Title: Commission on the Future of Florida's Environment. "DNR - Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program." Issue Paper No. 9. February 1989. 20p.
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00052568/00001
 Material Information
Title: Commission on the Future of Florida's Environment. "DNR - Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program." Issue Paper No. 9. February 1989. 20p.
Physical Description: Book
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00052568
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

SirL ciLuA 4~kL 'u




DNR Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program



% L.A 'P",L qUA *




i '-'-

of the



As one of the fastest growing states in the nation, Florioa is experiencing
many of the side effects that accompany rapid population growth. host
importantly, the state's unique and diverse natural resources, which attract
millions of visitors annually, are disappearing at an alarming rate as more and
more areas are being developed to accommodate the growing population. The
State of Florida, however, is strongly committed to conserving its natural
heritage and has instituted several major land acquisition programs for that

One of the most important state land acquisition programs is the Conservation
and Recreatior Lands (CARL) program. Established in 1979 by the Florida
Legislature, the-CARL program has two primary purposes. First, it incorporated
the 1972 Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program, whose primary purpose
was the conservation of lands that:

1. Contained naturally occurring and relatively unaltered flora or fauna,
representing a natural area unique to, or scarce within, a region of
Florida or larger geographic area;

2. Contained habitat critical to, or providing significant protection for,
endangered or threatened species of plant or animal; or

3. Contained an unusual, outstanding, or unique geologic feature.

The second purpose of the CARL program is to acquire other lands in the public
interest. These include lands that are purchased:

1. For use and protection as natural floodplain, marsh or estuary, if the
protection and conservation of such lands are necessary to enhance or
protect water quality or quantity or to protect fish or wildlife habitat
which cannot adequately be accomplished through local, state and federal
regulatory programs;

2. For use as state parks, recreation areas, public beaches, state forests,
wilderness areas, or wildlife management areas;

3. For restoration of altered ecosystems to correct environmental damage
that has already occurred; or

4. For preservation of significant archaeological or historical sites.

A major component of the 1979 CARL legislation was the separation of powers,
responsibilities and duties for administering the CARL program among three
public entities: the Land Acquisition Selection Committee, the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and the Division of State
Lands of the Department of Natural Resources. Generally, the Selection
Committee chooses the property to be acquired, the Division of State Lands
negotiates the acquisition, and the Board of Trustees oversees the activities
taking place under the CARL program and allocates money from the CARL Trust

The Selection Committee has sole responsibility for the evaluation, selection
and ranking of State land acquisition projects on the CARL priority list. The
Selection Committee is composed of the allowing, or their designees:

Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources
Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation
Director of the Division of Forestry of the Department of Agriculture
and Consuier Services
Executive Director of the Game and Fresh water Fish Commission
Director of the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of
Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs

The Selection Committee, with the assistance of staff (Table 1), annually
reviews all CARL applications, decides which applications should receive
further evaluation through the preparation of detailed resource assessments,


determines the final project boundaries through the project design process, ano
establishes the priority ranking of CARL projects (See pages 12-17).

The Governor and Cabinet, as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, are responsible for approving, in whole or in part, the list of
acquisition projects in the order of priority in which such projects are
presented. In other words, the Board can strike individual projects from the
Selection Loasittee's list, but they can neither add projects to tne iist nor
change a project's priority ranking. The Board also controls all allocations
from the CARL Trust Funa, including funding for boundary maps and appraisals,
as well as payments for option contracts or purchase agreements. They also
have the final word on leases and management plans for lands purchased through
the CARL program, as well as all administrative rules which govern the program.

The Division of State Lands provides primary staff support to the CARL pro9rae.
They prepare or obtain boundary maps, title work and appraisals for all CARL
projects and are charged with negotiating their purchase on behalf of the
Board. The Division also provides staff support for aininistering all leases
and management plans for lands acquired through the CARL program.



Land Acquisitions: 1980-1989

On December 16, 1980, the Board of Trustees approved the first CARL priority
list of 27 projects submitted by the Selection Committee. Subsequently, the
Board has approved eleven CARL priority lists. Seven of these were submitted
with CARL Annual Reports, while four priority lists were submitted with CARL
Interim Reports (Table 2). The eight annual CARL priority lists that were
approved by the Board from 1980 through 19BB are presented in Addendum I.

Table 2: Dates that Previous CARL Priority Lists were Submitted to and
Approved by the Board

Committee Reports Board ApDroval Date
First Report 12-16-B0
Annual Report 7-20-B2
Annual Report 7-03-B3
Interim Report 2-24-84
Annual Report 7-03-84
Interim Report 1-29-85
Annual Report 7-02-85
Interim Report 1-07-86
Annual Report 7-01-B6
Annual Report B-04-87
Interim Report 3-06-88
Annual Report 8-09-88

The acquisitions from 1980 through 1988 under the CARL program are impressive
(Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6; Addendum VII). It includes such unique areas as
Mahogany Hammock on North Key Largo, the Andrews Tract along the Suwannee River
in Levy County, buffer lands for Rookery Bay and Charlotte Harbor in southwest
Florida, the coastal dunes of Guana River in St. John's County and the
historically significant Fort San Luis and the Brove in lallahassee (Figure 1).
Over 140,000 acres of Florida's diminishing natural areas, forests, wetlands,
fish and wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species habitat, springs,
and historic and archaeologic sites have been acquired with over 5229.5 million
from the CARL Trust Fund (Table 3). Tne Board also approved several option
contracts which have not yet closed. When these option contracts close, over
19,400 additional acres worth over $23.3 million will have been acquired
(Tables 4 and S).

