administration, Division of State Planning. A manual of State regulatory and review procedures for land development in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Administration; 1979; 312 p. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The Florida coastal manage- ment program. State hearing draft. Tallahassee, FL; August 1980; 445 p. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Resource Management. Florida regional coastal zone environmental quality assessment. Talla- hassee, FL: 9 Vols.; June 1976. Florida Office of the Governor, Office of Planning and Budgeting. The Devel- opment of- Florida's outer continental shelf policy. Tallahassee, FL; November 1980; 18 p. Greene, J. State beaches face erosion by weather and developers. Miami Herald; 1 March 1981. Horvath, J. Collier County: growth pressure in a wetlands wilderness; land, water and energy use in Collier County. Today's choices, tomorrow's opportunities. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Administration; 1976; 59 p. Horvath, J. The Florida Aqueduct Authority Progress Report. Florida environ- mental and urban Issues; July 1981: pp. 11-13, 22-24. Available from: FAU-FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Ft. Lauderale, FL. Landers, J.W. Address to Florida Defenders of the Environment, 4 May 1975; 36 p. Available from Florida State University, Strozier Library, Talla- hassee, FL. Lotz, A. An island acts to save itself: the Sanibel story. Florida Environ- mental and Urban Issues; March/April 1975; 8 p. New England River Basins Commission. Methodologies for OCS- related facilities planning. Boston, MA: NERBC-RALI project; March 1978; 151 p. RMBR Planning/Design Group. Local coastal zone management; a handbook for the Florida Coastal Coordinating Council. Tampa, FL; 1981; 68 p. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Development of Regional Impact Assessment for "The Estuaries." Ft. Myers, FL; April 1976. 277 p. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Land use policy plan. Fort Myers, FL: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; 1978. 252 Smart, T. Report says phosphate wastes could hurt state's water supply. St. Petersburg (Florida) Times; 22 June 1980. Stroud, N.E. Areas of Critical State Concern: legislative options following the Cross Keys decision, Florida urban and environmental issues. Fort Lauderdale, FL: FAU-FIU Joint Center; March/April 1979. 15 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Northwest Florida region inventory. Mobile, AL; 1978; 122 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration. "Who's minding the shore?" Washington, DC; August 1976; 51 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rookery Bay estuarine sanctuary draft environmental impact statement. Washington, DC; 1977. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Florida. Final population and housing unit counts 1980. Census of population and housing (Advance Report PHC 80-v-ll); Washington, DC; 1981; 22 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Final environ- mental impact statement, XS oil and gas proposed 1981 sales S66 and 66. Washington, DC; December 1980; 132 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. An assessment of estuarine and nearshore marine environments. Washington, DC: The Vir- ginia Institute of Marine Science; March 1976; 132 p. Available from: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological im- pacts of minor shoreline structures on the coastal environment: state of the art review, vol. I, Washington, DC: Beak Consultants, Inc.; March 1980; 156 p. FWS/OBS-77/51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region IV barrier islands policy state- ment (draft); 20 November 1980; vol. II. Veri , A. R. , et al . The resource buffer plan: a conceptual land use study, study #2. Rookery Bay land use studies. Washington, DC: The Conserva- tion Foundation; 1973; 39 p. Zieman, J.C., et al . A simulation modeling approval to the study of develop- ment alternatives, study #12. Rookery Bay land use studies. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation; 1975. 253 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND REGULATIONS Dr. Thomas A. Lynch Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Environmental Regulations Tallahassee, FL 32301 INTRODUCTION Not too many years ago America was a land of boundless energy, fresh air, and clean water. The steadily increasing population, technological develop- ment, and consumer demands have changed all that. The greatest issues have been the decline in the quality of our air and water, and the loss of fish and wildlife habitats, problems of universal scope and ones that are causing con- cern in Southwest Florida. Our major defense is environmental concern, which if properly focused and implemented, will stimulate action directed toward environmental protection and wiser use of natural resources. Environmental issues must be considered in terms of their economic rami- fication. Environmental decisions have wide-ranging impacts, and the wrong decisions can result in millions of dollars lost to State and local economies. In 1980 tourists contributed $17 billion dollars to the Florida economy. The large number of tourists and retirees in Florida is evidence of an abundance of clean air and water. It is also a reminder that any substantial increase in pollution must be checked if the tourist/retiree economy is to be main- tained and enhanced. Man's existence demands that he employ the resources of the ecosystem and be allowed in some form to alter its natural state. This alteration involves some negative environmental consequences. A balance between resource use and protection requires information on the value of environmental resources, mon- ies generated by their use, and the ultimate cost to the environment resulting from their use. Air pollution usually comes from industrial areas in or near cities — prime sources that often can be identified and sometimes resolved. More insidious is air pollution from the exhausts of automobiles, which sometimes is more dangerous and difficult to control. Air pollution can be a public health problem, especially to the elderly, the very young, and those with respiratory ailments. It reduces the outdoor enjoyment, sometimes forms un- sightly and dismal smog, corrodes metal surfaces on buildings, and at its worst it causes respiratory problems. In some areas of the United States, particularly in the Northeast, sulfur particulates discharged from fossil - fueled steam plants enter the upper atmosphere and cause acid rain, a rela- tively new but apparently devastating phenomenon that acidifies lakes and ponds, and can alter the growth of vegetation and aquatic life (Brezonik et al. 1980). 254 Major water pollutants and contaminants encountered in or near populated areas frequently include industrial and municipal wastes including heavy metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and synthetic organics. In rural areas, bio- cides and fertilizers are major contaminants (when in excess). Turbidity (dissolved solids) and sedimentation caused by sheet and gully erosion in agricultural and logging areas may also contribute to water pollution. Anti- pollution measures in the United States are only partially successful and the cost of abatement in some areas is staggering, sometimes prohibitive. Because of the high cost of pollution abatement, natural habitats and populations of fish and wildlife too often are ignored, partly because their benefits cannot easily be converted to dollars and cents. The cost of abatement or mitigation usually is passed on to the consumer by increasing the cost of electricity, in fossil-fueled steam plants as an example, but fish and wildlife largely receive only secondary consideration and compensation for losses is rare. Costs for preventative abatement are usually much lower than for correc- tive measures, a consideration that should be given in any pollution abatement program. To eliminate or reduce current air and water problems at their source and to suppress new or expanding pollution potentials in Southwest Florida, some rather positive, more far-reaching attempts will have to be made to control or limit pollution and to help satisfy environmental concerns. Pollution in Southwest Florida is not as serious as it is in many parts of the United States, and potentials for pollution abatement are relatively good. This report focuses on the real and potential effects of air and water pollution on the natural and manmade environment in Southwest Florida, man's encroachment on these natural resources, and regulations designed for their resolution. It concerns lakes, creeks, rivers, lagoons, channels, bays, estuaries, barrier island passes, and the air above. It relates to the socio- economic structure and growth in the urban, suburban, and rural communities. It lists water quality standards and current levels of compliance, emphasizes clean air and water for residents and tourists alike, and describes some of the chemical properties and pollutants of surface and ground waters in South- west Florida. It also describes environmental problems concerning man's encroachment on the natural environment and environmental regulations and controls. Southwest Florida consists of Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, DeSoto, Collier, and Monroe Counties. It is charac- terized by warm weather, high annual rainfall, and high humidity. Average January and July temperatures (°F) are in the mid-60° and the low 80° range, respectively. The mean maximum and minimums in January are in the mid-70° and mid-50° range, and those in July are in the 90° and 70° range, respectively. Florida has high rainfall from May through September (65% of the total in 5 months), and low rainfall from October through April (7 months). The rela- tively low winter rainfall is caused by cyclonic storms that characterize the eastern United States. Summer rainfall is attributed to convection storms that are most common in the afternoon and early evenings. In summer, rainfall is usually intense, but of short duration (1 to 2 hours) and highly localized. Large tropical storms usually produce heavy rainfall over wide areas. Annual rainfall averages between 50 and 55 inches. 255 Southwest Florida is divided into the western highlands and the coastal lowlands of the coastal plains. Typically, the area is comprised of low, nearly level plains and gently undulating to rolling hills with intermittent ponds, swamps, marshes, lakes, and streams. Elevations range from sea level to about 300 ft (91.4 m) above sea level in the highlands. Most soils are moderately drained and not often subject to flooding. Detailed soil maps have been completed for Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. More detailed soil descriptions and maps are available from the Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys. The major soil types are flatwood lowlands, southern limestone, and swamp marsh bottomlands. AIR QUALITY A summary of Federal and State standards for the major pollutants regu- lated within Florida are given in Table 1. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Except for the Tampa Bay area. Southwest Florida generally has good air quality. The major nonattainment counties in Florida are Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, each of which has two nonattainment areas within their boundaries. Pinellas County is a nonattainment area for ozone throughout the entire county and a nonattainment area for sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the north- ernmost portions. More specific problems are identified in the Tarpon Springs area. Hillsborough County is a nonattainment area for ozone throughout the entire county, and a particulate nonattainment area in downtown Tampa. The following is a brief discussion of major pollutants and their respective ambient concentrations across Southwest Florida. CURRENT STATUS OF AIR POLLUTION Major pollutants measured and reported here are TSP, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP) TSP has been a long-term problem in the greater Tampa Bay area. A description of the status of TSP in Southwest Florida is given in the follow- ing subsections. The State standard for TSP is 60 ug/m^ and the Federal standard is 75 ug/m^. Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. The State and Federal standards for TSP were exceeded Tn the downtown Tampa area. Concentrations in Tarpon Springs also approached the Federal primary standard in 1979-80. 256 Table 1. National and Florida ambient air quality standards^; ug/m3 microgram per cubic meter (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Air Quality Management 1980). Pollutant Time frame Primary standards Secondaryjj standards Florida standards Particulate matter annual ^ (geometric mean ) 24-hour 75 ug/mg^ 260 ug/m 60 ug/m, 150 ug/m 60 ug/mo 150 ug/m Sulfur oxides annual ^ (arithmetic mean ) 24- hour 3-hour'' 80 ug/n? (0.03 ppm), 365 ug/m'' (0.14 ppm) 150 ug/m^ (.02 ppm) 3 260 ug/m (0.1 ppm), 1300 ug/m 150 ug/m^ (0.02 ppm) 260 ug/m3 (0.1 ppm), 1300 ug/m-" (0.5 ppm) Carbon monoxid( e 8- hour l-hour'' 10 ug/m (9 ppm), 100 ug/m (35 ppm) (same as primary) (same as primary (same as primary) (same as primary) Nitrogen ^ dixoide annual (arithmetic mean) 100 ug/m (0.05 ppm) (same as primary) (same as primary) Photochemical oxidantsS 1-hour 235 ug/m^ (same as primary 160 ug/m (0.08 ppm) Hydrocarbons (nonmethane) 3- hour (6 to 9 a.m.) 3 160 ug/m (0.24 ppm) (same as primary) (same as primary) The air quality standards and a description of the Federal Reference Methods (FRM) were published on April 30, 1971, in 42 CFR 410, recodified to 40 CFR 50 on November 25, 1972. The new FRM for nitrogen dioxide was published on December 1, 1976, as 40 CFR 50. Not to be exceeded more than once a year. Geometric mean is a measure of central tendency. It is the nth root of the product of n individual data values recorded during the given period. Arithmetic mean is the most common measure of the central tendency. It is the sum of the data collected during the given period divided by the number of observations in the same period. Parts per million. Chemiluminescence has been established as the FRM and the sodium arsenite and trienthanolamine guiacol sulfite (TGS) methods have been identified as equiv- alent methods. ^The FRM measures 0, (ozone). The hydrocarbon HC standard is a guide to devising State implementation plans to achieve the oxidant standard. The HC standard does not have to he met if the oxidant standard is met. 257 Lee County-Fort Myers. The average TSP for the Fort Myers area was about 40 ug/m3 in 1979. Manatee County. In the early 1970' s Manatee County had relatively high TSP readings at several locations. They ranged from 48 to 64 ug/m ^ but by 1979 they dropped to 30 to 45 ug/m I The only exception to the decline was reported from station 102540012 which was not representative (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1980a). Sarasota County. TSP data have been collected at five major particulate monitoring stations or sites. In 1973-79, average annual TSP's at three sta- tions declined from about 50 to 40 ug/m^, and the TSP at another station fell from 73 to 45 ug/ml TSP's at two sites increased from 30 to 46 ug/m^. All TSP's were well below the State and Federal primary TSP standards. Sulfur Dioxide Pinellas County. Pinellas County has been declared as a sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area because of violations of State and Federal air qual- ity standards. Sulfur dioxide concentrations in the other counties of south- west Florida have been relatively low and do not constitute a problem. Hillsborough County-Tampa. Nine air monitoring stations were located in Hillsborough County-Tampa Bay in 1972-79. Most stations reported a decline in SO2. The highest, in Tampa, fell from 44.2 to 10 ug/m^ in 1974-79 and SO2 at more rural stations fell from 26 to 10 ug/m^ in 1973-77. Pinellas County-St. Petersburg. SQ2 concentrations at each of three sta- tions in 1978-79 was about 2 to 3 ug/m^, whereas SO2 fell from 49 to 18 ug/m and from 59 to 3 ug/m at two stations near Tarpon Springs. Lee, Manatee and Sarasota Counties. All stations maintained low concen- trations (3-5 ug/m^) in 1973-79. Nitrogen Dioxide All counties tested for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were well below the State primary and secondary air quality standards. For example, average annual nitrogen dioxide concentrations at Tampa in 1974-79 ranged between 25 and 30 ug/m" 3 ECONOMIC LOSS CAUSED BY AIR POLLUTION The approach used in estimating the economic costs of secondary impacts from air pollution are wide and varying. The secondary costs (dollar loss) of air pollution in the United States as determined by Waddell (1974) were $4.3 billion for health, $1.1 billion for material damage, and $5.5 for property damage. Another estimate of secondary costs is about $16.1 billion per year, which averages about $74.00 per person per year (Seskin and Lane 1977). The concern of Floridians about environmental policy were revealed in a report on "Florida Citizens' Policy and Trade Off Attitudes: Environmental Development and Energy" prepared by the Department of Economics and Government at Florida State University. It stated that: 258 More than half the Floridians were willing to pay more in taxes and utility bills to help clean up pollution .... Floridians expressed higher interest in environmental issues today than they did five years ago although the intensity of this interest has declined due to a rise in inflation and energy issues .... most Floridians prefer to forego economic growth if it threatened environmental quality. Most of those queried said that they would pay 0.3% to 0.5% of their annual family income to fight pollution. Another Florida-specific study examined the relationship between changes in property value as a function of air pollution (Milliman and Sipe 1979). The theory suggests that the perceived changes in air pollution would lead to capitalizing that perception into the value of the land, and that high prop- erty values are associated with high quality air. The general conclusions by Milliman and Sipe (1979) after examining the Tampa Bay area and using cross sectional analysis were as follows: Florida has good air quality compared to other regions in the United States. With low levels of pollutants observed, we should not expect to see significant damages and the detec- tion of damages is more difficult. In general, benefits of air quality improvements that can be measured with existing secondary data are very small or nonexistent. We do not say that benefits are low. We do say that we have not been able to measure them given existing data and a low-budget approach. Moreover, benefits that can be measured appear to be elusive in the sense that they are quite sensitive to alternative (but reasonable) specifications of independent variables in estimating equations. The property value method of estimating benefits of air quality improvements was applied to Tampa data with weak and mixed results. An estimate of morbidity costs versus costs of abatement equipment and the relative costs for each income class within a census tract was made by Loehman and Berg (1979). The survey employed the median values as representa- tive of the samples drawn and then developed an aggregate and distributed cost and morbidity benefit analysis for the entire urban area surveyed. Their statement was as follows: Under this scenario the total population is 1,541,700 persons. Morbidity benefits are $14,686,375, and abatement costs are $7,560,181. The total morbidity benefits outweight the total abatement costs on a two-to-one basis. However, distributionally, in group 3 (Polk, Pascal, and Plant), abatement costs outweight morbidity benefits. However, redistribution of abatement costs could even out this distri- butional inequity. The decision for a control policy thus requires an applicable judgement as to who should bear costs and who should receive benefits. One possibility to gain acceptance of all groups would be to give group 3 a small share of abatement costs and group 1 a larger share (by about $2,000,000). 259 One may guesstimate some corrections to our analysis as fol- lows; on the cost side, approximate inclusion of indirect costs could be made by multiplying the direct costs by 1.5. On the benefit side, we may use the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, Committee on Sulfur Oxides, "Air Quality and Automobile Emission Control," Volume I and II, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1974) to find a ratio of total benefits to morbidity bene- fits; then allowing for some indirect charges on benefits, one gets a multiplying factor of about 2. Accordingly, a slightly more favorable B to C ratio may be anticipated for the urban control scenario. The attitude of the willingness-to-pay was examined among the people of Allegheny County, PA by Gregor (1977). He concluded that: ...