Monthly Archives: November 2013

Project Evaluation and Selection – part V of 9

Leave a reply

This can be viewed also on http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/AcqHistory.htm.  Authors James A Farr and O Greg Brock are with the Florida Division of State Lands.

We will now explain the process by which lands are chosen for purchase under the Florida Forever Program and how the lands are actually purchased.   This process has remained basically unchanged since the inception of the CARL program in 1979, although there have been a few substantive changes that we will explain below.   We will also introduce our land management planning process.

From 1979 – 1990, the CARL program had one selection cycle per year.   We increased this to twice per year under Florida Forever.  Anyone may submit an application to ARC to have a project considered for acquisition.   We have routinely received applications from private landowners, real estate agents and other representatives, state and federal agencies, local governments water management districts and conservation groups.   The application form and various support materials are available online at http://www.floridaforever.org.  it is very important to note that our program depends on landowners who are willing to have their property considered for purchase by the state.   Prior to an application being submitted, all landowners must be contacted by the applicant, and an owner’s property must be removed from a project boundary if the owner requests it.

After the application deadlines of January 1 and July 1 of each year, all submittals are distributed to the nine ARC members and to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI).   FNAI is our state natural heritage program, part of a nationwide Heritage Network that gathers and organizes information relating to the biodiversity of each state (Stein et al., 2000).  FNAI provides initial resource information from their databases for each of the new projects.  Based on the application materials, FNAI data, and, very importantly, a public hearing with input from citizens, environmental groups, project sponsors and others, ARC members perform an initial evaluation of each new project.  It a minimum of five members vote in a public meeting to move the project forward, it then moves to a more detailed evaluation.

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory has developed an iterative modeling tool called F-TRAC (Florida Forever Tool for Efficient Resource Acquisition and Conservation) for identifying projects that contribute the most toward satisfying our conservation needs (Oetting et al., 2006).  The model incorporates species, natural communities, high quality watersheds, wetlands and sustainable forestry.  It is run every six months in conjunction with each new application cycle and takes into account land currently in public ownership, land in existing projects, and lands proposed for acquisition.  Because it evaluates unprotected land in relation to land that we already own, the relative importance of unbought parcels may change as new land is purchased and resources that were underrepresented in our inventory become better protected through public ownership.

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory plays a critical role in the next steps of project development.  After a project passes the initial vote, FNAI staff recommend a project Resource Planning Boundary that may vary from the boundaries proposed in the initial application.   Property may be added to the Resource Planning Boundary if there are tracts with significant natural resources adjacent to the original proposal or if it makes sense to include entire ownerships when only partial ownerships were proposed.  They may also delete areas with known disturbances of development or even recommend that only a part of an ownership be pursued.

After the Resource Planning Boundaries are determined, FNAI and agency staff perform site visits and write a detailed evaluation of the project.  The project evaluations contain descriptions of the vegetative communities, listed species found on the property, description of groundwater and surface water resources, historical and archaeological resources, recreation potential, a proposed management concept and suggested managing agency, and recommendations regarding phasing and whether all or part of the project would be appropriate for a conservation easement or should be bought outright.

The completed project evaluations are distributed to the ARC members, who then hold a second public hearing on the projects before a second vote to approve the projects to an acquisition list.   Those projects that receive at least five affirmative votes are then voted onto either an “A” or “B” list.  “A” list projects are those considered most important for acquisition and may be pursued by the acquisition staff of the DEP Division of State Lands.  “B” list projects are a lower priority and may only be worked on if the state can pay no more than 50% of appraised value.  To be purchased, these projects typically require matching funds from a local government or water management district partner.   The cost to purchase all of the projects on our acquisition lists has always substantially exceeded our acquisition budget, so some sort of prioritization is essential.

The separation of projects into two list, basically high and low priority, is a new phenomenon under Florida Forever.  Under the CARL program, from its inception through the end of Preservation 2000, we ranked projects from highest to lowest priority and developed acquisition work plans based on the relative ranking of individual projects.  There was much more certainty about which projects would be worked on inn any given fiscal year, but less of an opportunity to respond to changes in landowner willingness to sell, imminent threat of development, and other contingencies unforeseen at the time of ranking.   Each method has its advantages.  With a formal ranking of the projects from highest to lowest priority, the Council had more of a direct input into acquisition priorities.  By lumping projects into just two groups, within which all projects are equal, acquisition priorities are determined to a much greater extent by staff of the Division of State Lands.  Ranking reduces the ability to exert political or interest-group influence on which projects are pursued.

