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 