■ individuals in Allegheny County are willing to pay approximately $7 million annually in order to maintain total particulate (TP) at a level 1% below those experienced during this 1968-72 period but only $.5 million annually for a simi- lar percentage reduction in SO2. FUTURE TRENDS All nonattainment areas in Southwest Florida are scheduled to comply with the air quality standards by 1982 (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1980a). With the exception of major urban areas, future planned expansion of industrial and utility boilers is not expected to increase air pollution to the extend that there is any violation of State or Federal stand- ards. On the other hand, the State's major utilities are seeking to convert from oil to coal 30% to 55% of the State's megawatt capacity in fossil-fueled power plants. If these conversions are authorized, and if emission levels authorized with the converted coal-fired utilities are less stringent than current oil-fired emissions, then the potential for massive increases of sulfur dioxides, nitrate oxides, and particulate matter threatens Southwest Florida. It is now impossible to estimate either the magnitude of the poten- tial impacts, or the degree of further power plant conversions. These problems currently are under review by the appropriate private, State, and Federal institutions (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1980a). WATER POLLUTION FLORIDA'S WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Federal and State Standards Standards for all the designated classes of water within the State of Florida are Class lA potable surface water and Class IB potable groundwater. Class II is shellfish water and Class III is fish and wildlife and recreation waters. Class III is by far the largest class and includes over 90% of the State's surface waters. Class III marine standard is more appropriate for a 260 saltwater environment and Class IV is largely for self-contained agricultur- ally related irrigation and water retention systems. Class V is industrial and navigational classification, and Class VA is for surface waters (of which there is only one in Florida). Class VB is for industrial groundwater for such uses as deepwell injection of industrial wastes. The specific parameters for each water classification vary according to use. They tend to become more stringent from the Class V Industrial to the Class I Potable. The Class I, II, and III outline stringent standards to pro- tect human and aquatic life. Florida law requires that each body of water be classified according to its "highest and best use." Very few reclassification requests have been made or adopted since the surface and groundwater standards were established in Florida. Most of these standards are in the document on "Quality Criteria for Water" developed by the Criteria Branch of the Criteria and Standards Division in the Office of Water Planning and Standards (EPA 1976). Criteria are given for evaluating domestic water supplies, fresh waters for aquatic life, marine waters for aquatic life, and water for irri- gating crops. Groundwater Class V has a separate subcategory on aquifer systems. The threat of polluted aquifer is discussed in more detail later in this report. Virtually all standards are based on tests on aquatic and land animal species (including human) response with a factor of safety applied to each standard. For example, the lethal concentration for 50% of the given, most sensitive, aquatic species is termed the LC50. If that number corresponds to 2 mg/1 , then a factor (x 0.1) may be applied so that the EPA standard for an aquatic environment would be 0.2 mg/1. A report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976) states that: Water quality criteria are derived from scientific facts ob- tained from experimental observations that depict organisms responsible to define stimulus of material under identifiable or regulated environmental conditions for a specified time period. The criteria levels of domestic water supply incor- porated available data for human health protection. In some instances 1/100 of a concentration of the LC50 is employed while others 1/20 or 1/10 of the LC50 level constitute a safety factor. These recommendations are based on scientific and professional judgement. These standards protect the life of all Floridians and visitors and maintain the propagation of aquatic and other life forms dependent upon aquatic envi- ronments. These are, therefore, tied to health, welfare, and well-being of all the citizens of the State. The following paragraphs give a brief discussion of each classification and its particular level of compliance. Class III freshwater standards domi- nate the majority of interior wetlands including creeks, rivers, lakes, swamps, and other connected aquatic environments. Substantial differences can be expected betweeen water resources within the Class. Ill designation due to difference in climate, geology, habitat, and land use. Since Class III waters 261 are so abundant, it is essential to limit the discussion to those areas where ongoing water quality analysis data are available. The major water courses in Southwest Florida and significant water quality violations within each designated major Class III system are discussed in the following paragraphs. WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION STANDARDS OF RIVERS (CLASS III) As a group, the Class III major rivers and streams in Southwest Florida have relatively lower water quality than northwest and north central Florida streams. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Southwest Florida streams range from a low of 2.8 mg/1 in Weeki Wachee River, second lowest in the State, to a high of 7.6 mg/1 in the Upper Alafia River. The lower Kissimmee, Myakka River, and Peace River all had organic nitrogen concentrations above 1.0 mg/1. The North Prong of the Alafia River had the lowest mean (1.6 mg/1) in the State. Ammonia varied from 0.08 mg/1 in Weeki Wachee River run to 0.86 mg/1 in the Little Wekiva River (highest mean concentration in the State). The highest concentrations of nitrates and phosphorus were in the Alafia, Peace, and Hillsborough Rivers. The Upper Alafia River had the lowest coliform density in the State (1,316/100 ml) whereas the North Prong of the Alafia River had the second highest coliform density (76,800/100 ml). Turbidity and suspended solid concentrations were low in most rivers. Most biological diversity values ranged from 2 and 3. Overall, streams in this region exhibited a wide range of water quality; however, major riverine sys- tems such as the lower Peace, the Weeki Wachee, and Hillsborough Rivers generally had above average water quality. Because of the central importance of these rivers in Southwest Florida, a brief summary of the most relevant water quality characteristics in each major watershed area is given in the following sections. These data are taken from publications of the Florida State Department of Regulation (1979a and 1979b). Caloosahatchee River Basin The Caloosahatchee River runs westward approximately 45 mi from the Moore Haven Locks on Okeechobee Lake to the Franklin Lock on Lake Okachopatee and then about 30 mi into an estuary system of the Gulf of Mexico. Land use in the Caloosahatchee Basin is dominated by agriculture and wetlands. Intensive truck gardening there requires heavy application of biocides and fertilizers which indirectly affect water quality. The City of Fort Myers is located on the Caloosahatchee River approximately 15 mi from the gulf. Major sources of pollution include sewage effluent, industrial point source, and runoff from rangeland, agricultural land, and urban areas. Nutrient concentrations down- stream from LaBelle vary greatly but sometimes are excessive. Concentrations of total phosphorus and NO3-NO2 also was high in some areas. Dissolved oxygen (DO) averages near State standards for most of the river's length. Violation of water quality standards for DO, pH, mercury, cadmium, lead, and total alka- linity are common in the Caloosahatchee River. A comparison of historical and recent data indicates no overall temporal trends. In general, water quality in the Caloosahatchee River is sometimes serious, but not critical. 262 Peace River Basin The Peace River basin is drained by the Peace and Myakka Rivers which empty into Charlotte Harbor. A brief discussion of each follows: The Peace River originates in the Green Swamp in Central Polk County and flows southwesterly for about 105 mi into the Gulf of Mexico at Charlotte Harbor. The Green Swamp serves as an important recharge area for the Florida aquifer because of numerous lakes and large areas of poorly drained swamps. The Green Swamp itself, because of high recharge characteristics, has been designated as an Area of Critical State Concern. Land use in the upper por- tion of the Peace River basin is predominantly agricultural, but a large percentage (25%) of barren land supports extensive phosphate mining along the river. Major pollution sources are domestic sewage discharge, heavy industrial discharges from phosphate mining activities, chemical plants, citrus process- ing plants, and surface runoff. Total Kheldahl nitrogen (TKN) levels are high throughout the river. Mean concentrations vary from a high of 2.26 mg/1 at Bartow to a low of 0.86 mg/1 near the mouth. Average total phosphorus concen- trations show a similar downstream decrease from a high of 3.08 mg/1 to a low of 0.66 mg/1. Mean pH values gradually increase from 6.8 in the upper reaches of the river to 7.9 at the mouth. Relatively low DO concentrations (4.4 mg/1), sometimes below the State water quality standard, have been reported through- out the Peace River. The diversity of macroinvertebrates (usually the greater the diversity, the lower the pollution) is reasonably good in the downstream portion of the Peace River. High nutrient and fecal coliform levels and low concentrations of DO in the upper portions of the Peace River are thought to be related to discharges of sewage and industrial effluent in the area. An increase in fecal coliform counts and a decrease in pH and total phosphorus values has been observed in recent years. In general, the water quality in the Peace River improves downstream. In the lower reaches, the water quality is good. The headwaters of the Myakka River are the freshwater marshes in Hardee County in southwestern Florida. A salt wedge extends far upstream in Char- lotte Harbor during periods of low flow. Rangeland (45.6% of the total area) and agriculture (26%) are the major land uses in the river basin. The major source of pollution is surface runoff from agricultural and pasture lands. High levels of total phosphorus (0.23 to 0.39 mg/1) has been reported through- out the river. Fairly low concentrations of DO are common in the upper portion of the river (a minimum of 3.8 mg/1) and frequently fall below the State water quality criteria at Sarasota. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and mercury sometimes exceed the State water quality standards in the Myakka River near Sarasota. Average fecal coliform counts are relatively high below Sarasota (297/100 ml) and at Snook Haven Dock. Macroinvertebrate diversity is reasonably good throughout the river. No overall temporal trend in water quality is evident. In general, the river water quality is good. The Tampa Bay River Basin The Tampa Bay Basin, which encompasses 3,000 mi^ in four major drainage areas, includes Tampa Bay, Withlacoochee River (including Pitchlachascotee, 263 Anclote, and Crystal Rivers), the Hillsborough River Basin, the Alafia River Basin, and the area between Myakka River and the Alafia River. The major metropolitan areas are Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota, and Bradenton. Each of the river basins is described in the following subsec- tions. Pitchlachascotee, Anclote, and Crystal River Basins. The Pitchlachascotee River originates in Hernando County, Florida, and flows about 41 mi southwest to the Gulf of Mexico at New Port Rickey. About 15% of the average flow of the river is supplied by the Floridian aquifer. Land use is primarily agri- cultural, and New Port Rickey is the only urban area. Violations of State water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and pH are common. Data indicate no overall temporal trend in water quality. Within the Pitchlachascotee drainage, water quality is usually good or very good. The Anclote River orig- inates in south-central Pasco County and flows westward approximately 27.5 mi to the Gulf of Mexico. The major land use in this area is agriculture. Water quality standards of pH and DO concentrations in the south branch often are violated, and total alkalinity, pH, and mercury concentrations occasionally fall below State standards. Macroinvertebrate diversity at the mouth of the Anclote River is reasonably good. The Crystal River originates from a group of springs at Kings Bay and flows approximately 6 mi to the Gulf of Mexico. Little change in water quality of the Crystal River has been reported; gener- ally, the water quality is ^ery good. Hillsborough River Basin. The Hillsborough River flows southwesterly for about 55 mi from the Green Swamp area in Pasco County to Hillsborough Bay. The principle tributaries are Trout Creek, Blackwater Creek, and Six Mile Creek. The Hillsborough River provides the potable water supply for Tampa. The primary sources of pollution are urban and agriculture runoff, domestic sewage (8 Mgal/d) and industrial discharges (11.5 Mgal/d), primarily from citrus processing plants. Surface runoff and domestic sewage are the major pollution sources in the southern stretch of the river. Moderately high levels of TKN occur near the headwaters of the Hillsborough River (0.915 mg/1). Total phosphorus values are high throughout the river (0.320 to 0.068 mg/1). Itchepachesassa Creek, a tributary to Blackwater Creek, receives wastes from several citrus industries. The high phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite levels may be caused by the various industrial discharges into Blackwater Creek. Mean DO concentrations are very low (0.32 mg/1) near the headwaters, but increase to 6.5 mg/1 in mid-reaches. DO concentrations below State water quality criteria are frequently reported throughout the river. This may in part be due to natural Green Swamp drainage and tidal influences. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and mercury above the State water qual- ity standards have been detected in the Hillsborough River near Zephyrhills, in Trout Creek, and in Tampa urban area. Levels of fecal coliform bacteria are high near Blackwater Creek (961/100 ml ) and extremely high (5,480/100 ml ) near Tampa. These concentrations are 4 to 27 times greater than the 200/100 ml State standard for Class I Potable water supplies and are caused mostly by domestic sewage. Macroinvertebrate diversity is good, especially in the up- stream undeveloped areas. Average concentrations of TKN and total phosphorus have declined in recent decades whereas substantial increases in nitrate- nitrite concentrations and fecal coliform counts have increased. No overall 264 temporal trend in water qualities is apparent. Water quality in general is fair, sometimes poor, especially since the river is designated as a potable water supply. Alafia River Basin. The Alafia River, located in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, flows westward 24 mi into the Hillsborough Bay. Major tributaries are the North Prong, South Prong, and Little Alafia Rivers. Land use in the basin is largely agricultural (35%), range (17%), and barren lands (12%). The river flows through areas of extensive phosphate mining and rock processing. Industrial sources, primarily phosphate, discharge an average of 63 Mgal/d of wastewater into the Alafia River. Additional sources of pollution include runoff from mines, pastures, and agricultural areas. Occasional slime spills from phosphate processing operations. TKN values are high in the headwaters of North Prong and the Alafia Rivers. Phosphorus concentrations are high in the headwaters but decline downstream. Nitrate-nitrite concentrations also are very high but decrease progressively downstream. In the main stem of the river, DO decreases to extremely low levels for about 5 mi. The Alafia River rarely meets Class III standards for DO in this reach of the river. Concentra- tions of cadmium and mercury greater than State standards have been detected in the North and South Prongs. High concentrations of lead have been reported at Lithia in Hillsborough County and high levels of fecal col i form bacteria (1,010 to 5,150/100 ml) have been reported for all of Alafia River. This may be due to the abundance of cattle in the intensively grazed pasture leands along the river. Nitrogen and fecal col i form levels have increased and DO concentrations have decreased in recent decades. In all, organic loading may be responsible for the decline of water quality in recent years. Conversely, phosphorous concentrations have declined. In general, water quality in the Alafia River Basin is fair in the upper reaches of the South Prong, and poor in the North Prong and Alafia Rivers. Manatee River Basin. The headwaters of the Manatee River flow approxi- mately 25 mi southwesterly into Tampa Bay from the northeastern corner of Manatee County. This river is impounded at Lake Manatee to provide the drink- ing water supply for Manatee County. Downstream from Fort Hammer, the Manatee River is influenced by tides. Principle tributaries of the Manatee River are Braden River and Gamble Creek. Land uses are primarily agricultural (38%) and rangeland (41%). Bradenton and Palmetto are the major urban areas. Sources of pollution include domestic sewage and surface water runoff from rangeland and agricultural lands. Concentrations of total phosphorus are relatively high (0.26 to 0.52 mg/1), but water quality generally is good throughout the system which is characterized by low concentrations of TKN, nitrate-nitrite, and fecal col i form. In recent years concentrations of total phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite have declined. In general, water quality in the Manatee River basin is very good. Withlacoochee River Basin. The Withlacoochee River originates in the Green Swamp near the junction of Lake and Polk Counties, and flows in a north- westerly direction for about 157 mi through Polk, Pasco, Hernando, Sumter, Citrus, Marion, and Levy Counties and discharges into Withlacoochee Bay at Yankeetown. A major portion of the flow is contributed by the Florida aqui- fer. The river basin contains numerous lakes and springs, and the river is impounded for hydro-electric power at Inglis near the gulf in Citrus County. 265 Land use in the basin is primarily agricultural (38.9%) and barren land (8.9%). The latter reflects the 1 imerock mining activities in the Lower Withlacoochee River Basin. Surface runoff and industrial and domestic sewage are the primary sources of pollution. Major urban areas are Inverness, Brooksville, and Dade City. The acid swamp drainage that fontis the headwaters of the Withlacoochee influences downstream water quality. Average DO concen- trations are somewhat low (4.3 mg/1 ) near the headwaters, but increase only slightly downstream (5.6 mg/1). Measurements below the State standard of 5.0 mg/1 have been frequently reported throughout the river. Average pH values in recent years have increased from 4.7 to 7.5. Heavy metal concentrations of cadmium, lead, and aluminum in excess of State water quality standards have been detected. Mean fecal coliform levels are low throughout the Withlacoochee River and no consistent temporal trends in water quality are apparent. In general, the water quality in the Withlacoochee River Basin is good. WATER QUALITY IN ESTUARIES (CLASS II, III) Saltwater (brackish) Class III waters are suitable for saltwater species of aquatic life and for water-related recreation. Class II is designated solely for shellfish propagation. The acceptable limits of Class II often is far more restrictive than Class III because of the filter-feeding nature of shellfish and threat to public health. In polluted areas, shellfish consume pollutants, some of which accumulate in their body tissues to levels that can endanger human health if consumed (Lynch 1981). Water quality, based on concentrations of nitrates-nitrites, ammonia, phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, and nutrients, and on benthic diversity, generally has been good in Southwest Florida estuaries. The major coastal estuaries in the network of stations monitored in 1977-79 were Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, and Florida Bay areas. Estuaries in central Florida (Tampa Bay) generally had average water quality, whereas water quality in Charlotte Harbor generally was above average; consequently, neither is an immediate threat to public health or the aquatic environment. Pennekanp Park had the lowest total organic carbon (average 3.5 mg/1) and chlorophyll A (less than 110 micrograms per liter). It also had the highest diversity in the State, averaging 5.19. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were good in all estuaries, ranging from 6.0 mg/1 in the Peace River estuary to 7.5 mg/1 in Hillsborough Bay. Bio- logical oxygen demand (BOD) also was high, up to 4.0 mg/1 in Hillsborough Bay. Nutrient concentrations were generally low in most estuaries. The exceptions are given later. Hillsborough Bay had the highest ammonia concentration in the State (0.28 mg/1) whereas other estuaries averaged less than 0.13 mg/1. High phosphorus concentrations were evident in Hillsborough Bay (1.24 mg/1). Middle Tampa Bay (0.78 mg/1). Colifomi counts generally followed trends similar to phosphorus. The four stations in Hillsborough and Tampa Bays had higher fecal and total coliform counts than most other stations in Florida estuaries. Hillsborough Bay had the highest average fecal and total coliform counts (490/100 ml and 3,250/100 ml, respectively) in Southwest Florida. Turbidity was low (4 JTU's) in Southwest Florida estuaries and total organic carbon and chlorophyll A concentrations generally were high. Organic carbon ranged from 6.7 to 12.0 mg/1. Hillsborough Bay had the highest average 266 (25 mg/1 ) chlorophyll A concentration in the State. Tampa Bay was the only estuary in the area with a concentration less than 5 mg/1. All estuaries except Hillsborough Bay and Peace River had benthic diver- sity values above 3.1. Tampa Bay had the highest diversity (3.95) in central Florida. Estuaries in Southwest Florida generally had average to good water quality. The Hillsborough Bay and Peach River tidal zone had the poorest water quality in the area. The most serious water quality problems are in the Greater Tampa Bay area. The following discussion examines the nature and extent of the water quality problems there. Tampa Bay is a large shallow estuary with low tidal flushing, especially in the Old Tampa Bay area. The tides rarely exceed 2 ft because of a rather extensive causeway system. For water quality assessment, Tampa Bay is divided into East Tampa Bay, including Hillsborough Bay and the eastern half of Tampa Bay proper, and West Tampa Bay including the western half of Tampa Bay from the mouth northward, and Old Tampa Bay. Land use in the area adjacent to the Bay is primarily urban, and major sources of pollution come from domestic sewage, industrial effluents, and urban stormwater runoff from the metropoli- tan areas of Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Bradenton. In Old Tampa Bay, concentrations of total phosphorus average between 0.73 to 0.81 mg/1, and peak at 0.91 mg/1. From this point to the entrance of Tampa Bay southward, high concentrations of phosphorus are evident. A similar trend is evident for concentrations of TKN, nitrate-nitrite, and fecal coliform bac- teria. High dissolved oxygen concentrations and high pH are typical. Although somewhat variable, macroinvertebrate diversity in Old Tampa Bay is reportedly good. Violations of total and fecal coliform bacteria standards are rare. Water quality in West Tampa Bay in recent years has improved. Con- centrations of total phosphorus, NO3-NO2, TKN, and fecal coliform have decreased substantially. This improvement in water quality is especially notable where Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay meet. In East Tampa Bay, concentrations of total phosphorus are high and aver- age about 1.4 mg/1 near Hooker Point in Hillsborough Bay, and 1.5 mg/1 in that portion of Tampa Bay near the Alafia River. A similar spatial distribution was shown by fecal coliform counts. High counts were recorded for the upper portions near the Alafia River (677/100 to 12,500/100 ml) and low fecal coli- form counts at the entrance to Tampa Bay around 109/100 to 116/100 ml. The State standard of 200/100 ml for fecal coliform sometimes has been exceeded occasionally in East Tampa Bay. Broad macroinvertebrate diversity was reported, which suggests rather low levels of general pollution. Recent studies indicate a general improvement in water quality in the East Tampa Bay, particularly in the area of Hillsborough Bay. Trends suggest that water qual- ity has improved throughout East Tampa Bay near the Alafia River. Water quality generally appears to be good in the southern portion of East Tampa Bay, and fair in the Hillsborough Bay area. The better water quality in West Tampa Bay is somewhat higher than in East Tampa Bay. 267 Hazardous Wastes Hazardous wastes are a problem in Florida largely because of their direct effects on highly valued aquatic ecosystems and groundwater aquifers. High porous sandy soils rapidly transport surface waters (some of it contaminated) into the aquifer and, consequently, create serious problems for the disposal and treatment of hazardous wastes. Several of these problems have had far reaching effects. Frequent oil spills along the St. Marks River and in its port waters caused an annual loss of $328,000 to the sport and commercial fishery (Bell 1981). Another analysis showed that heavy metals and sulfuric acid from a battery reclamation facility caused $6 million in damage to the environment, including the cost of reclamation. In addition, freshwater fishery losses were extensive in Dry Creek, Chipola River, and Gulf County Dead Lakes area (Lynch 1981), and possibly as far downstream as Apalachicola Bay. The cost of pollution of groundwater has not been estimated, but fresh- water wells near the sources of contamination contained heavy metal and organic concentrations above EPA standards. A number of hazardous waste incidents in Florida have been identified (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulations (1980b). The most serious incidents were groundwater contamination by a reclamation operation, disposal of infectious wastes, oil spills, and pesticide/oil mixture contami- nation. Some of the details are given in the following subsections. Pesticide/oil spill. A pesticide/oil mixture contaminated the Orange River in 1977, when Lee County mosquito control personnel spilled about 500 gal of oil, water, and pesticides (Baytex, Cythion, Malathion) into a ditch that later was flushed into the Orange River by heavy rains. Some fish were killed and about $15,000 was spent for cleanup. (Refer to the Data Appendix, Table EIR 3 for additional information.) Fish kill, Exxon Co., Lehigh Acres, Lee County. In 1976, a leak devel- oped in a pipeline serving an oil well on Exxon property at Lehigh Acres and some of the fluid drained into a canal. In the cleanup, an estimated 23,400 gal of oil and water mixture were recovered; the 1,400 gal not recovered flowed into the canals adjacent to Lehigh Acres. More than 3,000 fish were killed, and the invertebrate population and aquatic vegetation in the canals were contaminated. The cost of cleanup was $47,000; the fines and damages exceeded $14,000. Oil spill in Tampa Bay. In 1977, an oil-carrying barge collided with the Tampa Electric Co. dock and was badly damaged. The barge leaked about 110,000 gal of light diesel fuel into Sparkman Channel in Tampa Bay. Many injured and dead waterfowl, predominantly ducks, of which more than 65 were dead and approximately 30 were coated with oil, were counted. Other injuries to aquatic life were apparent in the marshes but they were not counted. Cleanup costs exceeded $100,000 and penalties could reach $55,000. Florida Keys oil spill. In July 1975, possibly as much as 120,000 gal of crude oil was discharged from a tanker carrying fuel oil when it cleaned its tanks off of the Florida Keys coast. Incalculable damage was done to exten- 268 sive mangrove areas from Key Largo to Key West, and invertebrate life on beaches along the Atlantic coast of the Florida Keys. The cost of the cleanup operation was over $367,430. The owners and the captain of the offending vessel could be fined as much as $15,000. Industrial related hazardous wastes incidents. The groundwater was con- taminated by a battery plant in Hillsborough County owned by the Gulf Coast Lead Co. which in 1978-81 regularly discharged sulfuric acid, nickel, chrom- ium, cadmium, lead, copper, zinc, barium, and strontium. The DER and EPA required Gulf Coast Lead Co. to monitor groundwater for contamination. Nearby wells were not contaminated, but water in the company monitoring wells had excessively low pH and high heavy metal concentrations. No remedial action for construction of stormwater drainage and acid neutralization systems is currently underway. (Data Appendix, Table EIR 7, contains additional infor- mation. ) Improper disposal of infectious wastes. In 1980-81 infectious materials of the red bag" variety from area hospitals, veterinary clinics, and other medical facilities in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties have been inciner- ated. Materials included soiled bandages, hypodermic needles, blood samples, and other infectious wastes, but because of deficient incinerator capacity, some materials are buried in landfills. Proper handling and discharge of these hazardous wastes have been directed by officials of the St. Petersburg Department of Environmental Sanitation and is proceeding at this time (further information is available in the Data Appendix, Table EIR 8). The list of sites in EIR Table 10, "Inventory of Potential Hazardous Wastes Sites by County" in the Data Appendix lists the most serious hazardous waste facilities in the State. The Tampa Bay area contains the largest number of potential hazardous waste sites identified by the Hazardous Waste Section of the DER and rated by "Mitre" score from least to most serious risk. The Tampa Bay facilities are typically in the mid-range with values from 40 to 55. Hillsborough County has one facility, Schylkill Metals in Plant City, that is ranked (59) more serious than all of those in Tampa. These scores reflect the professional judgement of the interdisciplinary DER and EPA staffs that assem- bled to rank the potential sites and their degree of risk to the environment. FISHERY LOSSES As a peninsular state, Florida possesses large areas of high quality fresh and salt waters. The State's economy and its $19 billion tourist indus- try is linked to and dependent upon the quality of the State's natural resources with special importance attached to the quantity and quality of fresh water. The total value of Florida's tourist trade in 1980 was $19 billion in tourist related expenditures and over $785 million in State revenues. Water pollution in Florida reported by Bell and Canterbury (1976) has decreased the value of the tourist industry by 8%. The freshwater sport fishing in 1975 was valued at over $1 billion and directly and indirectly supported about 75,500 jobs. If pollution were re- duced as set forth in the Clean Water Act, the man-days of sport fishing alone 269 should increase about 90% by 1985 (from 55 million in 1974 to 105 million in 1985), independent of the population increase. The nonmarket value of the sport fishery probably would increase by about $133 million. The saltwater sport fishery, on the same basis, had a value of $2 billion and supported 118,000 jobs (Bell 1979). The commercial saltwater fishery sup- ports 36,262 jobs and an industry worth about $160 million per year. An estimate of the dockside value of the marine landings in the counties of Florida are given in Figure 1. The average annual value of the fisheries yield was between $5 and $8 million in Sarasota, Charlotte, and Monroe Coun- ties, between $1 and $5 million annually for Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, and between $0.5 million and $1 million for Manatee and Collier Counties. This income is a major part of the local economies of these coun- ties. For further details on sport fishing, consult the synthesis paper on recreation and tourism in this report. Potential catch increases in the Class Il-dependent shellfishery area were examined by Bell and Canterbury (1976). This study sponsored by the National Commission on Clean Water, forecasts that if goals of the Clean Water Act are met in Florida, landings from estuarine and Class Il-dependent fishery areas would increase from 1972 to 1980 by 10.5 million lb for lobster, 15,2 million lb for oysters, 765,000 lb for scallops, 8.9 million lb for crabs, and 19.7 million lb for shrimp. Menhaden are expected to increase by almost 14 million lb because of improvements in water quality. The relative value of wetlands and Class II fishery areas can be esti- mated through economic methodology. A study on the marine estuarine resources of Northwest Florida was completed for the Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile (Edmunsten 1977). This survey covered the eight coastal counties from Escam- bia County east to Wakulla County, but is applicable to Southwest Florida as well. Fifteen estuaries were identified including the major Class II areas. In a study by Bell (1977) the average value per acre of estuary was $60.91. Another study completed by Gosselink et al. (1973) gave a value of $75.00 per acre of estuary. Bell estimated that $13.83 per acre may be lost in Class II estuaries of Santa Rosa County if the Navarre Pass reopens (Bell 1977). Other estimates of pollution impacts verify the high value of fisheries. One researcher (Terbonne 1973) estimated that fishery losses from water pol- lution alone in the Pensacola area in 1972 were over $3 million. The initial effects on fisheries can further be magnified throughout the economy by multi- plier effects. FORECAST AND TRENDS Attempts have been made in several publications to correlate water qual- ity in rivers, lakes, and estuaries with point and nonpoint water pollution and to forecast conditions and problems. One of the most useful analyses was made in Section V of the Water Quality Assessment (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1979a) report on "Statistical Analysis of Water Qual- ity Versus Point and Nonpoint Sources." The significance of the comparisons were made by determining correlation coefficients in an attempt to establish pollution loadings and levels and future forecasts. Coefficients among the 270 Total Marine Landings (Fish. Shelllish, Shrimp) Average Annual Value 1960 ■ 1970 Value in Dollars 5.000.000 ■ 8.000,000 >-•''••-•••-•- 1.000.000-5,000.000 500.000- 1.000,000 100,000 500.000 below 100.000 No major landings o» - Annual Average 1960-1970 $32,264,437 40. E £ 20. ^v^^^;^;.;:v^^^■•■^ .v: ' .'.v.'.*.* ' M 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ^*r;*?!^'*'.*.'.vX" •' '.•.•>X* •'■'.'. >, Total Marine LandingsvV.v.jXyJ.v.;.;,'; ;X*X'X •;•;'; •: - 20 ?:_4o .■-30 '■ ■X'XvX'*-*X'X>xI : '•;<*'X'X'X'X''*"'v 1968 Figure 1. Marine landings for Florida in 1970 (Wood and Fernald 1974), 271 paired values were statistically significant (0.74) at the 95% confidence level. Point source and nonpoint source and urban concentrations typically show positive correlation with low water quality. Not all water pollution is explained by watershed conditions alone; many other factors are involved as well. The water assessment report also developed a water quality index (WQI) and a watershed index (WSI) that describes the relationships between changes in standard values of all water quality measurements as a function of land-use types in a watershed. Phosphorus concentrations in aquatic habitats and intense industrial areas such as strip-mining, urban centers, and rangeland exhibited a positive correlation. Watersheds with relatively high sewage flows also exhibit an abundance of phosphorus. Nitrogen concentrations (TKN and organic nitrogen) were highest in range- lands and wetlands with high water storage capacity, and high in waters sub- ject to sewage discharges. Inorganic nitrogen is somewhat different from organic nitrogen. High levels of organic nitrogen appears to have been caused by fertilizers used on agricultural lands. An increase in the area of urban and range! ands, and sewage inflow, caused an increase in the biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the waters of the watershed. Raw sewage particularly increases the probability of excessive BOD. Dissolved oxygen in rivers and ponds apparently was little altered by runoff from wetlands and rangelands. Increased urbanization, industrialization, and water-related development indicate that water quality in some areas will decline over the next several decades. The degree of decline is difficult to predict accurately and there- fore should be identified only in terms of direction and probable magnitude. Phosphorous concentrations and nitrogen concentrations probably will increase as agriculture intensifies. As urbanization expands, forests are cleared and marsh wetlands are drained so that BOD, DO, inorganic nitrogen, and phosphorous are likely to increase. On the other hand, regulatory con- trols including point source discharge permits and regulatory management of nonpoint source discharges should minimize violations of water quality stan- dards. The best available forecast for sewage treatment plant discharges in the counties of Southwest Florida is shown in Table 2. Increased point source loadings from secondary treatment facilities and associated industrial expan- sion and coastal developments are strongly related with declines in water quality (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1979a). The increase in sewage treatment facilities is somewhat in proportion to the increase in population. The rates of growth (3.1% to 5.7%) among the counties of Southwest Florida are among the highest in the State. The popula- tion distribution throughout the State are given in Figure 2. The greatest single concentration is in the Tampa or St. Petersburg area. Future increases probably will be greatest south of Tampa Bay. Considering the increase in the population, the increase for sewage treatment also will grow and further stress some of the natural resources (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1979a). 272 to le -o •r- O O o o CM i. la > 0) 1. o I/) c o o r— to (O ■M ■fj CO o O •M U ■o , 0) (O +J ■M rtJ •^ E= Q. •r- o c 4-> O) •^• c Q. •r— — I CM CM ^ t-H CM • o o vt o u te CT s: • ^-^ ^— ^ t-l 01 00 T7 cr\ OJ t—t (U c c o >-, •r- +? 4-> •r- (O O ^— lO 3 n cn (T 0) o a£ ■«-> r— f- n <1) +J E V o> 1 1 1 lO ^ *4- t/1 CM 0) ■— lO X) Q. I— Q to 0) «»- o +J-0 •r- OJ J- 1— ■(-> , +-> If— o c w— Q.T3 ^ O f— ■M 10 3 c cr o ens J- t3 a; ■o , ns 3 (O C c Ol C o +J.— N L. C 0) (O 0) CT ^~ ^ o la 3 4J i- i- 0-5 0) Q. S--— ' <: en 3 O Lnr~»i— I.— iroi— iCTiocovD CM i. o (U o s- o o ^ to ■!-> S- I— O 1 — ro (O r— t/) I — O) C x: o CJ -I- O) (O o o Q nr _i s to (fl (O ■»-> t— o o o I— to 5- O to to a: <0 o o • •^ > r~. ■^ r-- .^ II (O +-> 3 o Q. o O '"' O. (U A > JZ i- t> 3 J- o «a 0) CO (/) •M 0) W a: o o (A to c 0) o c •r— 4-> T3 (/> C C (O o s- -^ $- O . , ns OJ 4-> +J r- -C to "^ I — ^ +^ -o c O to to t— I > i~ 0 3 c a» Qj •^ 0^ Ll_ (0 < 10 n < 10 10 < (0 (0 < c S = D 5 S 2 «» c ^ I I » 2 o c 5 a, 2 i i D o « c S 5 c « ^ ^ ^ 3 O (0 ^ i •D a, 3 S c o ■M c s- lO O to s- o i- Q. O s- 4-> o o c o ■o c 3 o s- • o- *— ^ 1- T3 •r- -(-> OJ r^ 3 3 cn O) (U Ll_ oc 279 Class II and Class III wells are permitted by the Florida State Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology. The other classes are permitted through the Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, the most important of which are industrial and municipal wells. Groundwater Probably the single most serious environmental constraint to urban growth and other economic developments in Southwest Florida is the distribution and the availability of potable and nonpotable sources of water. Southwest Flor- ida once was rich in surface and groundwater supplies that were adequate for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses. Now rapid growth of the urban population of the coastal counties has led to severe shortages of potable drinking water and considerable competition for existing sources of any kind of water. Water tables and shallow aquifers have been substantially lowered by drainage improvements and by construction of canals for draining interior wetlands for agricultural and for industrial phosphate mining. The cumulative results of these canals have resulted in falling water tables and saltwater intrusion in many of the coastal areas of Southwest Florida (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1979a). The competition for water for public, agricultural, industrial, and com- mercial consumption is a growing problem that is especially acute during droughts. The counties that use the most water are Pinellas County, which currently withdraws 88 Mgal/d of groundwater of which 65.9 Mgal/d are for public supply, and Hillsborough County, which uses about 39 Mgal/d for public supply. Commercial consumption in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties is about 23.0 and 15.9 Mgal/d, respectively. Industrial consumption is greatest in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties (8 Mgal/d in each). A report entitled "A Regional Fiscal Impact Model: Applications for the Charlotte Harbor Region" prepared by Milliman et al . (1981) of the University of Florida describes the nature of the groundwater controversy as follows: Resulting stresses on groundwater sources have resulted in seriously overburdening groundwater supplies within the Char- lotte Harbor area. In addition to these problems, contami- nation of shallow aquifers by uncapped abandoned wells drilled into highly salty artesian formations and pollution from septic tanks has seriously reduced their potential to supply freshwater needs. The deep Floridian aquifer underlies most of the area, but is high in chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids and is not suitable for domestic use without extensive desalini- zation. Already many areas in this region are turning to reverse osmosis and electrodialysis processes to produce potable water from brackish groundwater sources. Desaliniza- tion is only cost effective in areas where a large scale sys- tem to develop and transport surface and/or groundwater has not been implemented. Expansion of desalinization plants in the Charlotte Harbor area is foreseen until more economical regional systems are constructed. 