We should note that a project may range from a tiny site of less than ten acres (e.g. to protect a historical site like the Key West Customs House or a localized natural resource like a Southeastern Bat maternity cave) to one more than 200,000 acres (e.g. the Tate’s Hell Swamp in Franklin County).  They may have one or a few landowners, as is the usual case, to more than 20,000 owners, as was the case in our Save Our Everglades project, which included thousands of individual platted lots in the Southern Golden Gate Estates.  Projects are not necessarily designed to be completed in a single year, and some larger projects may take more than two decades to complete (e.g. a large landscape project in the Wekiva River  basin in Orange, Seminole and Lake counties, or the Save Our Everglades projects).  We are not always successful in negotiating purchases of lands that we consider important, but by maintaining essential parcels on our acquisition list, we are able to respond if an owner’s willingness to sell changes or the ownership itself changes.  If a parcel within a project is lost to development, we can reevaluate out priorities within a project to determine if the project is still worth pursuing or if priorities within the project need to be adjusted.

The final step in creating the acquisition lists is approval of the final “A” and “B” groupings by our Governor and Cabinet.  As with the CARL program, the Cabinet may approve or reject the list or remove individual projects, but it may not remove projects from “A” to “B” or vice versa.  The lists are submitted in the form of an Annual Report and Interim Report, both of which include project summaries, purposes of acquisition, management concepts, and other pertinent information.   By approving the report, the Governor and Cabinet approve both the groupings of projects into two list as well as the rationale for their inclusion as acquisition projects and the determination of how they will be managed. 

Deep Creek, Tate’s Hell photo by M. Feaver

Leave a reply
P1020119

Deep Creek, Tate’s Hell State Forest. After a rainy period this area can offer the adventurous,  short paddles into the wilds. About 1 miles upriver from the Deep River Primitive Camp Site. A GPS instrument is recommended. Wading birds in unseen adjacent pools will often be scattered out — they hear you better than you see them. Put-in at Graham Creek landing off Hway 65 and go upstream, keeping to the left (river right).

FLORIDA FOREVER — 2000 TO PRESENT Part IV of 9 parts

Leave a reply

Preservation 2000 was a phenomenal success.  Florida was able to preserve almost two million acres of land for conservation and resource-based recreation through the many programs it funded.  We made substantial headway in protecting the state’s natural heritage for the future, but it was clear that many plant and animal species and several different natural vegetative communities would still be lost if we did not devote more resources to their protection.   There had already been talk among the environmental groups of a successor to Preservation 2000, but it became clear in 1998 that the general public also supported continued funding for land acquisition.

The 1968 Florida Constitution required that a Constitution Revision Commission meet in 1978 and again in 1998 to evaluated the Constitution and suggest revisions.  The 1998 Commission proposed several substantial changes to our Constitution that would be put before the voters in November, 1998.  The one that is relevant to this discussion was Amendment 5, which, among other things, extended indefinitely the state’s ability to sell bonds to finance environmental land acquistion and created a more difficult test for the disposal of land purchased for conservation purposes, thereby attempting to ensure that what is bought for conservation, stays in conservation.   Even though Florida was becoming increasingly conservative and “property rights” was a frequent topic of discussion, 72 percent of Florida’s electorate voted to approve Amendment 5.  It was clear that the citizens of Florida were fully behind continued protection of our dwindling natural resources.

The groundwork for a successor program began under Governor Lawton Chiles, and in 1999, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Forever Act, with the support of Governor Jeb Bush.   Florida Forever resulted in a major revision and replacement of the Save our Rivers and CARL Programs, which we now call the State and Water Management District Florida Forever Programs, respectively, while continuing funding to the Florida Communities Trust, the three Inholdings and Additions programs, and the Greenways and Trails.   As did its predecessor, Florida Forever authorizes the sale of up to $300 million in bonds for ten years, but distributed differently than under Preservation 2000.  The Florida Forever Program that replaced CARL receives 35 percent, another 35 percent is divided among the five water management district programs, Florida Communities Turst receives 22 percent, each Inholdings and Additions program receives 1.5 percent, as does Greenways and Trails.   The final 2 percent goes to the Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program to fund development of recreational facilities.