When you add projects purchased through CARL's predecessor, the 5200 million
Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) bond fund, the list of accomplishments
is even more impressive (Table 3). Approximately 389,370 acres of land were
purchased with EEL funds, including such areas as Rock Springs Run State
Reserve, Big Cypress National Preserve, Paynes Prairie State Preserve, Cayo
Costa State Park and Cape St. George State Reserve (Tables 5 and 6, Figure 1).


able 31 CARL and EEL AcPuisitions Summary
Year Acreaet CARL$ Il
1972-79 370,382 -0- 5175,033,408
1980 65 -0- 6 697,500
1981 106 $ 354,966 -0-
1982 5,196 $ 12,117,267 S 2,766,256
1983 28,985 S ,035,209 s 21,502,836
1984 54,686 6 40,707,974 -0-
1985 15,760 $ 36,888,109 -0-
1986 16,879 S 43,448,277 -0-
1987 17,209 S 34,977,957 -0-
1982 20,46t 5 2,90,197 _0-
_Subtotal 529.756 $229.509.,956 5.200,00, 00.
Outsftandino OPtions:"
prior to 1988 9,391 6 10,571,369 -0-
.1989 10.026 1 1 2,768,324 _
.Subtot l 19,4176 I 2?.339._693 --
TOTAL 549,9173. 252,649, 9 1200.000.000

I Includes both CARL and EEL acreage acquired. The acreage for tracts
which were purchased via two or more option payments are generally
included in the year that the first option payment was made.
tt Generally does not include incidental expenses, such as the cost of
boundary naps and appraisals, unless these costs were included with
the final purchase price.
88t EEL expenditures for 1972-79 was determined by subtracting expenditures
during 1980 through 1983 from the total $200 million bond issue.

Table 4: Outstanding Ootipns/Aoreements Authorizec by oaerd prior to !9BE
Project Names Date Authorized AEreage k moun
Cayo Costa Island 09-04-86 4.96 s 256,550
Estero Bay 12-15-87 4,516.0 5,000,000
Fakahatchee Strand 10-07-86 700.0 500,000
Fakahatchee Strand (3 parcels) 12-15-87 8.58 1,700
North Peninsula 11-27-87 15.20 160,150
Rotenberger 10-06-67 10.0 4,500
Save Our Evergledes/DOT Ia 05-19-87 1,143.58 571,755
Save Our Everglades/DDT It 06-02-87 364.41 182,250
South Savannas 12/16/86 3.4 9,500
Spring Hassock 12-02-86 .69 10,700
Spring Hammock 02-17-67 3.75 30,600
Spring Hammock 06-02-87 5.00 46,464
Spring Hammock (2 parcels) 06-16-87 281.29 1,908,325
Spring Hammock 08-25-87 52.94 938,475
Spring Hammock 12-15-87 19.60 69,000
St. Johns River 01-21-86 ..2,260.0 8.. 1.00
TOTALS __39:.3" S 0,57O : .

a Numbers in parenthesis indicates number of options/agreements authorized
when more than one on that date.
St Pursuant to the Interagency Joint Participation Agreement between the
Florida Department of Transportation and the Board of Trustees to purchase
property within the 1-75 right-of-way corridor within the Save Our
Everglades CARL project.




/ >
S--'- -1 o-- "

1^^!i 'A f
.' } i i) " "-1^ i U V.


r', fC V

-- iSA, ;o. ,
(v--i a.

7r' 4 -1.~
C L,;Y rur vp
L~fESI --im scH !D

ED C0%T'&Lr.TE

Table 5: Current CARL Propepcts Unoer Acouisitlon
hap Funds Acreagesi
WI9 Proj.ict Coun.1 ExPendedl A cuirei
1. Paynes Prairie Alachua s 1,416,000.00** 18,026.17
2. Charlotte Harbor Charlotte 8,070.838.00 17,141.21
3. Crystal River Citrus 9,034,382.00 2,429.88
4. Fakahatchee Strand Collier. 13,099,463.00 47,091.75
5. Rookery Bay Collier 6,161,485.00 1,146.54
6. Save Our Everglades Collier 11,900,369.00 17,990.95
7. Lower Apalachicola Franklin 10,538,403.00 36,914.56
B. Cnassahowitska Swamp Hernando 3,461,190.00 15,422.00
9. Lower actissa/Aucilla Jefferson 4,637,.534.00 13,179.00
10. St. Johns River Lake 881,400*00 2,260.00
11. Cayc Costa Lee 18,731,699.57 1,556.16
12. Estero Say Lee 8,474,750.00 5,178.00
13. Andrews Levy 4,839,000.00 2,838.80
14. Silver River harion 6,982,896.00 2,241.02
15. Coupon Bight/Big Pine Key nonroe 588,396.00 109.31
16. North Key Largo Hammocks fonroe 42,736,502.00 1,511.66
17. Three Lks NHA/Three Lks SP Osceola 20,439,386.88 51,485.00
18. Rotenberger/Holey Land Pale Beach 24,414,750.50+. 542.55
19. South Savannas St.Luc/lartin 5,473,367.00 3,566.01
20. Spring Hammock Seminole 5,694,240.00 70..27
21. Withlaccochee EEL Sumter 2,150,000.00 10,146.18
22. Peacock Slough Suwannee 738,517.00 280.00
23. Wakulla Sprines akulla 7.150.000,.00 2.902.00
Table 6:. 90% or nore ConPmlte CARL and EEL Projectt
24. River Rise State Preserve Alach/Colum 4,598,957.00 4,182.00
25. San Felasco Hammock St.Pres. Alachua 7,077,193.25 5,461.00
26. Canaveral+ Brevard 8939,42.00 2,666.00
27. Tosohatchee State Reserve Brevard 16,000,000.00 26,000.00
26. Westlake Broward 11,945,395.00 1,177.84
29. Hkomosassa Springs Citrus 3,449,600.0C 150.00
30. Stoney Lane Citrus 498,857.00 1,373.77
31. Barefoot Beach Collier 3,910,000.00 32. Big Cypress Nat. Preserve Collier 40,000,000.0098 547,000.0C
33. Deering Hammock Dade 19,210,675.00 347.22
34. Sabies By The Sea Dade 5,628,397.73 180.00
35. ITT Hammock Dade 6,111,500.00.00 692.3
36. Escambia Bay Bluffs Escambia 394,250.00 16.10 -
37. Perdido Key State Reserve Escambia 8,057,600.00 247.03
36. Cape St.-Seorge St. Res. Franklin 8,838,000.00 2,294.59
39. St. Seorge Island, Unit 4 Franklin 1,076,912.00 75.00
40. r.K. Ranch Suif 2,923,153.00 8,792.60
41. Brown/Big Shoals hamilton 4,668,275.00 2,683.00
42. Boner Tract Hillsborough 5,491,500.00 1,596.00
43. beeden Island State Preserve Hillsborough 6,000,000.00 616.03
44. Lower Wekiva River St. Res. Lake 3,749,927.20 4,531.70
45. DeSoto Site Leon 1,400,000.00 4.83
46. Fort San Luis Leon 1,025,000.00 49.72
47. Tne Srove Leon 2,295,000.00 10.35
48. Cedar Key Scrub. Levy 1,543,604.00 4,988.00
49, windley Key Quarry nonroe 2,225,000.00 26.00
50. Nassau Valley State Preserve Nassau 232,524.25 639.50
51. Rock Spgs Run St. Res. Orange 7,632,115.00 8,735.99
52. East Everglades (Aerojet) Dade 10,574,560.00 17,28C.00
53. Little Sator Creek Pasco 1,175,000.00 5o5.OC
54. Sateway Pinellas 1,533,162.00 725.84
55. Lake Arbuckle Polk 8,849,820.00 13,746.00
56. Guana River St. Johns 25,000,000.00 4,800.00
57. North Peninsula Volusia 13,553,329.00 1,1!9.62
58. Stark Tract Volusia 3,003,900.00 719.44
59. Volusia Hater Recharge Area Volusia 3,743,800.00 6,o65.00
60. Bravtop Dunes Malton 2,375.25v.00ss 9BOf0.19
* Including options approved but not vet closed (as of Dec. 31, 19886). Aiso
includes EEL funds spent. Does not include funds spent 0or boundary aps
and appraisals unlews they were incluoec in the closing.
8 Does not include LATF, SOC, MND, local government, or Feoeral Funds spent
or to be spent.
t* Not including donations or exchanges. Ranked below 60.
.. Value is based on average cost per acre of recent contracts.