280 Competition for available water supplies will continue into the future and will likely be one of the most pressing environmental issues in Southwest Florida (Milliman et al . 1981). Impoundments as a Source of Groundwater Pollution One of the most pressing problems concerning the quantity and quality of surface water in Southwest Florida is the impoundment of freshwater streams to supply water for industrial and mining purposes, for municipal sewage treat- ment, and irrigation. Waste waters contaminated with bacteria and toxic materials often are released by users into the impoundments. Not only are the impoundments contaminated, but according to a Department of Environmental Regulation study in 1980, some of the water retained temporarily in the impoundments seep into shallow underground aquifers and contaminate public supply water there. Nearly all the drinking water used in Southwest Florida comes from these aquifers (the larger are called subsurface impoundments) and, without proper treatment, are a threat to public health. Major aquifers in Southwest Florida that are affected are the Floridian aquifer, the shallow caustic acquifer, the sand ridge water table aquifer, and the Bay of Biscayne aquifer. Evidence is that these aquifers will be further threatened as the demand for clean water and wastewater disposal accelerate into a major conflict. Unless aggressive State action is taken, the quality of the water supply will degrade unchecked. 4 Insufficient treatment of waste waters discharged into surface impound- ments will increase the cost of drinking water treatment. Continued degrada- tion of the groundwater quality may eventually limit economic growth in the area. The 1980 report recommends steps that can be taken to minimize this threat. Currently the Department of Environmental Regulation is developing a series of groundwater and permit standards to protect shallow freshwater drinking water supplies from pollution. Southwest Florida has a relatively large number of small impoundments. Hillsborough County has the largest number of mining related impoundments which are primarily holding areas for phosphate slime operations. It also has the largest number (224) of municipal impoundments, agricultural impoundments (82), and industrial impoundments (72). Lee County has a large number (238) of municipal impoundments, as do Sarasota, Manatee, and Collier Counties. Lee County has 66 industrial impoundments and 2 agricultural impoundments, and Pinellas County has 62 industrial impoundments. The risks involved with these impoundments were described earlier in the hazardous waste section of this report. The Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation (1980b) com- pleted a study in January 1980 that reported that "surface impoundments dis- charge pollutants into shallow aquifiers." These pollutants travel undetected through the subsurface. This study (referred to as a Surface Impoundment Assessment) reported thousands of subsurface impoundments that have the same potential as surface impoundments for contaminating groundwater supplies. The study further reported that more intense conflicts between clean water and waste water disposal will develop unchecked unless aggressive State action is taken. The current rate of degradation of drinking water supplies from groundwater pollution is likely to continue. 281 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Over the past few decades, extensive areas of Southwest Florida's interior wetlands and uplands have been dredged and drained and extensive diking has led to a major alteration of Southwest Florida's coastal wetlands. Coastal ecological alterations have caused changes in habitat composition, reduced the abundance of detritus and other sources of nutrients, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, excessively increased coliform counts, destroyed fresh-and saltwater marshes, and reduced natural purification of urban and suburban runoff. Natural eroding processes such as beach and river erosion and man-induced destruction of natural vegetation and habitat have caused further stress on fish and wildlife species (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1979a). This section identifies major manmade and natural environmental issues that are not necessarily pollution oriented. Because of its long coastline, tidal action, and extensive river networks and high flows, the hydrology of Southwest Florida is highly dynamic. Thousands of acres of marine grassbeds and mangrove communities are found throughout the estuaries, rivers, and tidal creeks. The status of environmental conditions in Southwest Florida as described by Milliman and Sipe (1979) are given below. The Charlotte Harbor area, including Lemon Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Piyone Sound, Matoachua Pass, San Carlo Bay, and Estero Bay, is the largest estuarine system in Florida and one of the most productive. Continued maintenance of natural salinity levels is vital to this productivity. The quality of water in the bays and estuaries is threatened by develop- ment in the area. Urban and agricultural storm runoff, sewage effluent and septic tank seepage provide fertilizer for algae growth and result in oxygen depletion. Addition- ally, coliform bacteria unacceptable to commercial shellfish harvesting has resulted from septic tank pollution. Mangrove forests cover thousands of acres around the bays and lagoons. They provide habitat for wildlife, buffers from hurricane storms and in recent years dredge and fill operations have destroyed large areas of mangrove forests. Also, urban and agricultural development have changed drainage characteris- tics of upland flows and freshwater into the mangroves and thus increase the amount and level of runoff concentrations. Thus salinity balances are disturbed and more nutrients are washed into the bay without natural filtration by the man- groves. Development that interferes with mangroves thus can affect the water quality, reduce hurricane protection, and threaten production of fish and wildlife. Eight major environmental issues have been identified by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's report on growth management of southwest Florida (1979). The most pressing issue is the competition for land and water necessary to meet the multiple demands of a rapidly growing population. Southwest Florida is confronted with potentially unserviceable and environmen- tally unsuitable residential locations that would serve better as marshes. About 94% of the undeveloped lots platted in Charlotte, Lee, and Sarasota 282 Counties are open to residential development. Without proper site selection and planning, flooding may be a threat and local water sources would be adversely affected. It is evident that ill-advised land use is not as likely under the current planning and regulatory standards as it has been in the past (Milliman et al. 1981). Large subdivisions often were created for volume sale without considering the environmental sensitivities of the area or the infra- structure support systems required for new population centers. A conservative assumption of 2.2 persons per potential dwelling unit in the platted areas of Southwest Florida would increase the population by 1.4 million people, whereas the actual forecast for 2020 is only 436,000 persons. In either event, the destruction of natural systems and further draining of wetlands for agricul- tural and phosphate mining purposes is certain. LAND CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS In Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties, 107,302 acres of Class II waters and 29,439 acres of marine grassbeds have been identified (Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation 1978). The area of brackish coastal marshes has been estimated at 7,238 acres and coastal man- groves at about 10,751 acres. The area of freshwater swamps and marshes was estimated at 24,500 acres. The report further identifies as areas of conflict over 189,500 acres that are presently developed, but only 3,334 acres of land are suitable for intensive development without corrective measures or protec- tion from flooding. The total area that is developed covers more than 419,916 acres. The Southwest Florida coastal area, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties has 198,137 acres of Class II waters, 57,190 acres of marine grassbeds, 69,000 acres of coastal marshes, 133,727 acres of coastal mangroves, and 16,869 acres of freshwater swamp and marshes. Over 213,811 acres are now developed but subject to conflict. Only 2,892 acres suitable for development without corrections or flood control remain undeveloped. Over 199,231 acres were designated as prime agricultural lands with other potential suitabilities. Total development in this four county area was estimated to be 493,990 acres. The Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation study (1978) indicated that Monroe County has 152,268 acres of Class II waters, 426,848 acres of marine grassbeds, 159,539 acres of coastal marshes, 221,964 acres of coastal mangroves and about 65,000 acres of freshwater marshes. All of the developed land (22,675 acres) was subject to conflict. No undeveloped land suitable for development remains. Extensive areas of suburban development have been platted in Southwest Florida. The greatest conflict is in the Charlotte Harbor area. Extensive areas of Class II waters, marine grassbeds, coastal marshes, and mangrove swamps still exist, but they are a fraction of what existed only a few years ago. If trends are not reversed in the future, continued growth and expansion into sensitive coastal wetlands will further deplete these valuable resources, and may lead to large scale destruction of other dependent environmental resources such as fisheries and beach recreation. 283 In Southwest Florida, especially southwest of Charlotte, an extensive and very fragile system of barrier islands extends along large stretches of the coastline. This chain of Barrier Islands extend from the Minnesota Peninsula on the north and includes the islands of Don Pedro, Gasparilla, Teocosta, Captiva, Sanibel, Estero, and Bonita Beach (Discussion with Staff, Bureau of Coastal Zone Management, September 1981). These islands protect the estuaries and coastline by buffering the forces of high tides and storms during incle- ment weather. They are dynamic and frequently shift and change with the tides and time. The littoral drift of sand and beach erosion on these islands makes their shores subject to radical change within relatively short periods of time. Their attractiveness for residential development and coastal recreation has invited further environmental threat. Inappropriate development such as artificial jetties, seawalls, groins, dredging, and filling activities inter- feres with natural forces and has created environmental stresses that disrupt and sometimes destroy these systems. An example of a positive measure that can be enacted to protect barrier islands is the comprehensive plan developed for the Sanibel and Captiva Islands just off the Charlotte Harbor area. THE FLORIDA KEYS The Florida Keys historically has been confronted with shortages of pot- able supplies of freshwater. Intensive development throughout the Keys has further worsened the shortage. Some natural systems are jeopardized by inten- sive development along the Florida Keys, such as the fragile and unique reef system that has undergone extensive alteration over the past few decades. The entire Keys chain is classified as an Area of Critical State Concern. The major classification of land uses and wetland categories that are important for identification and protection throughout Florida was recommended by the Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation (1978). FORECASTS AND TRENDS Southwest Florida has been the focus of extensive research and investiga- tion because increased urban growth has caused numerous social and environ- mental problems. One of the products of the State and regional research was an econometric regional forecast model (Milliman et al . 1981). The model has wide application for forecasting fiscal trends. It is designed to estimate changing fiscal circumstances as a result of changing socioeconomic and envi- ronmental conditions. Another indicator of Southwest Florida's residential growth is the list of Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that is available from the Department of Community Affairs. The DRI's include certain classes of recreational, com- mercial, residential, and transportation developments. Extensive development has been permitted through the DRI procedure and is likely to continue throughout Southwest Florida. Residential development is most likely for Lee, Sarasota, Manatee, and Monroe Counties and greater industrial developments, frequently related to phosphate mining, can be expected in Manatee, Sarasota, and Hillsborough Counties. 284 The critical habitat for some of Florida's endangered and threatened species (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants) in Southwest Flor- ida are listed in Figure 7. As their habitat continues to disappear, so also do their numbers. A further description of habitat destruction is given else- where in this report. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND Extensive tracts of land in Southwest Florida are owned by Federal, State, and local governments, and are used for a variety of purposes. The vast holdings of the Federal Government include the Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress National Preserve that encompass large tracts of land in Monroe and Collier Counties, with the Faxahatchee Strand, Cayo Costa North Captiva Islands, and Weeden Island in Pinellas County. There are other smaller State, Federal, and local holdings throughout the region. The purchase of even more fresh and saltwater swamps in Southwest Florida by Government agencies are attempts to retain the quality of the remaining wetlands for water retention, conservation, groundwater recharge, and flood control. The State's Environmentally Endangered Lands program provides an impor- tant source of funding for acquisition of biologically and hydrologically valuable lands in Southwest Florida (Figure 8). Other purchases are or will be made to expand the recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat to com- pliment other land uses. Aquatic Preserves Southwest Florida has an abundance of highly productive and well pro- tected aquatic preserves managed by the Florida State Department of Natural Resources (Figure 9). Current legislation for aquatic preserves is undergoing modifications that will further upgrade their protection. The administration of aquatic preserves by the Department of Natural Resources was established in the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975 (Ch. 258 Florida Statutues), and states in part that: It is a legislative intent that the state-owned sub- merged lands in the areas which have exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value, it is hereinafter described to be set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries for the benefit of future generations. Waste disposal, dredging, and filling are severely curtailed in aquatic preserves, as discussed in greater detail in a later section. The State's major wildlife management areas are shown in Figure 10. The three in Southwest Florida are the Big Cypress, Cecil Webb, and Hillsborough Wildlife Management Areas. A list of Florida's State preserves, forests, and parks are given in Figure 11. A large number of these facilities are in Southwest Florida, including the Myakka State Park in Sarasota County, the Collier-Seminole Park in Collier County, and the John Pennekamp Coral Reef Park in Monroe County. 285 AL A 8 AM A GEORGIA American Crocodlla Rorlda Manala« Rorlda Evergladaa Kite Dusky Seaside Sparrow Pine Barrens Treetrog ft a,'^ Figure 7. Critical habitats in Florida CFlorida Power and Light Co. 1979), 286 ALA B AMA GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS 1 Big Cypress National Preserve 2 Wsedon Island 3 Fakahatchee Strand 4 Volusia Water Recharge Area 5 River Rise 6 San Felasco Hammock 7 Three Lakes Ranch 8 Lower Apalachlcola River Basin 9 Palm Beach County Everglades Tracts 10 Paynes Prairie State Preserve Addition 11 Lower Weklva River Corridor 12 Cayo Costa-North Captlva Islands 13 Little St. George Island 14 Nassau Valley Marshes 15 Savannahs 16 Tosohatchee Game Preserve 17 Barefoot Beach 18 Cedar Key Scrub 19 Charlotte Hartwr 20 Gables-by-the-Sea 21 Perdldo Key 22 WIthlacoochee Tract ,.o^'A^ "'' Figure 8. 1979). Environmentany endangered lands (Florida Power and Light Co. 287 ALA! AM A GEOUGIA »'*''-v] AQUATIC PRESERVES 1 Fort Pickens State Park 2 Yellow River Marsh 3 Rocky Bayou State Park i St. Andrews State Park 5 St. Joseph Bay 6 Apalachlcola Bay 7 Alligator Harbor 8 St. Martin's Marsh 9 Pinellas County 10 Boca Claga 11 Lake Jackson 12 Cape Haze 13 Matlacha Pass 14 Pine Island Sound 15 Estero Bay 16 Rookery Bay 18 Coupon Bight 19 Llgumvltae Bay 20 Biscayne Bay 21 Loxahatchee River-Lake Worth Creok 22 North Fork. St. Lucie 2? Jensen beach to Jupiter Inlet 24 Indian DherVoro Beach to Ft. Pierce 25 Indian River-Malabar to Sebastian 26 Banana River 27 Mosquito Lagoon 28 Weklva River 29 Tomoka Marsh 30 Pelllcer Creek 31 Nassau RIver-St. John's Marsh 32 Fort Clinch State Park 33 Cockroach Bay 34 Gasparllla Sound-Charlotte Hart>Of 35 Cane Florida eo j^.ij; - ' " "ra 18 Figure 9. State aquatic preserves (Florida Power and Light Co. 1979), 288 AL A> AM A GEORGIA ft-*-» r'^i 9»/- ^t •87 STATE FORESTS A Blackwater B Pins Log C Gary 0 WIthlacooche* • STATE PARKS 1 Fort Coopsf 2 Blackwater RIvar 3 CaladesI Island 4 Colller-Semlnols 5 St. George Island* 8 FaverOykes 7 Florida Caverns 8 Fort Clinch 9 Mike Roess Gold Head Branch 10 Highlands Hammock If Hillsborough River 12 Hontoon Island 13 Ichetucknea Springs 14 John Pennekamp Coral Reef 15 Jonathan Dickinson 16 Lake Kisslmmee 17 Lake Louisa 13 Little Talbot Island 19 Manatee Springs 20 Myakka River 21 Ochiockonee River 22 O'leno 23 Prairie Lakes' 24 T.H. Stone Memorial SL Joe Peninsula 25 St. Lucie Inlet" 26 Suwannee River 27 Tomoka 28 Torreya 29 Weklwa Spnngs 30 Blue Spring •Not Open to Public 12< "•30 lar •c,,., 17.. 29 -*? ^t S-; ,H-> -3 NV* .J ^^ •10 :.*2S —•15 *■* •14 ?^*.H •• , -^^»' ^^Sadl^iJ^nsW.'! .Z'JSlKZ Figure 1979). 11. State preserves, forests, and parks (Florida Power and Light Co. 290 The State designated Areas of Critical State Concern are given in Figure 12. The two in Southwest Florida are the Big Cypress area in Collier and Monroe Counties and the Florida Keys in southern Monroe County. Outstanding Florida Waters The Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, under its water quality designation authority, has set aside certain bodies of water and seg- ments of other water bodies for special protection. Selected bodies of water are designated "Outstanding Florida Resource Waters" because of their unique ecological characteristics and value, and are protected to retain their essen- tially pristine state (Florida Administrative Code Ch. 17-3). No further degradation of these bodies of water is authorized. Southwest Florida has a large number of these classified water bodies. The complete list is available in Ch. 17-3, FAC. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTS AND REGULATIONS Throughout this report specific references have been made to existing State, Federal and local regulatory standards in appropriate natural resource categories. A discussion of the Federal and State water quality standards classification scheme was outlined under the water resource issues, and a sim- ilar examination of State and Federal standards was undertaken in the air quality segment of this report. These discussions, however, fail to provide a sufficient broad-based review of the existing Federal, State and local regula- tory framework within which reviewers and users of this report can be guided. The following analysis is a brief review of major environmental acts and regu- lations. FEDERAL Federal Aid and Wildlife Federation Act, 1937 The purpose of this act is to inaugurate a program of Federal aid to the states for the restoration and management of wildlife. Through this Act, about $350 million have been allotted to state fish and game department wild- life restoration projects. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework in which the problems of the commercial fishing industry can be resolved, and give recognition to the importance of outdoor recreation. This Act established the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior. Fish Restoration and Management Projects Act This act is designed to provide Federal aid to the states for restoration in the management of their fisheries resources, financed through a special fund from a tax on fishing rods, reels, bait, flies, and other fishing related expenditures. 