The Florida Forever Act made several changes.  There is a greater focus on urban and community parks, as illustrated by the increase in funding to Florida Communities Trust.  There is a greater emphasis on protecting water resources and water supply, and there is a new emphasis on purchasing conservation easements on lands that do not necessarily need to be held in fee title by the state.   Unlike Preservation 2000, Florida Forever allows bond funds to be used for facilities development, for ecological restoration and invasive exotic plant removal, and for conducting species inventories and land management planning.  Finally, the Florida Forever Act provides for land management funding through the CARL and SOR trust funds.

The Florida Forever Act sets out several specific goals to guide land acquisition throughout the state through its several programs.  They include coordination and completion of project unfinished under previous programs, emphasis on protecting Florida’s biodiversity and protecting, restoring and maintaining natural ecological functions.  It also calls for ensuring that the state has sufficient quantities of groundwater.   There is continued recognition of the need to provide recreation and educational opportunities for citizens and tourists, to protect archaeological and historic sites and to provide forest land for sustainable management.   Finally, there is a goal to provide more urban open spaces.

Unlike earlier statutes governing environmental land acquisition in Florida, the Florida Forever Act provides 34 performance measures under its eight goals.  Three deal with acquisition coordination and completion, six are concerned with protecting biodiversity, eleven cover ecological restoration and ecosystem protection,  three are concerned with quantities of water, three with public recreation, two with archaeological and historical resources, four with sustainable forestry, and two with urban open spaces.   We are now required to identify priority areas for satisfying these goals and measures and determine the number of acres we have acquired that fulfill each measure.  There is thus much more legislative guidance directing land acquisition.

The Florida Forever Act also replaced the old Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC) with a new nine-member Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC).  This new Council has the heads of the five agencies that were on the LAMAC (minus the double representation of the Department of Environmental Protection) plus four private citizens with an environmental background appointed by the Governor.

New River Wilderness, Tate’s Hell, at Flood Tide photo by M. Feaver

Leave a reply
P1010924-002

March 28, 2013. About 2+ miles upriver from Tate’s Hell, primitive camp site 7, New River at flood tide. After March, normally, the section of the river from Sumatra (FH 22) to camp site 7 is usually dry, as deciduous trees bordering the river use up the water for their own needs.

PRESERVATION 2000 (P-2000) – 1991-2000 Part III of 9

Leave a reply

This is from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/AcqHistory.htm.  Authors are James A. Farr and O Greg Brock, Florida Division of State Lands

In 1989, Governor Bob Martinez appointed a Commission on the Future of Florida’s Environment to examine threats to Florida’s environmental health and suggest portential solutions.   The Commission realized that Florida’s then-current pace of acquiring conservation lands was not occurring fast enough to keep up with our rapid population increase and concomitant development pressure.   There were already more projects on state and regional acquisition priority lists than could be purchased under existing funding levels, and there were many more areas of the state with significant natural communities and listed species that had not yet been proposed for acquisition.  Commission staff estimated that there was an unmet acquisition need of more than $5 billion.   The Commission also recognized that land prices were escalating faster than the rate of inflation and that it would be advantageous to sell long-term bonds to fund land acquisition rather than to rely on the year-to-year collection of documentary stamp taxes.   They recommended that the state begin a much more aggressive program of land acquisition to protect more of the state’s natural environment before it was lost to development.

With the support of the Governor, the Florida Legislature responded in 1990, with passage of the landmark Preservation 2000 Act.   This act anticipated the sale of $3 billion in bonds over a 10-year period, $300 million per year, from 1991-2000.   The funds were to be given to the CARL program (50%), the Save Our Rivers program of the five water management districts (30 percent), a newly-created Florida Communities Trust aimed at helped local governments (10 percent), 2.9 percent each to the Division of Recreation and Parks, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission, and the Division of Forestry to purchase inholdings and additions to State Parks, Wildlife Management Areas and State Forests, respectively, and finally 1.3 percent for recreational trails.   The CARL and SOR programs continued to operate essentially as they had in the past, only with a substantially larger budget.  The Rails to Trails Program and the three Inholdings and Additions Program established their own internal agency procedures for selecting lands to be purchased.   The Florida Communities trust, however, was an entirely new program that needs a bit of explanation.