Several major refinements of the CARL program have occurred over the past few
years. During the 1984-5 CARL evaluation cycle, a new "project design" process
was initiated, which was further developed during the past four years into what
is now the Resource Planning Boundary and Project Design Process. This
intensive method of analyzing projects proposed for acquisition helps to insure
that significant natural resources in the vicinity of a proposed project are
included in the final project boundaries. It also attempts to identify and
solve as many technical problems as possible before appraisal, boundary
mapping, and the actual acquisition of a project occur.

Each project is first evaluated by biologists, cultural resource-experts and
land management specialists to determine the optimum boundaries necessary to
preserve important natural communities and other resource values. At the same
time, projects are evaluated for their public accessibility and recreational
opportunities. If a project continues to receive the necessary support from
the Land Acquisition Selection Committee then examined by an interdisciplinary
team of land planners, real estate appraisers and land acquisition agents.
They develop project recommendations which consider: the resources to be
protected, the projected cost of acquisition, existing protective regulations,
the possibility of coordination with other public or private land acquisition
agencies, and the feasibility of protecting at least part of the project area
by acquiring less than fee simple title. Finally, the project planning team
makes recommendations on the sequence of acquiring land within the project

Also in 1984, as part of this increased emphasis on project and systems
planning and design, the Governor and Cabinet asked the Land Acquisition
Selection Committee to develop a strategic, long-range plan for land
conservation in Florida. This plan would include not only the CARL goals and
criteria, but also those of federal programs, other State programs, and private
sector groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land.
The final product, the Florida Statewide Land Acquisition Plan (FSLAP), is the
second major refinement of the CARL program and was approved by the Governor
and Cabinet on July 1, 1986. As a result, all projects recommended under the
CARL, Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) or Save Our Coast (SOC) programs are
evaluated for conformance with FSLAP and the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan.

A summary of the FSLAP's five generall guidelines and sixteen specific
objectives under nine major resource categories (ranging from freshwater
resources to historical resources) is included in Aooendum IV. By thoroughly
evaluating projects for their conformance with FSLAP's guidelines and
objectives, the project selection and ranking process will avoid undue
subjectivity. The FSLAP was utilized this year by the Land Acquisition
Selection Committee to assist them in their selection and ranking decisions.

Another major improvement over the past few years has been the integration of
the Florida Natural Areas inventory (FNAI) into the CARL evaluation and
priority ranking process. The FNAI is a cooperative effort between the State
of Florida and The Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit organization
that is dedicated to preserving the world's biotic diversity. Funded through
the CARL program since 1981, the FNAl maintains a comprehensive database on the
status, distribution, anc management of exemplary biotic communities, rare and
endangered plants and animals, aquatic and marine habitats, geological and
other natural features found within the State of Florida. The FNAi database
system has three principle components?

1. manual files of element occurrences, research reports and related
materials that describe the locations and management concerns for
monitored species and natural communities;

2. fap files of specific or general locations of monitored species and
natural communities; and

3. Computer files of the most significant information for easy and accurate


The FNAI database system is an ongoing, cumulative process in which information
is continually updated and refined as additional data become available and the
status of elements change. It is particularly important in a rapidly
developing state like Florida that the assessment of ecological resources is
always current and increasingly precise.

The information an& expertise provided by the FNAI through its contractual
agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources is
indispensable for identifying areas of potential state acquisition by analyzing
their natural attributes, vulnerability and endangerment. Crucial tasks in the
evaluation process that are performed in whole or in part by the FNAI include:
1. An initial review of all CARL applications for their natural resource
values (e.g., Addendum V);
2. The preparation of acquisition proposals for unique natural areas within
the state;
3. The preparation of natural resource assessments for ali acquisition
projects assigned for full review;
4. The development of initial resource planning boundaries for all projects
assigned for full review;
5. Assistance in designing projects and recommending acquisition priorities
or phases; and
6. Other natural resource evaluations for the CARL program.

The type and quality of the unique information provided by the FNAI is an
invaluable tool for decision makers when planning for the wise management of
Florida lands. The FNAI is rapidly becoming one of the most important sources
of biological and ecological information in the state, as reflected by the
numerous data requests received from state and federal agencies, organizations,
land developers, and others. The primary subject areas of previous information
requests have included: natural resource inventories of all kinds, management
plans for state lands, Development of Regional Impact reviews and other
permitting or regulatory impact assessments, power plant siting and
transmission line corridors, highway routing, water resource development
projects, listing of species as endangered or threatened, review of state and
federal surplus lands, local government land use planning, etc. It is often
through these actions that the FNAI is instrumental in protecting important
natural resources without the need for state acquisition.