291 At A 8 AM A GEORGIA A Big Cypress B Green Swamp C Florida Keys Figure 12. 1979). Areas of critical State concern (Florida Power and Light Co. 292 Estuary Protection Act P.L. 90-454 This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and study of the Nation's estuaries, working towards the goal of protecting, saving, and restoring them. Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 This act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President, to designate as "Marine Sanctuaries" those areas of coastal waters, as far out as the outer edge of the continental shelf, or of coastal waters wherever the tide ebbs and flows, which he determined need Federal protection in order to maintain their ecological and recreational values. In 1979, this act was employed in southwest Florida for designation of the Apalachicola Marine Sanctuary. Endangered Species Act of 1973 This act provides mechanisms through the Secretary of Commerce for pro- tection of endangered species of fish and wildlife by way of direct Federal action and by encouraging states to establish conservation programs. Enforce- ment include civil and criminal penalties. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as ammended by the Federal and Environmental Pesticide Control of 1972, P.L. 92-516. The purpose of the original legislation was to control the composition of the pesticides through adequate labeling and instructions and tests on side effects, and for registering aquatic poisons. The amendment initiated a system to prevent indiscriminant application of pesticides to protect fish and wildlife. Federal Water Pollution Control Act The passage of this act was the Federal Government's first major intent to take an active role in the fight against water pollution. The original 1948 Act emphasized state control, but was limited in scope to interstate waters and tributaries. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 P.L. 92-500. The 1972 Amendments completely revised and restructured the 1948 Act. The major goals of the act were to: 0 Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, and maintain water quality suitable for fish and wildlife, and other forms of recreation by 1983. 0 Prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants. 0 Provide financial assistance to construct publicly-owned waste treatment works. 0 Develop and implement area-wide waste treatment. 0 Develop the technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pol- lutants into navigable waters. 293 To attain these goals, the emphasis of legislation has been changed from water quality standards to effluent limitations. The new approach uses efflu- ent limitations as a basis to eliminate pollution by 1985. Water quality standards also are established in the new act. States such as Florida may set up their own water quality standards based on the Federal Class I through Class V classification system. The 1972 amendments require that all publicly owned sewage treatment plants provide a minimum of secondary treatment by 1 July 1977 and advanced waste treatment by 1 July 1978. The amendments also require that industrial discharge should meet the best practical technology requirements by 1 July 1977 and the best available technology by 1 July 1983. EPA has extended the deadlines to 1 July 1983 for compliance with requirements for publicly owned sewage treatment works as described below: Type pollutant Conventional Toxic Nonconventional Level of technology Best conventional pollution control technology Best available technology economi- cally achievable Best available technology economically achievable. Legislative deadline 1 July 1984 1 July 1984 for existing toxic pollu- tants; 1 to 3 years after determination of new toxic pollutants 3 years after effluent limits are established but no later than 1 July 1984 and never later than 1 July 1987. Ocean Dumping Act This act forms congressional policy to regulate the dumping of all types of materials into those waters lying seaward of the base line from which the territorial sea is measured. The act is particularly concerned with the dump- ing of materials that would adversely affect human welfare and the marine environment. Clean Air Act of 1963 The Clean Air Act revises existing air pollution laws in an attempt to strengthen basic authority as well as the role of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding air pollution. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 This act is a reflection of the Federal Government's recognition of air quality as a national problem and its implicit acceptance of primary responsi- bility for air pollution control. These amendments provide for advanced air 294 pollution abatement timetables and significantly greater Federal involvement including increased civil penalties. It is also the first attempt to control auto emissions. The act further establishes procedures for EPA to promulgate national ambient air standards based solely on factors relating to public health and welfare without regard to technological and economic feasibilities. In April 1971, EPA issued the first national contaminant standards for sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, particulates, photochemical oxidents, hydrocar- bons, and nitrogen oxides. National ambient air quality standards for lead have since been prepared. Primary standards are designed to protect public health and secondary standards are designed to enhance the environment. EPA also has set standards of performance for certain stationary sources of pollution. Some of these emission standards apply to new and existing point sources, whereas others apply specifically to new sources. Some pollu- tants are so hazardous that the act requires direct Federal standards and enforcement to protect the public health. National emission standards have been set for asbestos, beryl ium, mercury, and vinyl chloride. Benzene has also been designated a hazardous air pollutant in June 1977. Section 220 of the act calls for development by each state of a plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of primary and secondary standards of air pollution. These plans, called State Implementation Plans, (SIP) must assure air quality consistent with the national standards. Currently, amendments are being made to the Clean Air Act in Congress. The provisions for changes to the Clean Air Act as recommended by the National Commission on Air Quality were made to strengthen the existing Federal and state programs. Proposals to do away with the Prevention of Significant Degradation requirements and other administrative Federal mandates were sub- mitted to Congress in the Spring of 1981. Resource Recovery Act of 1970 This act was designed to provide Federal assistance to state and local governments to assure proper disposal of solid wastes. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 This act sets out to broaden the national solid waste management program, and conserve natural resources through waste reduction, and minerals and energy recovery. EPA is authorized to: 0 Regulate the disposal of all hazardous wastes. 0 Establish state regulatory programs to close all open dumps and con- trol all land disposal of solid wastes, including sludge. 0 Encourage the development of basic national resource conservation and recovery policies. 295 Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469) The Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes EPA to obtain data from industry on selected chemical substances and mixtures and to regulate the sub- stances when needed. Chemicals used exclusively in pesticides, food, food additives, drugs, nuclear materials, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition are exempt from this act. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 This act requires the preparation of a detailed environmental impact statement whenever there is a proposed major Federal action that would signif- icantly affect the quality of the human environment. Environmental impact statements must be prepared prior to any major Federal activity in the coastal zone, including offshore energy development. National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 This law provides limited indemnification to the victims of flood disas- ters through flood insurance to residents of flood-prone areas, provided that local jurisdictions require land-use control measures to guide safe use of flood zones. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and Amendments of 1975 The purpose of this act is to encourage the development of comprehensive state management programs and to formulate a national coastal zone policy for lands in the coastal zone area. It is implemented by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, and provides assistance to coastal state governments for the development and implementation of coastal zone management plans. These plans are designed to assure the orderly and environmentally sound development of the coastal zone. Recent amendments to the act provide additional financial assistance to coastal states for new facilities and additional planning needed to offset coastal energy development. In Florida the Coastal Zone Management plan is in the final stages of development and approval. Submerged Lands Act This act is designed to promote the exploration and development of petro- leum deposits by settling disputes between state and Federal governments over rights to ownership of submerged lands. Its importance is in terms of manag- ing, leasing, and developing offshore energy. It serves as the basis for ownership disputes over state and Federal jurisdiction of the submerged lands of the continental shelf seaward from state boundaries. In the Gulf of Mex- ico, Florida and Texas state boundaries extend seaward approximately 9 mi; other state boundaries extend seaward only 3 mi. The Secretary of the Inter- ior designated the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the administrative agency for leasing submerged Federal lands; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) helps design environmental studies and acts in an advisory capacity through much of the leasing process. 296 STATE OF FLORIDA The State of Florida, since the late 1960's, has been very active in pro- mulgating and enforcing environmental legislation. This section will identify the major laws and briefly discuss the most significant environmental pro- grams. A matrix of major environmental legislation and affected state agen- cies and activities related to permitting in the coastal zone is given in Figure 31, Part 2, Data Appendix. The most significant environmental laws enacted in Florida are reidentified and listed in this matrix, as are the major Federal and state agencies, in addition to a listing of the state legis- lative mandates used to manage activities and uses of water and land within the coastal zone. The most useful laws for environmentalists are given in the following sections. Pollution-spill Protection and Control, Florida Statutes. Chapter 376- Section 376.021 This statute addresses the transfer of pollutants between vessels and/or between terminal facilities. The potential discharge into the environment of products being transferred poses a threat to the environment. These pollu- tants include many grades of oil, pesticides, ammonia, chlorine, and their derivatives. The statute requires a registration certificate for the opera- tion of terminal facilities and gives authority to inspect the facilities to determine if they comply with regulations. This statute establishes the mechanism to help in clean-up and rehabili- tation of the environment after a pollutant has been discharged. The Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund states that any owner or operator causing the pollution shall be liable for all clean-ups and abatement costs. An excise tax of 2 cents per barrel of the pollutants (mostly oil) has been assessed by the State of Florida to clean-up chemical spills. Energy Resources Part II, Regulation of Oil and Gas, Florida Statute 377 Section 377.242. This legislation states that no drilling permit shall be granted within one mile inland from the coastline unless sufficient environ- mental protection provisions have been taken to protect the state's estuaries, beaches, and shorelines. Issuance or renewal of the permit requires a valid deed, or lease, granting the rights to oil and gas exploration, and satisfac- tory evidence that the applicants will clean-up any for which they are respon- sible. The Department of Natural Resources has the responsibility for the rules' administration. Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Florida Statute 380 The purpose of this act is to develop management strategies and policies to protect natural resources, the environment, and the water quality of the State. This is accomplished through designation of "Areas of Critical State Concern" by the Administration Commission if the areas are deemed to have sig- nificant environmental, historical, or archaeological resources of statewide importance. The three currently designated critical areas are the Green Swamp, the Big Cypress Swamp and the Florida Keys. The second component of this statute defines the Development of Regional Impacts (DRI). A DRI is any development that because of its character, magni- tude or location, would have a substantial effect on the health, safety, or 297 welfare of citizens of more than one county. A number of DRI's have dealt with large-scale residential, commercial, and transportation related activi- ties, and have required high levels of review and scrutiny from Regional Plan- ning Councils and the Department of Community Affairs. DRI permits, which may include energy facilities, industrial plants, mining operations, petroleum storage facilities, or port facilities, involves integrated State and local review of environmental and socioeconomic factors. Beaches and Shores Prevention Act, Florida Statue 151 (1975) This act provides for a 50-ft construction setback line from the mean highwater line to be established on a county- by- county basis throughout the coastal areas of Florida and prohibits construction seaward of that line with- out a waiver or a variance. The statute requires permits for any coastal con- struction or reconstruction. The Division of Marine Resources enforces and coordinates provisions of this law. Florida Statute 403.11 and 403.4152 (1975) Legislation in Part I of Chapter 402 declares that the pollution of air and water in the State constitutes a menace to public health and welfare and is harmful to fish and othe aquatic life and detrimental to domestic, agricul- tural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses of air and water. The public policy of the State is to conserve the air and waters of the State and to protect the propagation of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life. Statute 403.062 states that the department has general control and supervision of underground waters, lakes, rivers, streams, canals, ditches, and coastal waters inasmuch as their pollution may affect public health or interests. Section 403.088 states that permits are required for stationary installations that are expected to be sources of air or water pollution. The discharge of any waste into the waters of the State is prohibited without authorization, and water quality standards will be enforced. Section 403.061 grants to the DNR the authority to enforce these provisions, and Section 403.085 states that permits are required for ocean outfalls. Secondary treat- ment or other treatment may be required as necessary before the permit will be granted. State Parks and Preserves, Florida Statute 258 The three main developments in this statute are as follows: 0 Miscellaneous parks and preserves created (258. 08-. 165). This sec- tion establishes six separate parks and preserves around the State and provides for their maintenance and administration. The aquatic preserves of Boca Chega and Biscayne Bay are created. Further development of bottomlands through dredge and fill is prohibited. 0 State Wilderness System Act of 1970 (258. 17-. 33). The general intent of this act is to establish a permanent system of wildlife preserves. 0 Florida's Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975 (258. 53-. 46). This act is intended to preserve forever state-owned submerged lands in areas 298 that have exceptional biological, aesthetic or scientific value. In these areas, no further alienation by the State by dredging and filling, bulkheading, mining or development will be permitted except for specific exceptions. Section 258.3(c) prohibits drilling for gas or oil within a preserve but permits drilling from outside the preserved area. The DNR administers the Aquatic Preserves, State Wilderness Areas, and State Parks and the Governor and Cabinet, sit- ting as the board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, have final approval regarding these facilities and areas. Game and Freshwater Fish, Florida Statutes 372 This law prohibits contamination of fresh waters of such magnitude that it will damage freshwater aquatic life. This law is enforced by the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Water Resources Act 1972: Part I, the State Water Resource Plan, Florida Statutes 373.013 The Florida Resources Act of 1972 covers all State waters unless exempt, and provides for the comprehensive management of water and related land use including development of dams, impoundments, reservoirs, and other works to provide water storage and to prevent damage from flooding, soil erosion, and excessive run off. Section 373.026 designates the responsibility to the DER for the broad powers and authorities under the Act, and supervision of the Water Management District. Water Resource Management Act 1972: Part Il-Permitting of Consumptive Use of Water, Florida Statute 373.203-.249 Section 373.219 requires a permit for the consumptive use of water and imposes reasonable conditions to assure that the permitted use is consistent with the overall objectives of the water district of the DER and not harmful to the water resource of the area. The use to which water is put must be a reasonably beneficial one; reasonable from the stand-point of other landowners and the public. The water management districts are authorized by the DER to be responsible for issuing consumptive use permits. Local and Intergovernmental Programs, Florida Statute 163-.3191 This legislation enables counties and incorporated municipalities to plan for future development and to prepare, adopt, and amend comprehensive plans to guide future development. These comprehensive plans should include zoning and subdivision regulations, policies for land and water use, and building and electrical, gas, and sanitary codes. A coastal protection element shall be included for those units of local government lying in part or in whole in the coastal zone. Local governments use their authority in relation to the environmental problems of OCS development in several ways. Land is administered to ensure environmental protection, and local governments have the authority to admin- ister land- and water-use regulations. Local governments have the power of eminent domain, which can be used as an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with sewage and landscaping requirements, and environmental 299 requirements, and to acquire land for necessary facilities. A local infra- structure already exists in some areas to regulate air and water pollution. Each coastal community within the region has a coastal component of its comprehensive land-use plan either developed or in the development phases, such as the land-use provisions of the Sanibel Island Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 entitled, "Conservation/Coastal Zone Protection." To protect these basic resources, the objectives, policies, and implementation of the recommen- dations of Franklin County's Comprehensive Plan are predicated upon the fol- lowing goal : To guide development in such a manner that the basic functions and productivity of the County's natural land and water systems will be conserved over time, and to reduce or avoid health, safety, and economic problems for the present and future residents of Franklin County. This element provides a set of objectives and policies designed for the com- prehensive plan to accomplish its goal. Local government's jurisdictional authority can either hinder or aid OCS and other energy-related facilities within its jurisdiction. Local governments can take land through eminent domain for development of public industrial parks, port facilities, utilities, or road easements. The same local govern- ments can promulgate regulations on air, water, solids, and hazardous wastes that are more stringent than Federal or State regulations. They can request aid in funding certain activities that support OCS oil and gas related activ- ities and may even be able to co-author municipal bonds for development of infrastructures and facilities essential for on and offsite support for OCS oil and gas production needs. Chapter 253, F.S. enacted through Section 17-4.29, FAC The jurisdictional authority of Chapter 253 is restricted to navigational waters (natural or artificial), mean high water line for waters subject to tidal action, and ordinary high water line on nontidal lakes. Focus is on fish and wildlife habitats, navigation impacts (potential obstructions to nav- igable waters), riparian rights, and water flow. If the proposed activity is within an aquatic preserve, the additional requirements of Chapter 258, the Aquatic Preserve Act, are considered in permitting decisions. It is the Department's policy that any dredge and fill project over 10,000 yd is pro- cessed by the central office of the DER in Tallahassee, Florida. Water Quality Based Discharge Permits Chapter 403.087, and .088, F.S. implemented through Chapter 17-4.03, FAC1 The provisions of these statutes direct the department to issue technology- based standards (such as 90% treatment required for sewage treatment facili- ties within the State), and effluent-based water quality wasteload allocations that limit the discharge for a particular facility up to the point of ambient water quality standards. 