Florida Communities Trust (FCT)

In 1985, the Florida Legislature enacted a significant Growth Management Act that required all local governments in Florida (counties and incorporated municipalities) to prepare a detailed Comprehensive Plan, backed by extensive data and analysis, with goals, objectives and policies to guide development, provide infrastructure, protect natural resources, and provide resource-based recreation for their citizens.   The statewide oversight and approval of these comprehensive plans is a function of the Florida Department of Community Affairs.

The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) was actually established in 1989, but it did not receive funding until passage of the Preservation 2000 Act.   The program is housed in the Department of Community Affirs and was designed to assist local governments in implementing the conservation, recreation and open space, and coastal elements of their comprehensive plans.  Although the enabling legislation contemplates a broader function, funds from P-2000 were restricted to acquisition of lands in furtherance of outdoor, recreation and conservation, and not other activities related to local government assistance not directly related to land acquisition.

FCT has a governing board consisting of the Secretaries of the Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection, plus four members appointed by the Governor.   Application for projects may come only from local governments or non-profit organizations, and they are scored using a numerical scoring system that evaluates not only the quality of the natural resources on sites, but also how well the projects satisfy requirements of the local governments’ comprehensive plans.  Local governments are expected to provide matching funds for land acquisition, although smaller governments are exempt from this requirement.  Title to lands purchased through FCT is held by the local government with a reverter clause in the deed that gives title to the state if the local government does not manage the land for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Land Acquisition 1963-1990 – Part II of 9

Leave a reply

This is available at http;//www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/AcqHistory.htm.  Authors are James A Farr and O Greg Brock, Florida Division of State Lands.

Land Acquisition 1963- 1990

Although we do not wish to dwell on the history of environmental land acquisition in Florida, a brief overview is instructive.   Our programmatic history illustrates the evolution of the manner in which lands are selected for acquisition and the type of funding sources we have used over the past several decades.

Prior to 1963, Florida had no established acquisition programs.   All acquisitions were the result of either direct legislative line-item appropriations for specific parcels or donations from private individuals or the federal government.   The latter included several depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps projects that are now our oldest State Parks.  In addition, the Florida Division of Forestry purchased over 3000,000 acres that are now part of our system of State Forests, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission purchased over 120,000 acres that are now part of our system of State Wildlife management Areas.

Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF)

In l963, the Florida Legislature began the first of a series of land acquisition programs for conservation and recreation purposes, all with dedicated funding sources.   The Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF) was created to fund a newly-created Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Program, designed primarily to purchase land for parks and recreation areas.   The source of funds was a five percent tax on outdoor clothing and equipment, including bathing suits, which generated approximately $1.5 million per year.  This was an attempt to fund the program through a tax by people who would use the lands after they were purchased.   Lands proposed for acquisition were selected by staff of the Division of Recreation and Parks in the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR, now part of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection), with a final list aproved by the Executive Director of FDNR.

The tax on outdoor clothing and equipment proved to be very unpopular, referred to derogatorily as the “bathing suit tax.”  In 1968, the Florida Legislature did away with the tax and began funding LATF through the sale of recreation bonds in the amount of $20 million.   These bonds were paid for through funds collected from documentary stamp taxes paid on real estate transactions.  Thus, the funding was switched from a tax on potential users of conservation and recreation lands to taxes on real estate transactions and financial documents (i.e. mortgages and other loans, stocks, bonds, etc.)  The development that was causing a loss of open space in Florida thus became the source of funds for conserving that open space.

Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EEL)

In 1972, the Florida Legislature passed the Land Conservation Act, which created the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program.  Later that year Florida voters approved a ballot referendum that authorized the sale of $200 million in EEL bonds and another $40 million in recreational bonds.  Debt service on the bonds for both programs continued to be paid from proceeds of our documentary stamp tax on real estate transactions.