Summary of the CARL Evaluation, Selection and Ranking Process

Evaluation, selection and ranking of CARL projects by the Land Acquisition
Selection Committee is governed by Rule 16-6, Florida Administrative Code. The
Selection Committee has been in the process of revising this rule during the
past two years to conform with recent revisions in Florida Statutes (see pages
32-37). Figure 2 (page 14) illustrates the proposed process for evaluating,
selecting and ranking CARL proposals. A brief explanation of the steps, as
identified in Figure 2, is provided below:

1. Acquisition Proposal Form

Filed on form B-1*A, which may be obtained free the Evaluation Section,
Division of State Lands, proposal forms must be received on or before
January 31 to be considered during that year's CARL cycle. Late
applications are considered during the next cycle, unless they are accepted
out-of-cycle by an affirmative vote of four or more Selection Committee
members. Proposals are accepted from any source, which generally includes
state agencies, local governments, conservation organizations, land owners,
realtors, etc. Proposals may be rejected if incomplete, but the sponsor is
first notified and provided the opportunity to supply the essential

2. Public Presentations

Project sponsors or their designees are encouraged to provide oral testimony
and visual or written materials in support of acquisition proposals at
public meetings held in Tallahassee. Each project sponsor is allowed a
short presentation. Committee members may request additional information
from sponsors.

Figure 2: Flowchart o0 the CARL Prograe Evaiuation, Selection ane Rankin;


3. 4-VOTE (4

I 1)4

REVIEW revise

7. 4-VOTE <4--- -
1- fFOP
E. PROJECT revise reject RECON-
design design ATION


11. RANP^N6 List and
Reserve I
"Pool I

12. BOARr; 4rot list


3. First 4-Vote Heeting

The Committee votes to determine which proposals will be subjected to the
full review process after reviewing (a) the information provides on the
acquisition proposal forms, (b) analysis by the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory, and (c) public testimony. Proposals that receive four or more
votes are considered further. The sponsors of these proposals are asked to
provide additional information about ownerships on Form 16-I1. Proposals
receiving less than four votes may be considered during a subsequent cycle
if reconsideration is requested in writing.

4. Resource Planning Boundary (RPB)

Proposals voted to full review are first analyzed for their major resource
attributes as indicated by the submitted materials. A statement of each
project's public purpose and .resource-based goals is developed ev the
Evaluation Sectior anc reviewed by Committee staff. Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (FNAI) examines proposals, particularly maps showing boundaries,
to determine the neeo for boundary additions or deletions based upon
existing information within the FN(A database, general topography, aerial
photography, and knowledgeable sources. The FNAI Resource Planning
Boundary (RPB) and supporting documentation are then circulated to
Committee staf4- members for review by thee and appropriate field staff.
Suggested revisions to the FNAI prepared RPE are submitted by staff with
written justification for boundary modifications. The resultant RPE
developed by Committee staff is used to determine the project area to be
thoroughly assessed, which generally encompasses the maximum RPE. The RP$
may be further modified during the assessment process.

5. Assessment

A written report assessing the area within the RPB is prepared by staff tc
address the following:
a. Several location and size-of project.
b. Natural resources, including community types, endangered and
threatened species, other plants and animals, forest resources,
geologic resources, water resources, etc.
c. Archaeological ans historical resources.
d. Outdoor resource-based recreational potential.
e. Conformance with Florida Statewide Lans Acquisition Plan,
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, and State Lands Management
f. Vulnerability and endangerment.
O. Acquisition category: Environmentally Endangered Lands or Other
h. Ownership patterns and relative ease of acquisition.
i. EstimateC cost with respect to availability of other funding,
alternative acquisition tecrfiques, management costs, etc.
j. Suitability and proposed use, including functional usability,
manageability, and designated management agencies.
k. Location relative to urbin areas, Areas of Cr:-tcal State
Concern, other public lands and political boundaries.

Each agency represented on the Committee and the FNAI is assigned lead
responsibility for the completion of appropriate portions ao4 each
assessment. Staff members or their designees conduct on-site evaluations
of each proposed project. The assessment may suggest further revisions to
the RPB or to the' proposed purpose and resource-based goals. Assessments
are compiled by the Evaluation Section and then distributed to all
Committee members, staff, and the FNAI for review.

6. Committee Review

Each project assessment, including the final RPS, is evaluated by the
Committee to determine if it accurately and aoeoiuateiy assesses the
characteristics of an acquisition proposal. The Committee may direct staff
to modify the assessment or RPB for any acquisition proposal before

-1 5

7. Second A-vote Meeting

After reviewing pertinent information, the Committee votes to determine
which of the assessed proposals will receive a project design. Assessed
proposals receiving four or more votes are considered further; projects
receiving fewer than four votes may be considered during a subsequent cycle
if reconsideration is requested in writing.

B. Project Design

The RPS approved by the Committee is the starting point for the Project
Design. The RPB is based predominantly on resource concerns, while the
Project Design analyzes ownership patterns, regulatory controls,
alternative acquisition techniques, and related factors which may affect
boundary considerations and the ease of acquisition. The initial draft of
the Project Design is prepared by a team composed of representatives of
three Bureaus within the Division of State Lands: Land Acquisition, Survey
and Mapping, and Appraisal, as well as a representative from the proposed
management agency. Primary considerations during the Project Design

a. Number of private ownerships, tax assessed values and ease of
b. Sovereignty and jurisdictional lands.
c. Public and non-profit ownerships.
d. Information on land use and development trends, including zoning
changes, annexations, and extension of utilities.
e. Alternative acquisition techniques and the availability of other
funding sources.

The draft Project Design is then submitted to the FNAI, the Committee
staff, and to the proposed management agencies for final review and for
recommendations on acquisition phasing. A time sequence for acquisition is
recommended in oroer to acquire the most critical parcels first, with
primary consideration given to resource management concerns and parcels'
endangerment and vulnerability. Additionally, acquisitions which exceed
budgetary limitations can be divided, according to relative resource
importance, into phases that coincide with fiscal years.