300 Mr Quality Permitting Activities, Legislative Authority Chapter 403.087 Implemented through the provisions of Chapter 17-2, FAC. Emission levels are set through technology-based standards and ambient-based standards depend- ing upon the nature of the source seeking the permit. The authority for all air quality pemiitting activities is enacted through Chapter 17-2, FAC. These restrictions Include those for nonattainment areas, technology standards such as new source performance standards and best available control technology, and other State Implementation Plan authorities such as Best Available Control Technology determination and prevention of significant degradation. DATA GAPS One of the major problems in any enviromiental assessment is the lack of adequate and standarized information. Monitoring air, surface, and ground water conditions is designed to identify existing or potential problems. Mon- itoring of point sources pollution gives only a single view that is distorted if generalized to a broader area or time frame. Conversely, poorly placed monitors easily miss major environmental degradation and rate the quality too high. The complexity of interacting forces and a lack of useful measurement techniques may lead to bias in the final data. Because of the lack of funding, monitoring equipment is frequently not placed in non-problem areas. In many areas of the State meaningful baseline air quality data are lacking. For example, air and water monitoring stations are located outside of major urban or industrial sites. Florida's ground water aquifer system has not been adequately monitored and the extent of potential risk from hazardous waste sites is not well understood. Summary of Federal and State Dredge and Fill and Discharge Permit Requirements The DER and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have a joint permitting agreement that authorizes an applicant to submit one basic application to both agencies for dredge and fill proposals. This joint application will be sepa- rately reviewed by the DER and COE to determine which agency has jurisdiction. The COE typically has broader authority in the headwaters of navigable streams. The general authority for COE is issuance of dredge and fill permits for discharge of clean fill into navigable waters and supporting the Clean Water Act (Section 404), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuary Act of 1972. The EPA additionally has the authority for issuing effluent permits under the provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Florida Permitting Provisions establish the authority to administer and enact rules as set forth in State statute. (Legislative authorization for the DER's permitting activities are in Chapter 253, F.S. and Chapter 403 F.S.) The DER may issue and deny permits and define and refine those areas of estab- lished legislative authority consistent with the Florida Legislature. The rules established by DER set forth the implementation of the intent delegated through the statutes. 301 Within DER the two basic dredge and fill permit authorities are covered by Chapter 403, F.S., implemented through Chapter 17-4.28. This authority extends to certain listed waters of the State and to the landward extent to natural and artificial water bodies connected to the designated, listed water body. The definition of landward extent is established by the vegetative index in Section 17-4.02(17). The permitting jurisdiction und(.'r Section 403 focuses on short and long pollution problems judged in light of water quality parameters. 302 REFERENCES Bell, F. An economic evaluation of the benefits and costs associated with reopening Navarre Pass, Santa Rosa County, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Department of Economics; September 1977. Bell, F. Recreational versus commercial fishing in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Department of Economics; 1979. Bell, F. Costs and benefits from oil spills from the St. Marks River port facilities 1980. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University; 1980. Unpublished report to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; 46 p. Bell, F.; Preliminary economic analysis of saltwater recreational fishing tourists visiting Florida during August through September, 1980, prelimi- nary report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Department of Economics; January 1981. Bell, F. ; Canterbury, R. (Florida State University, Department of Economics). Benefits from water pollution abatement - coastal waters. Vol. 1 and 2. Washington, DC: National Commission on Water Quality; Aug. 1976. Micro- fiche available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Document PB252172-02. Brezonik, P.L.; Edgerton, E.S.; Hendry, CD. Acid precipitation and sulfate deposition in Florida. Science 208; 1980. Council of Environmental Quality. Uth Annual Report of the Council of Envi- ronmental Quality for 1980. Washington, DC; 1981; Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 335:801/7090. Edmunsten, J. A survey of marine and estuarine resources of northwest Flor- ida. Mobile, AL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; March 1977. Florida Agricultural University and Florida International University (Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems). Florida environmental and urban problems. Boca Raton and Miami, FL; April 1981. Florida Power and Light Company Environmental Affairs. Atlas of environmental jurisdiction in Florida. Miami, FL; 1979. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning. Statistical inventory of key biophysical elements in Florida's coastal zone. Tallahassee, FL; March 1978. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning. Water quality assessment (State Water Quality Management Plan). CFR 131.11(b); Tallahassee, FL; May 1979a. 303 Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Water Analysis Water Quality Monitoring Section. Development of a water quality index. Tallahassee, FL; October 1979b. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Air Quality Management. Florida 1979 air quality statistical report (DER BA2M 80- 006); Tallahassee, FL; April 1980a. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation. Hazardous waste manage- ment program. Vol. I and II. Tallahassee, FL; 1980b. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation. Economic impact assess- ment statement for the proposed revisions to Chapter 17-6, F.A.C. Talla- hassee, FL; 1981. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation. Manual of state regula- tory and review procedures for land development in Florida. Tallahassee, FL; May 1981; 100 p. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Groundwater and Special Program. Proposed revisions to Chapter 17-3, 17-6, F.A.C. Tallahassee, FL; August 1982. Florida State Division of State Planning, Bureau of Comprehensive Planning. The Florida general soil atlas (Regional Planning District 1 and 2), Vol. 1, Coastal counties and cities. Tallahassee, FL; September 1977; 92 p. Gosselink, J.G.; Odum, E.P.; Pope, R.M. The value of the tidal marsh. Baton Rouge, LA: Center for Wetlands Research, Louisiana State University; 1973. Gregor, J.J. Intraurban mortality and air quality: an economic analysis of the costs of pollution induced mortality. Report to USEPA 600/5-79-009; Pennsylvania State University, PA: The Center for Environmental Policy; July 1977. Loehman, E.; Berg, S. Distributional analysis of regional benefits and costs of air quality control. Gainesville, FL: J. Environ. Econ. Manage.; 1979. Lynch, T. Economic impact assessment statement for the proposed revisions of Chapters 17-3, 17-4, 17-6, F.A.C. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Envi- ronmental Regulation; 1977. Lynch, T. Environmental economic damage assessment for sapp battery (Jackson County) waste violation case. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation; July 1981. Lynne, G.; Conroy, P. Economic value of the coastal zone, estimates for a tidal marsh. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sci- ence; August 1978. 304 Milliman, J.; Sipe, N. Benefit measures of air quality regulations in Flor- ida, a pilot study. Gainesville, FL; State grant 78-104; September 1979. Milliman, J., Fishkin, H. , Sipe, N. Charlotte Harbor fiscal impact model. Tallahassee, FL: University of Florida; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, June 1981. Roy, E. The dollars and sense of environmental protection. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation; 1979. Seskin, E. ; Lane, L. Air pollution and human health. Baltimore, MD: 1977. Available from Resources of the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Growth management of Southwest Florida. Fort Myers, FL; Information Report Series; 1979. Terbonne, P. The economic losses from freshwater pollution in the Pensacola area. Fla. Nat. October 1973: 21-26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office for Water Program Operations. Cost effective comparison of land application and advanced wastewater treatment. EPA-430/9-75-016; Washington, DC; November 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Groundwater pollution problems in the Southeastern United States. Ada, Oklahoma; EPA-600/13-77-012; January 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inventory by pollutant 1970-79. Washington, DC; 1980; 97 p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Quality criteria for water. Washington, DC; 1976. Waddel , T. The economic damages of air pollution. Washington, DC: Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA); Socioeconomic Environmental Studies series report EPA-600/5-74-012; 1974. Wood, R.; Fernald, E. The new Florida atlas. Tallahassee, FL: Trend Pub- 1 ication; 1974. Zellars-WIll iams. Inc. Evaluation of the phosphate deposits of Florida using the minerals availability system: final report. Lakeland, FL; June 1978. 305 ENERGETICS MODELS OF SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEMS Dr. John F. Alexander, Jr. Professor Urban and Regional Planning Departnent University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Marjorie J. Alexander, M.R.C. 1405 N.W. 39th Drive Gainesville, FL 32605 Preston 0. Howard, M.A. College of Law Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32301 INTRODUCTION This synthesis paper discusses the use of energetics models as a tool for studying socioeconomic and environmental systems. It provides a method for integrating the processes and components of natural and socioeconomic produc- tion. This paper also introduces the theoretical principles of energetics modeling and its limitations, followed by a discussion of the general method- ology used in the design and execution of an energetics model. The results of an energetics model of Tampa and Hillsborough County in southwestern Florida are discussed, along with several other models, to show the types of research questions that can be answered using this method. Different approaches have been proposed and tested for modeling natural and human systems. This paper focuses on the use of energy as a common denom- inator for all flows and storages within the systems under study. Energy cir- cuit models are evaluated by measuring the quantity of energy flowing in a particular pathway or stored in the system. Because all activities, interac- tions, and even storages require energy, and in fact are energy, it is pos- sible and practical to quantify a particular pathway by its energy value. MODELING LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLS The symbols used in the systems diagrams were established by Howard T. Odum (1971) and are part of the energy circuit language. The language com- bines several approaches that show energetics and provide insight into the mathematical description of a system, and illustrates a holistic approach. Energy circuit language contains a hierarchy of symbols that allow the dia- graiTiming of several levels of complexity' in one model. 306 Several of the more commonly used energetics language symbols are illus- trated in Figure 1. The water-tank-shaped symbol (A) represents an energy storage. The lines intersecting the storage symbolize energy flow pathways with flow in the direction of the arrows. The circle (B) is the symbol for an energy source which supplies power to the model from outside the systems boundary. The heat sink (C) is used to illustrate how waste heat or degraded energy is removed from the system. The next three symbols (D, E, F) are group or subsystem symbols. These symbols are used primarily to aid in model organization. The hexagonal symbol (D) represents a self-maintaining consumer subsystem. A cow or city is an example of a consumer system. Consumers require concentrated energy from pro- ducers to operate, and feedback some energy to control the producer system. The bullet-shaped symbol (E) represents a producer subsystem. Producers are capable of upgrading dilute fomis of natural energy such as sun, wind, and rain into more concentrated forms of energy such as plant biomass. The use of carbon from the atmosphere and nutrients from the soil by plants in the photo- synthetic process is an example of a producer system. Producer and consumer systems are coupled to process energy and cycle matter within energetics models of systems of man and nature. The third group symbol (F) represents a logic action. The logic symbol is used to diagram a process in which the out- come has an off-on effect such as an electron. The transformation process is represented by G. Relative dilute energy interacts with concentrated energy in the process symbol to produce some intermediate product. This symbol is commonly called a production function. An example would be the interaction of a plant with natural energy to produce plant sugar or the interaction of materials, fuels, capital, and labor in a city to produce a product. The energy and money transaction is represented by H. The solid line represents the energy flow and the dashed line represents the flow of money. The small circle is used to label the price (ratio of money to energy). This symbol is often used at the system boundary to control imports based on money stored in the system and collect money from exported products. The last symbol (I) is a flow sensor which is used to monitor flows of energy. PRINCIPLES OF ENERGETICS MODELING All energetics models, when designed properly, are consistent with the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed; all systems of man and nature conserve energy. This principle of conservation of energy is incor- porated into energetics models by requiring that the sum of all flows into a system, minus the energy flowing out, equal the net changes in energy storages within the system or any part of the system. In developing an energetics model that is consistent with the first law requirements, it is important that all energy flows be measured in their heat equivalent value. The second law of thermodynamics pertains to the degradation of energy. This principle states that in all useful processes some energy must be degrad- ed and thus lose its ability to do further work. Energetics models incor- porate the second law by requiring heat sinks, or energy degradation flows, on all energy interaction and energy storages. 307 (A) (B) (C) (D) (F) (G) (H) (I) Figure 1. Energy circuit diagramming symbols: (A) energy storage; (B) energy source; (C) heat sink; (D) self-maintaining consumer unit; (E) self-maintaining production unit; (F) logic unit; (G) transforma- tion or production function; (H) money energy transaction and (I) energy flow sensor. The maximum power principle states that systems which take advantage of the maximum number of energy sources and use them most efficiently have the best chance of survival and are more competitive than systems which cannot sufficiently use the energy sources available (Lotka 1922). Charles Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest is an example of the maximum power principle when the system or subsystem under study is a living organism. An industrial example would be competition between two factories producing the same product; one only used wood as an energy source whereas the other used wood and coal . ENERGY QUALITY In assessing the capacity of energy to do work, more must be known than the total amount of available heat equivalent energy. This requirement can be illustrated by comparing wood and coal as fuels. Coal is a higher quality (more concentrated) fuel than wood. For example, it is more desirable to fuel a foundry with coal than wood because the more concentrated coal burns at a higher temperature. The difference in the energy quality of wood and coal is 308 a result of their composition. Coal is basically wood and other organic matter which, over periods of geologic time, has been compressed, heated, and eventually carbonized and has a higher energy quality factor (Table 1). The use of energy circuit modeling to diagram the flows of wood and coal into a foundry process is illustrated in Figure 2. Note the geologic upgrading of wood to coal in the model. The plants are diagrammed as a producer and the foundry as a consumer unit. Table 1. Energy quality factors for various fuels (Odum and Odum 1976; Alex- ander et al . 