The EEL program was designed specifically to protect environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands in the state and was not designed to have outdoor resource-based recreation as its primary goal.   Proposals foracquisition of specific properties could come from any source and included individual citizens, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and local governments.  All projects were evaluated by staff from as many as twelve environmental departments and divisions, and, after field inspections of sites that passed an initial screening and public hearings to hear input from interested parties, department and division heads prepared a ranked list of projects based on the environmental resources.  Recommendations were made to the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources, who made the final administrative decisions as to which parcels of land to purchase and how to appraise and negotiate the property, with final purchases being approved by Florida’s Governor and an independently elected Cabinet.

Conservation and Recreation Lands Program (CARL) [Some Tate’s Hell land purchase through this trust fund]

Partly in response to a major scandal in which the Executive Director of the Florida DNR was convicted of taking kickbacks from one acquisition transaction, the Florida Legislature replaced and expanded the EEL program in 1979 with the creation of the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program.  The CARL Program and its authorizing statute (originally Chapter 253, Florida Statues, but now included in Chapter 259) called for a recurring revenue stream (instead of bond revenues) and significantly altered the administration and oversight of land acquisition activity.  From 1979 until 1987, the CARL Trust Fund received funds from an excise tax on mineral extraction (primarily phosphate, but also oil, gas and other solid minerals).  From 1987 through 1990, it also received funds from documentary stamp taxes on real estate transactions.    From 1979 through 1990, the CARL Program protected approximately 181,000 of conservation and recreation lands at a cost of nearly $356 million.

The significant administrative changes in the Conservation and Recreation Lands Act persist in concept to this day.  They included the creation of the Land Acquisition Selection Committee (later renamed the Land Acquisition Advisory Council, then the Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council when it added the role of overseeing management planning on conservation lands), consisting of six environmental agency heads, to select and rank projects, with the final lists presented directly to our Governor and Cabinet.  The Committee consisted of the Executive directors of the Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Directors of the Division of Historical Resources and the Division of Forestry, and the Secretaries of the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Community Affairs, the latter being the state land planning agency and containing the Division of Emergency Management.  The Governor and Cabinet could accept or reject the entire list or vote to removed individual projects, but they could not alter the acquisition priorities recommended by the Committee.

The other significant administrative changes accompanying the CARL Program were the establishment of the Division of State Lands within the DNR and its separate bureaus for mapping, apraisal and negotiation of acquisitions.  Procedures for appraisal, negotiation, and closing were spelled out in detail, with sufficient checks and openness to ensure that there could be no further illegal activities in the acquisition process.

Save Our Coast (SOC)

There were two significant expansions to Florida’s abiity to purchase conservation lands in 1981, both at the urging of Governor Bob Graham.  The first was authorization by the Florida Legislature to sell $275 million in bonds to purchased lands along Florida’s coast, and the second was establishment of the Save Our rivers program (see below).   The debt service on the bonds for coastal land acquisition was paid from documentary stamp taxes dedicated to the LATF program.  Although known as Save Our Coast (SOC) Program, the program for purchasing coastal lands was implemented as part of the LATF Program, which had been reduced to purchasing only small parcels and inholdings and additions to State Parks after the creation of the CARL Program.  Save Our Coast as a response to the growing awareness that Florida’s  beaches are an important recreational asset vital to our tourist economy and the realization that coastal lands were being lost to development at a rate disproportional to loss of other lands.  The SOC program resulted in the purchase of more than 73 miles of coastline, a total of more than 73,000 acres, and significantly increased the number of State Parks conserving our valuable coastal resources and providing invaluable recreational opportunities for residents and tourists.

Save Our Rivers (SOR)

The State of Florida is divided into five Water Management Districts (WMD) based loosely on major river drainage basins in the state.  The Districts are agencies of the state, each overseen by an executive director who answers to a governing board appointed by the Governor.  In 1981, the Florida Legislature created the Water Management Lands Trust Fund, also funded from documentary stamp tax revenues from real estate transactions, for the acquisition and restoration of water resources.   The funds for this Save Our Rivers (SOR) Program were distributed among the five Water Management Districts based roughly on relative population within the districts: 30 percent to the South Florida WmD, 25 percent to Southwest WMD, 25% to St. Johns river WMD, 10 percent to Suwannee river WMD, and 10 percent to Northwest Florida WMD.  Funding for the SOR program has been significantly increased since 1990 (see below), with the result that the five Districts have now purchased more than 1.7 million acres of land through this program.  Land acquisition for the much-publicized restoration of the florida Everglades has been funded to a great extent from the SOR program of the South Florida WMD.  Title to lands purchased with SOR funds is held by the Districts, not the state.