5. Committee Review

Each Project Design, including the project design boundary map, proposed
phasing, and recommended acquisition techniques, is evaluated by the
Committee to determine i1 any modifications are required. The Committee
may accept, modify, or reject a project design. If rejected, the project
design may be modified ano reconsidered, or the Committee say require tnat
it be resubmitted as a new proposal.

10. Public Hearings

Following committeee approval of the project designs, project sponsors are
sent notices of forthcoming public hearings to be held at several locations
throughout the state. These hearings are scheduled to obtain additional
oral testimony on the project proposals, as well as testimony on projects
which are currently on a CARL Priority List. All p.llic hearings are
announced at least 30 days in advance in newspapers of general circulation
throughout the state, and at least 7 days ir advance in the Florida
Administrative Weekly. Additionally, notices are mailed to all
legislators, county planning departments, and others on the CARL mailing
list that is maintained by the Evaluation Section.


11. Ranking Projects

After the public hearings, the Committee ranks projects by one of several

a. The entire list, including newly approved projects, are independently
ranked by each committee member. The independent ranks are then
combined for each project, and the projects are ranked from lowest
total score to highest.

b. New projects are ranked as above and then added to the bottom of a
previously approved CARL Priority List.

c. New projects are independently ranked by each committee member. An
average rank score is calculated for each new project to determine
where they will be inserted into the existing list of projects, and
then the entire list is renumbered.

d. Projects with exceptional resource value, those that are especially
endangered by development, or those providing bargain sale
opportunities may be reranked or inserted into the list at an
appropriate rank by affirmative vote of four or more committee

After or during the ranking of projects, the Committee may decide to remove
one or more projects froe their priority list for various reasons (e.g., to
lipit the size of the list). The Committee shall approve by an affirmative
vote of at least four members the priority list to be submitted to the

12. Submission to Board

The Committee's CARL Priority List is-submitted to the Board of Trustees of
the Internal improvement Trust Fund (i.e., the Governor and Cabinet) along
with the CARL Annual Report during the first Board meeting in February.
The Board may approve the list or strike individual projects fror the list,
but they cannot otherwise alter the priority ranking of projects. The
Board must act upon the Committee's list within 45 days of its submissior
to them. Interim lists also may be developed at any time if requested by
four or more members of the Committee. Interim lists are treated in the
same manner as the Annual CARL Priority List.

13. Boundary nap for Appraisal Purposes.

After the Board approves the CARL Priority List, a boundary sec which
conforms to state standards is prepared for appraisal purposes. Eoundary
maps include legal descriptions of the project and typically show ownersnip
boundaries, jurisdictional lines, and sovereignty lines. The Bureau of
Survey and napping solicits bids for most boundary mapping projects, which
generally includes title work.



Many activities of the Board, the Committee, the Department of Natural
Resources, and the Florida Legislature will have or have had a pronounced
effect on the CARL program. Some of these activities were discussed previously
(e.g., see pages 6-13 anc pages 19-31). The following represents a synopsis of
the major legislation, Board and Committee actions, and the Department of
Natural Resources and the Division of State Lands policies and procedures whicn
affect the CARL program.

rajor Actions During Prior Years

4 Probably the most important action in recent years was the restructuring
of the CARL funding base by the 1967 Legislature which provided a more
stable and increasing funding source. Since its inception the CARL Trust
Fund has derived its- income from excise taxes on the severance o* minerals
(primarily phosphate, but also oil, gas, and sulfur). With the recent
decline in phosphate production, however, the CARL Trust Fund was threatened
with a reduction in proceeds at the same time that conservation and
recreation lane acquisition demands were increasing. In 1987 the
Legislature changed the funding structure for the CARL Trust Fund to include
the following proceeds:

July 1, 1987, to July 31, 1987 9.8 percent of the excise tax on
documents as defined in Chapter 201, Florida Statutes.
Beginning August 1, 1987 9.2 percent of the excise tax on documents as
defined in Chapter 201, Florida Statutes.
Beginning July 1, 1989 the first $10 million in revenue from the excise
tax on severance of phosphate rock as defined in Section 211.3103,
Florida Statutes.

Additionally, the $40 million limit on the annual allocation to the CARL
Trust Fund was removed so that the CARL Trust Fund can now accrue funds in
excess of s40 million. With the revised funding source the CARL Trust Fund
credits should exceed 550 million annually by fiscal year 1989-90 (Table

Table 17: Forecast of Contributions to CARL Trust Func (Millions v4 Dollars)
A: Trend Analysist B: Cycle Analysiss:
FISCAL Documentary Documentary
YEAR Stamp Tax Phosphate otL Stamf Tax Phosphate Total
1986-89 39.6 0.0 39.6 41.5 0.0 41.5
1989-90 43.9 10.0 53.9 43.0 10.0 53.0
1990-91 47.2 10.0 57.2 46.4 10.0 56.4
1991-92 51.1 10.0 61.1 51.0 10.0 61.0
1992-93 55.5 10.0 65.5 54.4 10.0 64.4
1993-94 60.2 10.0 70.2 56.5 10.0 66.5
1994-95 65.1 10.0 75.1 62.5 10.0 72.5
1995-96 70.5 10.0 90.5 71.0 10.0 B1.0
1996-97 76.0 10.0 B6.C 76.8 10.0 .88.8
1997-98 81.6 10.0 91.6 83.9 10.0 93.9
1998-99 88.1 10.0 98.1 85.1 10.0 95.1
1999-2000 94.5 10.0 104.5 B8.6 10.0 9E.8
I Based on hay 6, 1988 Revenue Estimating Conference
99 Based on December 7. 196E Revenue Estimatino Conference

Another very important action taken by the 1986 and 1987 Legislatures was to
amend chapters 253 and 375, Florida Statutes, to allow bonding of CARL
funds. Unoer the provisions of paragraph 253.023(2)(b), Florida Statutes,
up to $20 million of the CARL Trust Fund may be used annually to pay debt
service and related costs for bonds to acquire lands on the CARL priority
list. This provision was utilized by the Board on March 17, 1987 to request
the issuance of the first $35 million in CARL bonds.