1980b.) Power Energy Quality Factor Source (solar cal /cal ) Sun 1 Wood 1,000 Coal 2,000 Oil 3,400 Gas 3,400 Electric Power 8,000 The wood, coal, and oil and gas factors represent estimates of the dif- ferent quantities of solar energy required to produce these fuels and also give an indication of how much of each will be required in a specific indus- trial process. The higher the quality "factor of a given energy source, the better able it is to do useful work. Consequently, the energy quality factor, compared to solar energy, is the best indicator of the inherent worth of a given energy type. Quality factors provide a way of estimating the value of the natural energies and of comparing than to other types of energy such as those associated with animals, human culture, materials, and information (Odum and Odum 1976). Infomiation in this context refers to the flow of concentrat- ed energy between a sender and receiver as in a radio broadcast or human speech. The flow of information is an example of a very highly concentrated energy flow, i.e., it takes large quantities of solar energy to power systems which in turn produce information flows in a control action. ENERGY AND MONEY The interaction of energy and money of a farm is illustrated in Figure 3. In this simplified energy circuit model of a farm, renewable natural energy 309 products Figure 2. Energy flow model of wood and coal as fuel sources for a foundry. such as sun, rain, and wind are used to power the crop growing process. The farm production consumer system contains equipment which is used to cultivate the soil and harvest the crop. The harvested crop exported from the farm sys- tem produces a flow of money into the farm in a direction opposite to the flow of exported energy. The money derived from the sale of produce is stored in the money storage tank. The stored money consequently is used to purchase fuels, goods, and services necessary to operate the farm. For any nation, the ratio of dollar flow to energy flow, for a particular year, may be calculated by dividing the sum of all natural and fossil fuel energies entering the nation by the nation's gross national product. For example, in 1975 24.56 x 10l5 calories of energy were consumed in the United States, whereas the gross national product was 1,526.8 x 10^2 dollars. This calculation produces an energy to dollar ratio of 16,100 calories per dollar (Figure 4) and shows the ratio of embodied energy flow to gross national 310 SYSTEM BOUNDARY purchased fuels goods ond services Figure 3. Energetics model of a farm illustrating the interaction of energy and money. product for 1947-78 according to Odum et al . (1980). Energy to dollar ratios are useful when evaluating urban energy flows because the dollar value of a specific flow such as human labor often is the only data available. The dollar to energy ratio gives an estimate of the quantity of fossil fuel and natural energy required for the United States society to provide a specific function. Note the drop in energy per dollar of the United States gross national product. One final point to be made concerning the relationship between money and energy is that the quantity of money flowing per unit of energy is constantly changing, as plotted in Figure 4. Non-renewable energy, such as oil, is recovered and processed for further use by human consumers. The consumers pay the energy processors for providing the service. As the more easily recovered fuels are expended, more energy must be used to recover the less accessible fuels. The result is that the same expenditure of energy, measured in terms of money, produces less usable energy, which causes inflation. Government policies which expand the national money supply also contribute to the declin- ing energy to dollar ratio. When using money flows to estimate energy flows, the money-to-energy ratio will be dependent on the year that the data were 311 60,000 ■o o JU , uuu w o. ,_ (O c o 40 ,000 4J (O (/) o 30 .000 s. eg <«- o 20 ,000 ^— ^^ o •a s. Q. 10 000 vo o ^B X LU 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 TIME, )fr Figure 4. Coal equivalent calories per dollar of gross national product per year. collected, because the cost of energy has been increasing steadily in recent years. ENERGETICS MODELING METHODS Step procedures for developing energetics models of socioeconomic and environmental systems are described in this section. STEP 1: ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS MAPPING The important first step in the design of an energetics model is the identification of all principal natural and man-made systems. Each vegetative 312 cover type must be located and identified with sufficient precision to permit its area to be measured or reasonably estimated. Although areas of human activity also should be recorded, the energy human systems consume will be measured by using social and economic data as well as the area they occupy. Land-use maps are a particularly good source of infomation but some ex- hibit serious deficiencies. Although land-use maps provide minute detail on human activities, the ecological systems that are not human-intensive are fre- quently aggregated into categories which are not suitable for the development of energetics models. For example, tidal marsh, mangroves, and other wetland vegetation types are frequently shown as some catch-all category such as "wet" land, or, worse, "idle" or "vacant" land. This step produces a map of energy producers and users and the relative areas occupied by each. From this information, the energy flows of the nat- ural systems can be calculated for the region. Unlike natural systems, the energy flows for areas of intensive human activity do not have their energy flows calculated from their total area, but instead use other measures of eco- nomic activity. Methods for calculating the respective energy flows are dis- cussed in Step 3. STEP 2: SYSTEMS BOUNDARIES A systems boundary must be established by the researcher at the initial stages of the development of an energetics model. The boundary of the system is usually dictated by the purpose of the model. It is very helpful when the flow of energy across a boundary is minimized because energy flow across any boundary, as well as those within the system, must be carefully itemized. In many situations, the information necessary for the energetics model can be more easily collected and evaluated if significant natural systems are not divided. For example, a study for the National Park Service of the Redwood National Park (Alexander et al . 1980a) used county lines as system boundaries after the redwood habitat was mapped and found to be generally located within two adjacent counties. In other energetics modeling situations, counties or other political boundaries that may form an appropriate boundary seldom occur. Most frequently, the decision to use political boundaries, such as county lines, increases the difficulty of measuring natural systems. In the example given in this paper, a model of the City of Tampa would have many more sig- nificant flows across the city limits than would be necessary for a model of Hillsborough County, Florida, simply because a large portion of Tampa's labor force lives in the urban area surrounding the city but are largely contained in Hillsborough County. STEP 3: IDENTIFICATION OF ENERGY FLOWS ACROSS THE SYSTEM 80UNDARY Once the system boundary is defined, flows of energy into and out of the system can be identified. Normally these flows include solar energy in the form of sun, rain, and wind; fossil fuel energy in the form of electricity, petroleum, goods and services, and infomation; combinations of solar and fossil fuel energy in the form of people; and money. 313 Mi»jrntion •7 — ^ Figure 5. Basic Hillsborough County model. This step in the nodeling process is fulfilled by drawing a large rec- tangle around the system. The flows of energy across the boundary are repre- sented as energy sources (circles. Step 2). The more dilute energy sources such as the sun, wind, and rain are customarily located in the lower left of the rectangle, whereas the more concentrated sources such as fossil fuel, petroleum, and information are shown on the top or right side of the rec- tangle. The energy quality increases from left to right. STEP 4: IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBSYSTEMS WITHIN THE SYSTEM In the example of Hillsborough County, both natural and agricultural sub- systems are shown (Figure 5). If agriculture were relatively unimportant, it might logically be included with the energy flows of the natural subsystem component. Examples of natural systems are estuaries, ponds, tropical forests, or grass prairies. The distinction between natural and agricultural systems is that natural systems are self-organizing and self-maintaining whereas agricultural systems require maintenance and organization. The im- portant balance is to include all necessary detail in the energetics simula- tion without including detail of unnecessary subsystems. The identification of the subsystems to be modeled is dependent on the goals of the research 314 project, because the questions to be answered by the simulation determine the detail reflected in the systems components (Figure 5). STEP 5: IDENTIFICATION OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SUBSYSTEMS AND SOURCES In the Hillsborough County example (Figure 5), interactions between the subsystems and sources are shown by energy flow pathways. A matrix may be helpful to systematically identify these flows. The energy sources with in- ternal sources such as the output of the urban system followed by the external sources in order of increasing energy concentration are listed on the vertical axis. The internal energy sinks followed by the external sinks are listed on the horizontal axis. An agricultural production unit is an example of an internal sink. Once the input/output matrix is completed an "X" may be used to indicate a significant energy flow pathway. The completed matrix now forms a guide to the necessary energy flow pathways to diagram the system, i.e., one energy flow pathway on the model will be represented by one "X" in the input/ output matrix. If each energy flow in the input/output matrix was evaluated and the corresponding energy flow quantity used to replace the "X" in the matrix, an energy input/output model would result. For researchers fainiliar with economic input/output models, this may be a familiar arrangement with which to work. STEP 6: ENERGY FLOWS WITHIN THE SUBSYSTEMS A researcher can incorporate more detail into the model by further exam- ining energy flows within individual system components. For example, Figure 6 shows the system detail for the production systems. Farms, salt marshes, and forests are typical production systems. The "producer" system shown by the bullet-shaped symbol contains a storage tank, which is an energy accumulator, or "counting" device and a feedback loop. Once all subsystem diagrams showing energy flows and storages are com- pleted, the energetics model is complete. The actual flows in the model must now be measured or calculated. To facilitate this, each flow pathway and storage symbol is assigned a unique identifier. These identifiers for a nat- ural subsystem model , such as a forest, are shown in Figure 6. STEP 7: EVALUATION OF THE ENERGETICS MODEL Each storage and flow of energy identified in the previously drawn ener- getics diagram must now be quantified, or evaluated, as the quantification process is also called. The evaluation of the model can be done at a broad level, but it is much simpler to undertake this step at the subsystem level because the interdisciplinary nature of systems tends to make model evaluation difficult. Evaluation of energy flows and storages in the natural system can be based on information found in ecological literature (Lieth and Whittaker 1975), just as information on agricultural systems can be found in the agri- cultural literature. All flows of energy must adhere to the laws of thermo- dynamics. That is, energy may not be created or destroyed in any process, and 315 photosynthetic work degraded energy (waste heat) ■absorbed insolation Figure 6. Simplified subsystem model of Hillsborough County natural production system. some energy must be degraded in any real process. The first law states that the sum of the flows into and out of any interaction must be equal, whereas the second law or principle requires all interactions must have heat sinks for losses of unusable degraded energy. A separate evaluation should be set up for each of the subsystems being studied. It is necessary to include in this table all storages and flows of energy identified on the systems diagram pre- pared earlier. It is also necessary to document the calculations and relevant references for each of the flows and storages. Figure 7 is an example of the results of evaluating the natural produc- tion system shown in Figure 6. The area of each natural ecosystan in the obtained from a 1978 map of Hillsborough County, Florida (Hills- Protection Commision 1979). The solar insolation by multiplying the solar insolation for (1.5 X 10^ cal/m^/yr) by the land area of the natural m2) yielding a total solar insolation of 1.84 x 10l4 percent of the solar energy (1.5 x 10^4 cal /yr) is albedo (reflection) of 14% (2.6 x 10^3 cal/yr). county v/as borough County Environmental of a natural system was calcu].ated Hillsborough County system (1.23 x 10° cal/yr. Eighty-six absorbed leaving an Next the energy stored in the biomass of Hillsborough County's natural system is calculated (see Table 2). The land area of each ecosystem is multi- ^6 13 2.6 X 10'^ cal/yr SOLAR 1.84x10 cal/yr 14 l.6xlO**Z cal/yr 7x10'* ^/^ cal/yr y>^ y^ l.2xlO'*col \^cal/yr / \ /2xl0'*cal/yr -.10 1.4x10'" cal/yr Figure 7. An evaluated model of the Hillsborough County natural system (see Figure 6 for energy flow pathway names). pi ied by the stored in the weight by 4.25 the individual production of illustrated by production equally synthesis is a good mean weight of the particular ecosystem biomass. The energy biomass is computed by multiplying the cal /g of biomass dry The total energy stored in the biomass is computed by sunning ecosystem energy storage values. Similarly, the gross primary the boundaries area is computed and then summed. This is also Table 2. Our experience has shown that splitting gross primary between the work required for respiration and photo- first estimate. The energy value of the harvest from the natural system was computed by multiplying the dollar value of the stumpage (total volume of wood harvested, i.e., 8.7 X 105) from Hillsborough County's natural system by the 1978 energy to dollar ratio from Figure 4 (1.5 x lO'^ cal/$) yielding 1.4 xlOlO cal/yr. The harvest is small when compared to the total energy stored in the natural system. STEP 8: TRANSLATION OF ENERGETICS DIAGRAMS TO DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS An energetics diagram is actually a differential equation in a pictorial form. Figure 8 is an example of an energy circuit model with its correspond- ing differential equation. The storage symbol in the diagram represents the equation state variable. The rate of change of the storage of energy is cal- culated by summing of all of the flows of energy into and out of the storage. Energy flows leaving the storage are given a minus sign. The differential equation for the natural system of Hillsborough County is given in Figure 8. 317 Table 2. Primary productivity estimates for Hillsborough County natural sys- tems Systems Lane n 1 c ,2 a irea Biomass ) Gross primary producti Cal /m^/yr Ca ivity^ Kg/m^ Gal 1 il/yr Pineland 1.8 X 108 35 4.2 X 10'3 1 X 10^ 2.8 Xl0l2 Hammock 3.9 X 10^ 35 5.8 X io'3 1.3 4 X 10 5.1 xlfll^ Cypress 1.1 X 10^ 35 1.6 X lo" 1.3 4 X 10^ 1.4 Xl0l2 Marsh and Slough 5.6 X 10^ 15 3.6 X ioi2 2.4 X 10^ 1.3 xiol^ Mangroves 2.8 X 10^ 1 1.2 X io'2 1.2 4 X 10^ 3.4 xio'2 Lakes and Ponds 5.6 X lo' 0.02 4.8 X lo' 3.2 X 10^ 1.8 xio" Scrub 5.6 _x_ lo' 1.6 3.8 X lo" 4.8 X 10^ 2.7 xlo" 12.3 X 10« 1.2 X 10» 1.^ xio" .Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 1979. Lieth and Whittaker 1975. Similarly, the research would continue through the entire energetics diagram, translating each storage into its appropriate mathematical analog. Each term in the differential equation represents a specific energy flow in the model . The initial value of the energy flows and storages are used to calculate the pathway coefficients in the equation. For example, the flow of energy on pathway k.N is 7 x 10^2 cal /yr (from Figure 7) thus: 7 X 10^^ = k^N .*. k^ = 5.83 X 10^ 318 Figure 8. Energetics model of Hillsborough County natural system illustrating the translation of the model into differential equation form. N = (k.-kpJJ N-k-N-k.N = differential equation for N where E = N = J = J = 0 J = 0 .'.J N = Energy source (solar, rain, and wind) natural biomass energy flow coefficients inflow of energy (solar insolation) energy not used (albedo) energy absorbed by system (absorbed insolation) J + J = conservation of energy r 0 ^"^ k J N 0 r J + k NJ r or (k^Mc^) jf^=. N_. f^ 1+k N 3 4 0 319 STEP 9: SIMULATION OF THE ENERGETICS MODEL With the revolution in computer technology, it became more feasible for the average researcher to simulate simultaneous solution of complex sets of nonlinear differential equations such as one encounters in energetics models. The two most popular simulation methods are: (1) the development of analogous electrical circuits through the use of computer, and (2) numerical approxi- mation using a digital computer. Each of these two methods has advantages and disadvantages, but because digital computers are more frequently available to the researcher, numerical approximation is the method more commonly employed. A more detailed discussion of the simulation process is incorporated into the "Results" section in Step 10. STEP 10: VALIDATION OF THE ENERGETICS MODEL There is no specific test to establish the validity of any large-scale simulation model. Correlation analysis and other statistical methods have been used by some researchers to compare similarities between the behavior of the model and the behavior of the system itself as it functions in reality, however, the results of these methods of analysis are inconclusive. Sensitivity analysis is helpful in validating large-scale simulation models. Individual pathway coefficients are varied to test the system's sen- sitivity of changes in the linkages. Sensitivity analysis is often helpful in finding errors in the model design or construction when unexpected behavior occurs. Other attempts at validating energetics simulation results are: (1) to use historical data in the mode, simulating a period from the initial time to the present, allowing simulation results to be compared with currently avail- able empirical data; (2) in cases where the system being simulated is rela- tively well understood, comparing the simulation results to known system behavior can assist in the validation of a given energetics model. For example, the researcher might be interested in changes in the simulation results as different variables are changed to reflect the impact of hypothe- tical future actions and events. RESULTS OF ENERGETICS MODELS INTRODUCTION TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MODEL In illustrating the methodology for preparing an energetics simulation, as was done previously in this report, a simple example was used. In this section, a more complex model is considered, one that has been used to illus- trate energy alternatives to public administrators. The earlier model (Figure 5), and the one prepared for this section (Figure 9), share the same structure incorporating "natural," "agricultural," and "human" subsystems. The results discussed in this section are of this ex- panded model . 320 WIND j2I [Mount Slocklj JPRC JFF JLU8 / .^al JFUA Tpmb I S'ocki ^JFUB knzmg I J5I. J52 ,^ t.onrt P" V^ F.rtMi.«eV /j,Q JFN2, \ JfUA/ vOz agncul- /J FA vJNZ iPopulo- \ Fuel GooOo S S«r«ic..^ ... ^^, 36 miles along each side. The area of 1,235 mi 2, is slightly larger than that of the State of Rhode Island. Hillsborough County, Florida, near ida, is almost square in shape, about Flor- total The county is relatively flat, elevations range from sea level to a high of 49 m (165 ft) in the eastern part of the county. The four principal nat- ural regions of the county are sandhill highlands, inland flatwoods, coastal lowlands, and river valleys. The county has a subtropical climate, mild win- ters (average January temperature, 15°C or 59°F) and warm humid summers (aver- age August temperature, 20°C or 82°F). 321 Overview of the Hillsborough County Model In research situations, each energetics model must be tailored to the particular application at hand; each energetics model incorporates its unique features into the design. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to examine in detail all facets of the Hillsborough County model, some of the more salient features are summarized in the following paragraphs. One such feature is the "Power Maximizing Land Exchange," shown as the four-cornered logic module in the approximate center of the diagram. It re- distributes land between the three subsystems. Hillsborough County, like many Florida coastal counties, has a rapidly increasing population. This increase has brought about a conversion of some of the natural and agricultural lands to urban lands, as the City of Tampa and its surrounding communities have grown. The model exchanges land between the three sectors according to the relative value of the change in gross county energy flow, just as in actual land changes between sectors as land becomes economically feasible to develop (or preserve) within a subsystem. Land exchange is important because the nat- ural energy flows into each subsystem are proportional to the total land area. In addition to monitoring changes in land areas, the Hillsborough County model also simulates changes in the marine environment and in phosphate reserves. Both are important to the local economy and were included in the model to show county administrators the effect of different scenarios on these resources. Another feature of this particular model is the fuel price monitor in the upper right-hand corner of the diagram. (It is represented by the small cir- cle and diamond.) As the price of fuel increases, the rate of fuel imported per unit of exported goods and services declines. This allows the effects of fuel increases to be simulated. "What if" scenarios, such as "What if the price of fuel doubles?" can be examined using this feature and can be compared with the results of alternative scenarios. A summary of the synthesis of socioeconomic and natural system data (Tables 3 and 4) was made by evaluating the energy flows and storages in the Hillsborough County model (Figure 9). Results of Energetics Simulations The results of the Hillsborough County energetics simulation are shown in Figure 10. Using 1943 data, the model simulated historical changes in the land area of each subsystem and of population for the county. The values obtained by the simulation closely paralleled the actual data available for 1978. (Although the oil embargo of 1972 did affect energy flows in each sub- system of the county, the effects on land area and population were small in comparison to changes in 1948.) Although the rate of conversion slowed when the simulation was continued into the future, the historical trend of land in the natural subsystem being converted into urban and agricultural land con- tinued (Figure 10). This simulation was predicated on the assumption that fossil fuel, such as oil, coal, and natural gas would continue to be available through the end of the century, but it included a sudden price jump in 1973 for these fuels to reflect world events as they occurred. 322 Table 3. Synthesis of 1975 socioeconomic and natural system energy storage data for Hillsborough County (Sipe et al . 1979). Storage Description and value Q LI Total land in natural systems of Hillsborough County = 7.781 x 10 n (Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 1979) Ql Total biomass of natural systems of Hillsborough County = 1.94 x 10^3 Kg = 8 X 1013 cal (Lieth and Whittaker 1975) Ph Total phosphate reserves currently estimated to exist in Hills- borough County = 2 X 108 short tons = 1.81 x 10^ Kg 9 2 L2 Total land in farms for Hillsborough County = 1.445 x 10 m (Hills- borough County Environmental Protection Commission 1979) 13 Q2 Embodied energy value of farm assets = 1.008 x 10 cal (Florida Department of Revenue 1976) L3 Total land area of human systems (e.g., urban, industrial, residen- tial) = 5.558 X 108 m2 (Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 1979) Q3 Embodied energy of total assessed value of land and buildings of Hillsborough County 1974 (less agricultural assets) = 1.18 x lO'^cal (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1977) 5 P Population of Hillsborough County in 1974 = 5.87 x 10 people (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1975) F Energy value of Hillsborough County Fuel Stocks (1 year of storage = 3.87 x 10l3 Cal) 12 M Total primary productivity in local marine ecosystan = 4.1 x 10 cal (Lieth and Whittaker 1975) Simulation of Alternative Futures for Hillsborough County Energetics simulations not only provide information on the future impact of current trends, but also permit alternative scenarios to be simulated. In the case of the Hillsborough County simulation, several alternative scenarios were investigated. One assumed that fossil fuel prices would be governed by an increasing "surcharge" starting in 1973, not just a single price increase. The results of this simulation, shown in Figure 11, show a decrease in urban assets to levels of the 1950's. (The data shown in Figure 11, with the excep- tion of population, are in coal equivalent calories.) The decline in urban assets reflects a changing standard of living in Hillsborough County brought 323 Table 4. Synthesis of 1975 socioeconomic and natural system energy flow data for Hillsborough County (all energy flov/s in 10^0 caloric coal equivalent per year) (Sipe et al . 1979) Flow Description JNI Sum of climatic energies available to natural ecosystems (sun, rain, wind) = 312.9 (Swaney 1978) JN2 Sum of climatic energies available to agro-ecosystems (sun, rain, wind) = 581.0 (Swaney 1978) JN3 Sum of climatic energies available to urban systems (sun, rain, wind) = 224.4 (Swaney 1978) JFF Total fossil fuel input to county functions = 3,677.0 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1977) JPRC Price function of fuel, which regulated fuel input to the county JFA Fossil fuel input to agriculture = JFF-JFU-JFD = 3,671.0 (Florida State Energy Office 1978a, 1978b; Tampa Electric Company 1976) JFD Annual depreciation of fuel stocks = 77 013 Feedback from natural sector stocks to natural sector production = 2,360. 20% of gross primary production (Lieth and Whittaker 1975) J14 Usuable climatic energy to natural sector = JNI JIS Input from natural to urban sector = 1.6 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) J16 Input from phosphate to urban sector = 326 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) J17 Depreciation of natural sector (vertical heat loss) = 124.5 (Swaney 1978) J18 Input from agriculture to urban sector = 250 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1977) J19 Usable climatic energy to agricultural sector = JN2 J20 Depreciation to agricultural section (vertical heat loss) = 231 (Swaney 1978) J21 Sum of inputs to marine system = 90.4 (Heath and Wimberly 1971) (Continued) 324 Table 4. Concluded. Flow Description J22 Input from marine to urban system =4.1 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) J28 Embodied energy invested in tourism = 690 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) J29 Embodied energy of imported goods and services = 1,416 J30 Embodied energy of exported goods and services = 1,363 J31 Depreciation of urban sector (vertical heat loss) = 89 J32 Embodied energy subsidy from tourism = 690 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) J33 Population growth due to county assets (i.e., migration) = 20,500 people/yr (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) JPB Intrinsic county birth rate = 8,100 people/yr (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) JPD Intrinsic county death rate = 4,000 people/yr (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1977) JFN2 Feedback from urban stocks to urban production = 45 JU3 Usable climatic energy to urban sector = JN3 (Swaney 1978) JUAB Feedback from agricultural stocks to agricultural production = 116 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1977) JFUB Feedback from urban sector to fuel system = 387 JPHB Feedback from urban sector to phosphate production = 65.2 JLUB Feedback from urban sector to natural sector = 0.16 JFUA Feedback from urban sector to agricultural sector = 199 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1977) J50 Land exchange between natural and agricultural sectors J51 Land exchange between natural and urban sectors J52 Land exchange between agricultural and urban sectors 325 5 Ui u v> H UJ in m < < 3 U S 4 2000r- I5r ISOOr- 1500 ho 11.25 o 1000 500- -«II50- o hH7.5 UI en <- z < ffi •=375 . « •a. o l*> O z 2800 0*- 100 / / / / 450H / / 'population (P) 948 1956 1968 1978 1988 1998 Figure 10. Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with constantly increasing relative imported fuel price and a price jump in 1973 (Sipe et al 1979). on by the increased price tually all other goods and ing power of Hillsborough the increased cost of law "makes do" with less. of fuel, which in turn increased the price of vir- services. It not only included the reduced purchas- County's exports, but also included, for example, enforcement and other social services as the county A final simulation considered the impact of a drop in fossil fuel prices due to a hypothetical technological innovation simulated to occur in 1983 (Figure 12). The principal result of this scenario is an standard of living for residents of Hillsborough County. in increase in the Although this particular scenario was assumed to result from a decreased fossil fuel price, the same results would be expected to occur if, for example, there were improvements in fuel efficiency and other energy conserva- tion methods. In the actual study from which these simulations of Hills- borough County were taken, recommendations were made as to which energy con- servation techniques, from an energy flow standpoint, showed the greatest promise and how those techniques might best be implemented. These recommenda- tions addressed such subjects as land use, construction techniques, transpor- tation, and others. 326 3 2000r in 1500 e u UJ -u < 3 U K < 3 1000 500 5r i500r 125 -UJII50 o I- Ui M hS 7.5 < m IE D - 3.75 O"- 0*- UR8AN ..'■' -^.ASSETS (3) y ^-^/ --'' V y AGRICULTURAL ->*-< X^^^ ^ASSETS (2) ^^—y'' "~-... Figure 11. Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with constantly increasing relative fuel prices and a price jump in 1973 with an increasing fuel surcharge beginning in 1973. (Sipe et al . 1979). USES OF ENERGETICS MODELS SIMULATIONS One of the principal uses of energetics models is the simulation of a system from some historical time through the present and into the future. The simulation results of the historical period permit the results of the simula- tion to the present to be compared with available empirical data. Assuming the simulation perfoms well in these "benchmark" tests, it is then continued into the future. These simulated results — telling the researcher of likely trends, given the present and historical data -- are the most common application of energetics models. It is important to know that the simulation results can only be as good as the modeler's ability to comprehend the system under study. Construction of models that reflect actual conditions is diff icul t. Frequently, the simulation is prepared to permit the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative courses of action to be compared. For example, energetics models have been used to examine alternative methods for cooling a proposed nuclear power plant (Odum 1978). This study compared cool- ing towers, a man-made reservoir, and a nearby lake as possible methods by which the waste heat generated as a by-product of the power generation process could best be returned to the natural environment. 327 QQQ 970 Figure 12. innovation 1979). Simulation result of Hillsborough County model with technical such as energy conservation implemented in 1983. (Sipe et al. In the Hillsborough County example, comparisons were made between dif- ferent hypothetical future events that were generally outside the control of the system under study such as changes in world oil prices. Depending upon the likelihood of these hypothetical events, the researcher (or the decision- maker) may identify other courses of action that minimize any adverse conse- quences of the outside events. For example, one alternative scenario investi- gated in the Hillsborough County study assumed that a future technological breakthrough might cause energy prices to fall. Such a technological advance would have numerous beneficial effects on society according to the simulation. The Hillsborough County study also commented that the same simulation results would be expected to occur if, for example, greater efficiency could be attained in the use of presently available energy resources. In this case, Hillsborough County governmental decisionmakers do have methods by which energy conservation measures might be encouraged. And, to the degree these methods improve the efficiency of the system's use of energy, the benefits -- basically, an improved standard of living and quality of life — suggested by the simulation should be expected to accrue in the system. Whether or not energetics modeling is a useful research tool, even its proponents admit that the development and simulation of a detailed energetics model is an involved, complex process. There are alternatives to the complete modeling process, however, and, under certain circumstances, these methods are appropriate for comparing specific alternatives. 328 Basically, the investigation of energy ratios (Figure 13) involves the same methodology but with only a carefully selected portion of one component (or series of components) of an energetics mode. For example, in Figure 14, yield ratios were calculated for electric power plants, by comparing a coal- fired power plant with that of an oil-fired power plant (Alexander et al . 1980b). The output of each hypothetical power plant was held constant at 17.83 X 10i2 coal equivalent calories per year (CE Cal /yr) . The cost to society to mine and transport the fuel, to build and maintain the physical plant, and the operational costs of the plant are shown as the feedback from the main economy. Comparing these feedbacks to the output of each power plant, respectively, shows the yield ratio. The yield ratio of 12.2 for oil and 5.5 for coal illustrates the economy of oil over coal. LIMITATIONS OF ENERGETICS MODELS Two limitations that frequently affect the use of energetics models are the frequent lack of appropriate data with which to calibrate the simulation, and the difficulty associated with validation of the results of a particular energetics model . Collecting the data necessary to estimate the magnitude of each energy flow in the system being studied can be an involved and time-consuming pro- cess. Data are seldom usable as found. Mapped data may not include suffici- ent detail concerning ecological systems, as was mentioned in the methods sec- tion. Data from some governmental agencies are often not always compatible with other government agencies. In some cases, traditional methods used by a particular discipline did not permit easy standardization with data expressed in some other unit of measurement. In cases such as these, baseline research must establish appropriate conversion methodologies. This is being done by more and more users. Closely related to the data-availability problems are the problems asso- ciated with validation of the simulation results. If leaders in government and business are to commit their resources to the solutions suggested by ener- getics models, those leaders must know the degree to which the model is a valid predictor of future systems behavior. Unfortunately, the validation of the results of a particular energetics model applied to a particular problem is difficul t. In addition, theoretical research is producing verifiable data that can in turn be used by any number of future users. The illustration of energy ratios given in Figure 14 is one such example. In it, the researchers estab- lished the relative energy quality of wood, numerous coal types, fossil fuels, and other energy sources. The trend toward a more complex and unified body of knowledge continues. As the body of knowledge surrounding energetics models increases, it will eventually provide a sufficient base allowing for more complex but efficient model simulation. 329 Feedbock (F) Input (I) ENERGY SYSTEM I Output (0) Net Energy = 0-F Yield Ratio = ■=• Investment Ratio = -j- Efficiency Ratio = — Figure 13. Energy ratios (Odum and Odum 1976) 330 $ 198 million /yr. 3.23 CE 14.6 thermal 2.58 X 10* tons^/yr. COAL ELECTRIC PLANT 5.27 thermal 17.83 CE ^ 98 million /yr. 1.46 CE 12.0 thermal 7.94 X 10" bbl/yr. OIL ELECTRIC PLANT 5.27 thermal 17 83 CE O Z o a UJ z < 2 Figure 14. (Values are Yield ratios of coal -fired and 1^2 Cal/year unless noted otherwise) (Alexander et IQJ oil-fired electric power plants al. 1980b). 331 REFERENCES Alexander, J.F., Jr.; Alexander, M.J.; Sipe, N.G. Energetics, a new tool for decisionmaking; Christchurch, New Zealand: Paper presented to the New Zealand Planning Institute; 1980a; 52 p. Alexander, J. P., Jr.; Swaney, D.P.; Rognstad, R. ; Hutchinson, R. An ener- getics analysis of coal quality. Green, A.E.S., edition. Coal burning issues; Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1980b: 49-70. Alexander, J.F., Jr.; Henslick, J.; Lee, M.; Polauer, C; Rognstad, R.; Sipe, N.; Swaney, D.; Wittman, A. An energetics approach to assign national park development plans; Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, University of norida; 1981; 178 p. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida statistical abstracts. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1975; 621 p. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida statistical abstract. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press; 1977; 640 p. Florida Department of Commerce. Hillsborough County economic data. Talla- hassee, FL: Bureau of Economic Analysis; 1977; 32 p. Florida Department of Revenue. Florida ad valorum valuation and tax data. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida; 1975; 26 p. Florida Energy Committee. Florida's energy profile. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida; 1975; 210 p. Florida State Energy Office. Monthly Florida motor gasoline consumption: 1969-1977. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida; 1978a; 150 p. Florida State Energy Office. Statistics of the Florida electric utility industry 1960-76. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida; 1978b; 150 p. Heath, R.C.; Wimberly, T. Selected flow characteristics of Florida streams and canals: Inform. Circ. 69; Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Natural Resources; 1971. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Vegetation and land-use for energetics subsystem classification, Hillsborough County Florida, 1978. Sipe, N.; Swaney, D.; McGinty, M. Energy basis for Hillsborough County. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, University of norida; 1979: 113. 332 Lieth, H.; Whittaker, R.L. Primary productivity of the biosphere. New York: Springer-Verlag: 1975; 339 p. Lotka, A.J. Contribution to the energetics of evaluation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8:147-155; 1922. Odum, H.T. Environment, power, and society. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1971; 331 p. Odum, H.T. Energy analysis, energy quality, and environment. M.W. Gilliland, edition. Energy analysis, a new public policy tool. American Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science, Selected Symposium no. 9. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.; 1978: 53-87. Odum, H.T.; Odum, E.C. Energy basis for man and nature. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc.; 1976; 297 p. Odum, H.T.; Wang, F.; Alexander, J.; 1976; Gilliland, M. A manual for esti- mating environmental and societal values according to embodied energies. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands; 1980; 215 p. Regan, E.J. The natural energy basis for soils and urban growth in Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida; 1974; 176 p. Master's Thesis. Sipe, N.6.; Swaney, D.P.; McGinty, M.J. Energy basis for Hillsborough County: a past, present, and future analysis. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wet- lands, University of Florida; 1979; 114 p. Swaney, D.P. Energy analysis of climatic inputs to agriculture. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 1978; 198 p. Master's Thesis. Tampa Electric Company. Financial and operating statistics 1966-76. Tampa, FL: Tampa Electric Co.; 1975; 52 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural statistics 1977. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1977; 450 p. 333 50272-101 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT NO. ' FWS/OBS-83/14 3. Recipient's Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle Florida Coastal Ecological Characterization: A Socioeconomic Study of the Southwestern Region 5. Report Date August 1983 7. Author(s) Carolyn 0. French and John W. Parsons (eds.) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, LA 70458 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 11. Confract(C) or Grant(G) No. (C) (G) 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Mineral Management Service Washington, D.C. 20240 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi Washington, D.C. 20240 13. Type of Report & Period Covered c; 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) Data are compiled from existing sources on the social and economic characteristics of the southwestern coastal region of Florida, which is made up of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties. Described are the components and interrelationships among complex processes that include population and demographics characteristics, mineral production, multiple-use conflicts, recreation and ,1 production, sport and commercial fishing, transportation, industrial Energetics models tourism, agricultural . , and residential development, and environmental issues and regulations. of socioeconomic systems are also presented. The report consists of one volume of text and three volumes that contain the data appendix, 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors Socioeconomic status, demography, land development, fisheries, transportation, models, agriculture, mineral resources, recreation b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Southwestern Florida e. COSATI Field/Group 18. Availability Statement Unlimited 19. Security Class (This Report) Unclassified 20. Security Class (This Page) Unclassified 21. No. o( Pages 333,294,359,195 22. Price (See ANSI-Z39.18) See Instructions on Reverse «U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-769-626 OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77) (Formerly NTIS-35) Department of Commerce •• . — . -y* Hawaiian Islands ^ S^ Yf Headquarters, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC X Eastern Energy and Land Use Team Leetown, WV # National Coastal Ecosystems Team Slldell, LA # Western Energy and Land Use Team Ft, Collins, CO # Locations of Regional Offices Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands REGION 1 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 REGION 2 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O.Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 REGION 3 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 REGION 4 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard B. Russell Building 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 REGION 5 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Gateway Center Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158 REGION 6 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 REGION 7 Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E.Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 FISMAWIUXJFE SEKVKE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. HSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has respon> sibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving thfrenvironmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department as- sesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.