New River, Tate’s Hell State Forest

1 Reply
P1010553

New River, Tate’s Hell State Forest. New River from primitive camp site 7 downstream to the Carrabelle River is navigable year round. There are numerous primitive camp sites along the river on both sides, reachable by water or by car. Each campsite has a firepit and picnic table and some have grills. No water, electricity, toilet facilities. Pack it in, pack it out is the practice in Tate’s Hell. Best times to camp October – March, except during gun hunting season when these sites may not be available. Reservable, $10 site, from Tate’s Hell Forest office, Carrabelle.

Land Acquisition Programs – Florida Part I of 9

Leave a reply

This paper is available on http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/AcqHistory.htm.  Authors: James A Farr, Environmental Supervisor, Office of the Environmental Services, Fl Division of State Lands, and O Greg Brock, Chief, Office of Environmental Services, Florida Division of State Lands.

Preface

The State of Florida has had a long and successful history of purchasing land to conserve its unique natural and cultural resources.   Buoyed by phenomenal support from the general public, Florida’s Legislature, with the support of a succession of both Democratic and Republican governors, has enacted a series of well-funded programs over the pat half century that have resulted in the purchase and protection of over six million acres of conservation lands.  When combined with substantial federal conservation lands in Florida (including large military bases) and holdings by local governments, Florida has almost ten million acres that are managed for natural resource protection and for resource-based recreation.  This is approximately 30 percent of our total land area.  Since 1990, we have had an annual land acquisition budget of $300 million, far exceeding that of any other state or even that of the Federal government for use in all fifty states.

The popular and political support for environmental protection in Florida stems from three primary factors.   First because of its high rate of population growth — over 18 million residents with a net population increase of 960 each day or 350,000 each year — natives and immigrants alike have witnessed the destruction of natural areas that they once took for granted.   Second, Florida’s natural environment provides the foundation for its annual $57- billion dollar tourism industry; destruction of our natural environment would seriously harm our state’s economy.  Finally, environmental protection is beginning to be seen as important economically in its own right both as a means of containing urban sprawl, with its concomitant costs to local governments for providing infrastructure away from population centers, and as an amenity for new development.  Because our rapid development is the cause of destruction of our natural areas, funding environmental land acquisition for the past several decades has been predominantly through collection of documentary stamp taxes paid on all real estate transactions.

Overnight paddle on Blackwater River by Diane Rickman-Buckalew

Leave a reply
IMG_8574

Cotton Bridge landing, December 6, 2012. Put-in.

IMG_8577

Beautiful white sand beach at the put-in.

IMG_8578

Rolling down the Blackwater River on a beautiful December day.

On a bright, crisp morning in early December, 2012, 6 paddlers gathered at Cotton Bridge on the Blackwater River to begin an overnight paddle.  Three paddlers were in kayaks and three were in 14′ solo canoes.  All were experienced paddlers, but not all were experienced at spending a night in the woods with only what could be carried in their boats.  Each had agreed to participate in the overnight paddle for a variety of personal reasons.

The day warmed up and remained bright.   A stop for lunch and our group was again on our way.   Our goal was to reach a nice big sandbar approximately half way to our next day’s destination at Boat Ramp Road at the Blackwater State Park.  We wanted to get to our camp site early enough to set up camp and cook our evening meal before it became too dark.

We reached a large sandbar several miles above Bryant Bridge and started setting up camp.  Meals were cooked and eaten and then everyone gathered around a campfire to socialize while listening to the night sounds on the river.

IMG_8582

Setting up camp with lots of sunlight to spare.

IMG_8584

My canoe, my river, my cup of hot drink — what more could one ask for at day’s end?

The following day, after breaking camp and loading our boats, we were again on the river enjoying our passion for paddling and the beauties of nature which can only be seen from a boat.   We arrived at our destination, each feeling a sense of personal growth that we had achieved our goal.

IMG_8590

The next day, homeward bound. Two beautiful days on a glorious river, December 6-7, 2012.