Table 1i A: anmseent Costs fer esalotod Cl and EEL PrfPicts
nMaiOag mrnalS t u ses
h^N.U!)o haicrt kt CeOv Anrv rlW-6Oc9 FV g990
24. River Rise tate Prnerw Alachsa/Creleibi R (iemo State ParkS)
25. San Felasce hansock State Presrve laclh.a M 9135,266 9159,326
26. Canrtal) revard MS A MN
27. Tsltatche State Rteserw I MU Irf erd PCCIOR 166,454 167,534
26. Wstlake krtard COUNTY NA
29. Imou assU Srip Citru COMT M MA
30. Stone Las Citrus IR a IN
31. barefet tuack Collier S t elMw iggins Pass St. Prs.)
32. big Cypress atimal Preser Colier 1S U U
33. eenring aeset e COUNTV Y M
34. Sa sy T heIr So de COUNTY M NA
35. ITT hassock as COUNTY N
36. EscasKir ly iBsffs Escbia PENSmWAA IA
37. Perdlo Key Sta ite W Resrv Ecabia Di 0 6i,773
38. Cape St. eorge State Rsernv Franklin Rt 44,S40 45,876
39. St. k6erp lsla, Unit 4 Frtklih M (St. Se. Islaio State ParkS)
40. S.. oRach ult wOP (ILwr ApalachicelS)
41. Irom/dig SIhoal NhiltM 8iP/IR 6,235 82,038
42. tlr Tract Hillserergh COUNTY MA U
43. het Island State Prweserve llsrah DI 124,138 16,234
44. Lowr kive& RiverState Rserve Laker M 52,169 54,455
45. selato ite Leon MNR NA
46. Fort San Lis LeOn Mt 204,364 236,781
47. The krve Leon dR 16,000 73,000
48. Cear Key Scrab Levy 6FC/M 34,369 66,661
49. Mindley Key ukrry Ronre MN (Lftnvitae Keyt)
50. assMV Valley State Re rv assau M 22,140 2,500
51. tck Sprltags d State lke. &t M OrW ge SFC/M l/S 183,273 161,568
52. East EvrglldesAerojet Phl beahe FC 76,873 85,322
53. Little laterCreek Pasco 6FC 18,82 24,316
54. Satemy Pihnllas CONTY NA
55. Lake Ariackle Polk OFIrC 8I9,380 221,223
56. iseM Rimvr St. Jok 6FC/DII /OF 439,953 647,660
57. North Poansula Volusia MR (fFlaler each MAt)
5. Stark Tract Volesia MR M NA
59. VolMsia later Recharpe Area Voluia WOFIPC 21,133 25,133
60. Srayto e WaStn Mt. (S6rvtanl eah S RAt)
B: RANasmet Costs j$r orrteo t CAML Projects buoor Aconisiti
1. Payis Prairierlrphoy-fetooa AlachkeI t 426,652 441,512
2. Charlotte Mrter Charlotte M 25,346 26,638
3. Crystal liver Citrs MR 14,960 27,838
4. Fakahatche Strand Colliern M 193,136 285,465
5. Rookery ay Collier D 65,601 NA
6. Save Our Everlades Collier SFCIMUR/IF U A
7. LoeAr palechicola Franklin OMFI/f6CI R 6,600 70,519
6. Chassahmeitzka Sup M ernuold/Citrus SOF/ C 107,279 45,665
9. Lwer Nacis/Macill JefftersoM P 4,324 5,024
10. It. Y a s Rim v Lake IMR/FC/ DO N
11. Cay. Casta Lee MU 163,544 166,450
12. Estera ay Lee MR U NA
13. MAndrs Tract Levy FC 74,714 64,495
14. Silve River lmario Me 104,280 2,495,263
15. Rig Pine Key/Copopn light toreet MR 20,630 21,720
16. North Key Large Hassocks lonrose IR 1IC,514 113,829
17. Prairie Ls/3Lurs St rs. I MM Osrelea WF/DiM/FC 165,768 172,377
18. totenerger/loley LaM tal.s each F: 33,899 36,645
19. Seuth Samvaa St. Lcie/ltartin MR 25,610 31,405
20. Spring NaMeecr Seaisole COUNTY NA
21. ithlacooche EEL laholdiog Sueter D0F/IFC 18,089 146,245
22. Peacock SlUeO Swannw MR 106,021 423,830
23. O kill. SPe'IMSs _.klla Di 513.846 t1.623.9t
TTALS 3,.65.34s 5E.431.B7t _
M Not Avalablre P- epartet of natural Resources
S-0 D division of Forestry, departeent of Agriclture FC Sae and Fresh Mater Fish Casission
SR Divisien of Historical Resetue, 6eparteent of State IPS national Park Service
t CARL/EEL acquisitism managed as part of a largr mit. Is Set Fiure 1, page 8



The State of Florida has one of the most aggressive conservation and recreation
land acquisition programs in the United States of America. In the past twentyy
years Florida has spent over $S00 million to conserve lands for environmental,
recreational and related purposes. It has accomplished this admirable feat
through several programs, including the Environmentally Endangered Lanes,
Outdoor Recreation, Save Our Coasts, Save Our Rivers, ano Conservatior and
Recreation Lands (CARL) programs. Ine CARL program alone is responsible for
the acquisition of over 150,000 acres at a cost of over $250 million since
1980. The vivic success of the CARL program can be seen throughout Florida in
such areas as North Key Largo Hammocks, Cayo Costa Island, Lake Arbuckle,
Crystal River, Guana River, Fort San Luis, and Escambia Bay Bluffs, to name
only a few.

The CARL program has evolved substantially since its inception in 1979. In
general, it has grown much more complex in order to eouitably consider and
evaluate the numerous CARL applications and proposals received annually. The
necessity for further land acquisition, and especially acquisition on such a
highly selective basis, confronts Florida's CARL program with two major
problems. First is the matter of cost: virtually all land in Florica tooay is
expensive, and the long-range cost trend will continue to be upward. Moreover,
the areas in which land acquisition is most urgently needed are often the more
heavily populated parts of the State where the real estate market is more
active, and where land prices are already at a premium. The second problem is
that of competition for these choice lands. It is closely related to the first
problem, as other land uses and land speculation generally increase property
values. However, the problem of competition for lands is even more critical
than that of cost, because he results are usually irrevocable once a prime
conservation area is developed for residential, industrial, or commercial uses,
it is effectively lost forever as a possible conservation and recreation land.

The increased funding that was authorized by the 1987 Florida Legislature and
the issuance of $35 million in CARL bonds by the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund are clear indications of their commitment to
the acquisition of conservation and recreation lands. These commitments,
albeit admirable, will be inadequate, as the 1989 CARL list includes prope-ties
whose cumulative tax value is more than $300 million. This amount could easily
translate into three-quarters to $1 billion in real estate on the 1989 list.
Another 23 projects qualify for inclusion on the CARL priority list but were
excluded primarily because there are insufficient funds to feasibly acquire
them in a timely ma.ner-. These 23 projects have a cumulative tax value of
nearly $75 million, which could translate into $150-225 million in real estate
value. Additionally, the Save Our Coast (SOC) program funds are nearly
exhausted, and the Committee has agreed again to review SOC projects to
determine which should be transferred to the CARL program. rfany 0f these
projects are extremely expensive because of their coastal location. Thus,
another 550-100 million in tax value or S100-300 million or more in real estate
could be added to the CARL list in 1989. With an average projected income of
S67.9 million annually over the next ten years, some of which will se useo for
land management, the demands for CARL funds will far exceed the sucppy, and
many wortny CARL projects will be lost forever to other uses because of
insufficient funds.

The improvements in the CARL program that were initiated by the Board, the
Selection Committee, and the Department of Natural Resources are clear
indications of the need to continually reevaluate the State's immediate
concerns and procedures for conserving its dwindling natural and cultural
resources. The development pressures unoer which these resources are
continually subjected are intensifying, as the population within the State of
Florioa continues to grow at an alarming rate of over 1,000 new residents each
day. The CARL program, alone, can not compete with these ever increasing
pressures. Thus, the concerted efforts of state, federal and local
governments, and of private non-profit organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy and the Trust for Public Lands, are required in order to accomplish
the goals and objectives of the CARL program.



J < A1..SSa .U. raS -
( .. ._ AKE DUV AL

..-, .- .o. .. ,) --- ..

(? ,--, "7,. J !


c: "-.L
..;---,. ... IDKE



"" oCI l E-

.@J:< i@i
'~ -- '

\ R--I-OWA _f

i,^r '@o

1. North Key Largo Hammocks i(onroe County)...................... ..... 47
2. Seminole Woods/Springs (Lake County)....... .... ................... 53
3. B.M.K. Ranch (Lake/Drange Counties)...... ..................... 59
4. Apalachicola River & Bay, Phase I (Franklin County) ................. 63
5. Larltor half-noon Ranch (Sumter County)............ ............... 73
6. Fakahatchee Strand (Collier County)... ...... ....................... 77
7. Fort George Island (Duval County).................................. 3
B. Saddle Blanket Lakes Scrub (Polk County).......................... B7
9. Curry Hammock (Monroe County)... ................................... 91
10. Rainbow River (tarion County)............................... ... 95
11. Waccasassa Flats (Silchrist County)................................. 99
12. Coupon Sight (fonroe County) ....................................... 103
13. Crystal River (Citrus County).................................... 109
14. Highlands hammock (Highlands County)............................... 115
15. Emerson Point (tanatee County)........ ........................... 119
16. Chassahowitzka Swamp (hernando County).............................. 12
17. Topsail Hill (Walton County)..................................... 129
1i. Ybor City Addition (Hillsborough County)............................ 133
19. Big Bend Coast Tract (Taylor/Dixie Counties)........................ 137
20. South Savannas (St. Lucie/hartin Counties).......................... 145
21. Nabasso Beach (Indian River County)................................. 151
22. Save Our Everglaoes (Collier County)................................ 155
23. Brevard Turtle Beaches (Brevard County)............................. 161
24. Lower Apalachicola (Franklin County)................................ 165
25. Three Lakes/Prairie Lakes (Osceola County).......................... 69
26. Andrews Tract (Levy County). ......... ............................. 175
27. Wacissa and Aucilla River Sinks (Jefferson County).................. 179
28. Miami Rockridge Pinelands (Dade County)............................. 185
29. North Fork St. Lucie (St. Lucie County).............................. 191
30. Rookery Bay (Collier County)........... .. ...... .......... ...... 195
31. Cockroach Bay Islands (Hillsborough County)....................... 201
32. Lochloosa Wildlife (Alachua County)............................... 207
33. St. Martins River (Citrus County)................................... 213
34. Pine Island Ridge (Broward County)................................ 217
35. Paynes Prairie (Alachua County)..................................... 221
36. Spring Hammock (Seminole County))................................... 225
37. Cayo Costa Island (Lee County).................................. 229
38. Garcon Point (Santa Rosa County).................................... 235
39. Charlotte harbor (Charlotte/Lee C.unties)........................... 239
40. North Layton HaIm ock (honroe County)................................ 245
41. Seabranch (Martin County)........... ............................. .. 249
42. Wakulla Springs (Nakulla Countv;.................................. 253
43. Sadsden County Glades (6Sasden County)............................ 259
44. Lower Econlockhatchee River (Seminole County)..................... 263
45. Tropical Hammocks of the Redlands (Dade County)..................... 267
46. East Everglades (Dade County)....................... .............. 271
47. Silver River (Harion County)...................... ................... 277
48. Deerin; Estate Additiion (Dado County)............................. 281
49. Peacock Slough (Suwannee County).................................... 285
50. St. Johns River (Lake County)....................................... 289
51. Netstone/Berkovitz (Pasco County)................................... 293
52. Josslyn Island (Lee County)......................................... 297
53. Nithlacoochee (Sumter County)....................................... 301
54. Ware mineral Springs (Sarasota County).............................. 307
55. Bills Tract (Pasco County).......................................... 311
56. Rotenberger (Palm Beach/Broward Counties)........................... 315
57. Bald Point (Franklin County)........................................ 319
58. Estero Bay (Lee County)............................................. 323
59. Goldy/Bellemead (Volusia County).................................... 327
60. Letchworth Hounds (Jefferson County)................................ 331


la I2: Laul-4iv0 Values Acreges-

1 NORTH KEY LARW oreot 1,690 914,168,000 914,168,000 1,690
R 2 SENINOLE SPRINGS Latke 4,8157 916,471,000 931,559.000 1,547
HR 3 6.R.K.ANCD Lafte/Oraw 7,190 98,030,000 939,5s60000 23,737
4 APALACHICOLA RIVER & AY, PHASE I Franklin 56 94,252,000 $43,841,00 24,293
5 CARLTON HALF-MON RANCH hater 9,500 9656,000 944,497,000 33,793
6 FAKAHATCHEE STMRN Collier 27,336 910,935,000 55,9432,00 61,131
1 7 FORT SEORGE ISLAM ova 5882 94,908,00 960,346,000 62,013
6 SA6DLE BLANKET LAKES SCRUB Polk 970 0411,000 960,751,000 62,663
9 CUmRRY MOCK Mtoorw 390 95,196,000 965,947,000 63,273
10 MIINMW RIVER Martion 1,440 $2,652,000 46 ,599,000 64,713
11 ACCASASSA FLATS Gilchrist 44,846 9,183,000 974,762,000 109,559
12 COUPON SIGHT Namrse 5385 1,093,000 75,875,000 110,144
13 CRYSTAL RIVER Citrws 5,113 $4,911,000 960,766,000 115,257
14 mIGHLANDS AMMOCK mithlands 5,571 91,958,000 982,744,000 120,829
1 15 EMERSON POINT Mastate 360 2,644,000 95,588,000 121,18
7021 1 CHASSAHONITZKA SMHP Nerando 6,700 94,632,000 990,220,000 127,66
17 TOPSAIL MILL Nalton 1,460 $17,450,000 $167,670,000 129,346
16 ItM CITY ADDITION Millsbereou) >1 9446,000 $108,116,000 129,349
19 116 SEND COST TRACT laylerlt/ixite 11,676 $3,461,000 9111,579,00 141,025
20 SOUTH SAVANNAS St. Lucieltartia 2,243 $10,928,000 9122,507,000 14.,264
21 AMBASSO 6EACN ldia Rliver 110 7,566,000 9130,073,000 143,378
SE 22 SAVE DIR EVERSLASES Collier 77,769 917,965,000 $147,938,000 221,147
23 IEVARD TURTLE 6EACHES brevard 12 12,160,000 150,098,000 221,159
70% 24 LONER APALACHICOLA Franklis 7,400 91,M64,000 151,964,000 228,59
25 THREE LAKESIPRAIRIE LAKES Oscula 8,944 95,071,000 $157,055,00 237,503
701 26 AnDRENS TRACT Levy 1,200 1242,000 1157,297,000 238,703
701 27 MACISA & AUCILLA RIVER SINKS Jefferse 7,060 319,000 9157,6316,000 245,73
26 MIAMI ROCKRI16E PIELANDS 6te 281 95,616,000 $163,232,000 246,064
29 MORTH FORK ST. LUCIE St. Lcte 1,350 96,006,000 9169,238,000 247,414
30 ROOKERY AY Collier 10,853 913,754,000 9132,994,000 25,267
1 31 COCKADROACH DAY ISLA51 Hillsborough 730 9233,000 $113,227,000 256,997
32 LOCHLOOSA HILBLIFE Alachue 5,27r $1,469,000 914,696.000 264,269
33 ST. MARTIN RIVER Citres 11,068 95,270,000 9119,966,000 275,337
s 34 PINE ISLAND RIDGE bronrd 111 2,165,000 $192,131,000 275,446
701 35 PAYNES PRAIRIE Alachus 6,390 7,624,000 199,755,000 281,938
701 36 SPRIN AMIOCK Sesamile 225 $2,147,000 9201,902,000 282,063
701 37 CATO COSTA ISLAND Leet 436 64,017,000 $207,919,000 282,499
38 6SARCON POINT Santa Ros 2,560 91,000,000 9209,719,000 28,059
70 39 CHARLOTTE MAROR Charlotte 5,35% 2,302,000 $212,021.000 290,415
40 NORTH LAYTON AMMOCK Ronroe 94 9747,000 9212,768,000 290,509
41 SEARANCH Rartis 910 97,458,000 9220,226,000 291,419
701 42 AKULLA SPRINGS Nakuella 465 9282,000 9220,508,000 291,884
43 6ADSEN COUNTY SLADES asdes 1,800 9456,000 $220,964,000 293,684
44 LONER ECONLOCKNATCEE Seisole 2,110 94,020,000 224,964,000 295,794
45 TROPICAL HAMMOCKS OF THE REDLMADS Dae 213 97,991,000 9232,975,000 296,007
50E 46 EAST EVERGLADES Dade 71,920 $14,334,000 9247,359,000 367,927
701 47 SILVER RIVER Naries 462 911,712,000 9259,071,000 368,369
1 46 DEERINE ESTATE ADDITION Dae 27 9571.000 9259.642,000 368,416
49 PEACOCK SLOUGH Suassee 560 9358,000 9250,000,000 368,996
R 50 ST. JOHNS RIVER Lake 8,290 91,022,000 9261,022,001 377.2k6
5 51 HETSTONE/6ERKOVITZ Paine 3,460 93,228,000 9264,250,001 380,74o
52 JOSSLYN ISLAN Lee 48 935,000 9264,235,000 390,79'
53 ITHLACOOCHEE Sluter 3,900 95,604,000 9269,389,000 384,694
S 54 HARM MINERAL SPRIN6S Sarasota 76 9660,000 9270,569,000 384,770
I 55 SILLS TRACT Paicn 101 92,644,000 1273,213,000 384,871
50E 56 ROTEN6ERGER Pals -ch/lroiard 20,195 94,537,000 9277,750,000 405,066
57 6ALD POINT Franklih 4,673 95,182,000 9262,932,000 409,739
58 ESTEROD AY Le 64645 920,764,000 5307.716,000 416,384
a 59 SOLJY/IELLEJEAD Volusia 716 9445,000 1304,161,000 417,100
64 LETCHNORTH MOUNDS Jefferson 463 379,000 1304,540,000 417,543

50E 6 Project hein acquired with 506 set aside teuds.
701 Project is at least 701 acquired.
9 Local funts cassittec.
R Nekiva River Projects.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs