DOCSLIB.ORG

Southeast Regional Office 263 13Th Avenue South St. Petersburg

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southeast Regional Office 263 13Th Avenue South St. Petersburg UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast13th Regional Office 263 Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 3370 1-5505 (727) 824-5312; FAX 824-5309 http://sero.nmfs noaa.gov F/SER31:NB 1LUG 2011 Mr. Tunis W. McElwain Fort Myers Regulatory Section Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Re: SAJ-2011-859 and SAJ-2011-961 Dear Mr. McElwain: This constitutes the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological opinion issued in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 based on our review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District’s (JDCOE) proposed action to issue permits to two individual permittees, Shell Cut, LLC (the “Poveromo” property) and Mr. Richard Yankowski’s property, to install riprap in front of existing, failing seawalls within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat in Charlotte County, Florida. The biological opinion analyzes the project’s effects on smalitooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) and smailtooth sawfish critical habitat. This opinion is based on project-specific information provided by the JDCOE, the applicant, and the applicant’s consultants as well as NMFS’ review of published literature. It is NMFS’ biological opinion that the action, as proposed, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect srnalltooth sawfish, and is likely to adversely affect smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. We look forward to further cooperation with you on other COE projects to ensure the conservation and recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. If you have any questions regarding this consultation, please contact Nicole Bailey, ESA Biologist, at (727) 824-5336, or by e-mail at Nicole.Baileynoaa.gov. Sincerely, Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Enclosure File: 1514-22.F.4 Ref: F/SERJ2O11/01716; F/SERI2O1I/01810 Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Agency: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (COE) Activity: Proposed COE-issuance of two regulatory permits to authorize in-water construction activities in Port Charlotte, Florida Permit applications: • SAJ-2011-859, submitted by Mr. Richard Yankowski, to add 880 square feet of riprap in front of an existing corrugated seawall in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. (Consultation Number F/SER!201 1/01716) • SAJ-201 1-96 1, Poveromo property submitted by Shell Cut, LLC, to add 880 square feet of riprap in front of an existing concrete seawall in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. (Consultation Number F/SERJ2O 11/01810) Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida Approved By: - ‘)‘_ -Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional Administrator NMFS, Southeast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida Date Issued: ILU6 22 2011 Table of contents 1.0 CONSUL TA TION HISTORY 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONAND ACTION AREA 4 3.0 STA TUS OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 9 5.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SA WFISH CRITICAL HABITAT 14 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 14 7.0 DESTRUCTION OR AD VERSE MODIFICATION ANAL YSIS 15 8.0 CONCLUSION 16 9.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STA TEMENT 17 10.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 17 11.0 REINITIA TION OF CONSULTATION 17 12.0 LITERATURE CITED 18 2 Background Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 etseq.), requires that each federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species; Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Secretary on any such action. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA. Consultation is required when a federal action agency determines that a proposed action “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultation is concluded after NMFS determines that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat or issues a biological opinion (opinion) that identifies whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The opinion states the amount or extent of incidental take of the listed species that may occur, develops measures (i.e., reasonable and prudent measures - RPMs) to reduce the effect of take, and recommends conservation measures to further conserve the species. Notably, no incidental destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat can be authorized, and thus there are no reasonable and prudent measures, only reasonable and prudent alternatives that must avoid destruction or adverse modification. This document represents NMFS’ opinion based on our review of impacts associated with the COE’s proposed issuance of two individual construction permits to the following applicants: Mr. Richard Yankowski and the Poverorno property to install riprap within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat in Charlotte County, Florida. This opinion analyzes project effects on smalltooth sawfish designated critical habitat, in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, and is based on project information provided by the COE and other sources of information including the published literature cited herein. NMFS and the USFWS have developed a range of techniques to streamline the procedures and time involved in consultations for broad agency programs or numerous similar activities with predictable effects on listed species and critical habitat. Some of the more common of these techniques and the requirements for ensuring that streamlined consultation procedures comply with Section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations are discussed in the October 2002 Joint Services memorandum, Alternative Approachesfor Streamlining Section 7 Consultation on Hazardous Fuels Treatment Projects (http ://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/streamlining.pdf see also, 68 FR 1628 (January 13, 2003). This opinion, in batching two permit applications, complies with the streamlining guidance. BIOLOGICAL OPINION 1.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY NMFS received two requests for ESA consultation from the COE dated April 14, 2011 and April 25, 2011. The COE determined that these projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, sea turtles, smalitooth sawfish, and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, and requested NMFS’ concurrence. Upon review, NMFS informed the COE on May 4, 2011, via e-mail, that placing riprap and/or any permanent structure below the mean high water (MHW) line is likely to adversely affect smalltooth sawfish critical habitat and that formal consultation would be required. Additional information was obtained through a conference call on May 17, 2011, between NMFS and the riprap installer for both projects (Charlotte County Seawalls). Supplementary information for the Poveromo project was provided by e-mail on May 27, 2011. During a recent and related batched biological opinion, NMFS requested additional information from the COE regarding previously issued permits for seawall construction and replacements, and associated riprap, within both units of smalltooth sawfish designated critical habitat over a 5-year period (2005- 3 2009). This data was recently used by NMFS for the batched opinion (F/SERJ2O1O/04721) and is apropos to this opinion as well. NMFS and COE have together coordinated in contacting municipalities within Charlotte and Lee Counties to outline the impacts that riprap poses when placed inside smalltooth critical habitat, and explore options for issuing exemptions from the riprap requirement when construction projects occur within the critical habitat boundaries. NMFS sent a letter to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on July 29, 2010, indicating the conflict between the state’s riprap requirement and NMFS’ directive under the ESA to protect critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. This letter also requested a meeting between COE, FDEP, and NMFS personnel to develop a plan to exempt seawalls inside of smalltooth sawfish critical habitat from the mandatory riprap placement requirement. The Fort Myers COE branch held the meeting on August 9, 2010, with several representatives from FDEP, COE, and NMFS in attendance. This meeting resulted in FDEP and Charlotte County suspending this requirement in areas designated as smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. NMFS and the COE are working on developing protocols to minimize essential feature impacts and encourage the use of living shoreline and/or alternative designs in future construction and maintenance of the above mentioned activities within ESA-designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. Though the riprap placement at both of these projects is not required by FDEP or Charlotte County, the information obtained through these meetings will be used for comparison of project impacts within this area. According to Charlotte County Seawalls, riprap placement for both of these projects is required in order to save the existing corrugated seawalls from failure. Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Island-Hopping Along the Beaches of Fort Myers & Sanibel
    NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 2019 CONTACTS: Francesca Donlan, Miriam Dotson, 239-338-3500 Island-hopping along The Beaches of Fort Myers & Sanibel Find your island by land or water! LEE COUNTY, Fla. -- Most of us dream about it. A tropical vacation. Island-hopping from one exotic, off-the-grid island to another. Not a care in the world. Leaving all of your worries (and maybe even your phone) at home. If this is what you would like to turn into reality, pack up your T-shirts and flip flops and head to The Beaches of Fort Myers & Sanibel on the Gulf of Mexico. Here, you can take the time to unplug. Find your island in this Southwest Florida paradise by land or by water. In Jimmy Buffett style, you may spend days doing absolutely nothing or engaging in serious exploring of these award-winning islands. The Florida of days long past, with unspoiled white sand beaches, exotic wildlife and lush subtropical foliage, can still be found here and it is the perfect oasis where visitors can “get away from it all” and yet still be close to all of the modern amenities. Many of the area’s 100 coastal islands are uninhabited mangrove clusters, while others take visitors' breath away with their beautiful beaches. From shelling to kayaking to beautiful sunsets, visitors come to this destination and find their island creating wonderful vacation memories. Save the date! The sixth annual Island Hopper Songwriter Fest returns Sept. 20-29, 2019. The popular event brings music back to the beach with new artists and new events.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Term Success and Future Approach of the Captiva and Sanibel Islands Beach Renourishment Program
    2017 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology February 8-10, 2017; Stuart, Florida Long Term Success and Future Approach of the Captiva and Sanibel Islands Beach Renourishment Program Thomas P. Pierro, PE, D.CE, Director, CB&I Michelle Pfeiffer, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, CB&I Stephen Keehn, P.E., Senior Coastal Engineer, CB&I Kathleen Rooker, Adminstrator, CEPD, Captiva, FL Acknowledgments CEPD Board Members, Alison Hagerup, Tom Campbell, Bill Stronge A World of Solutions 2016 Annual Conference Fireside Chat Series . Hurricane Hermine . Windshield inspection 9/2/2016 . Beach buffered storm A World of Solutions 1 Captiva Island Erosion Prevention District . The District was established as a beach and shore preservation district June 19, 1959. “Our sole purpose and dedication is to Captiva beach and shore preservation.” – Kathy Rooker, Captiva Island Erosion Prevention District (2017) . Lee County's Beach Management Plan traces its roots to Captiva Island. “Captiva Island was the birthplace of beach nourishment in Lee County.” – Steve Boutelle, Lee County Division of Natural Resources (2014) A World of Solutions 2 Captiva Beach Culture . Captiva Island property owners overwhelming support beach projects. “Its expected and accepted.” – Longtime property owner regarding the beach nourishment projects A World of Solutions 3 Captiva Island . Lee County . Barrier island system . Connected waterways Captiva Pass North Captiva Island Redfish Pass Pine Island Sound Captiva Island Blind Pass Gulf of Mexico Sanibel Island A World of Solutions 4 Project Location Map . Over 50 years of nourishment projects . Limited fill placements in 1961 and 1981; 134 groins . First island-wide nourishment in 1988/89 . Renourished in 1996 and 2005/06 .
    [Show full text]
  • Charlotte Harbor Regional Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
    Charlotte Harbor Regional Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) is a partnership of citizens, scientists, elected offi cials, resource managers and commercial and recreational resource users who are working to improve the water quality and ecological integrity of the CHNEP study area. A cooperative decision- making process is used within the program to address diverse resource management concerns in the 4,700-square-mile CHNEP study area. February 19, 2010 Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program March 2008 Policy Committee Mr. Tom Welborn, Co-Chair Mr. Jon Iglehart, Co-Chair Chief; Wetlands, Coastal, & Ocean Branch South District Director U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection CITIES COUNTIES AGENCIES Hon. Adrian Jackson Hon. Adam Cummings Ms. Patricia M. Steed City of Bartow Charlotte County Central Florida Regional Planning Council Hon. Richard Ferreira Vacant Dr. Philip Stevens City of Bonita Springs DeSoto County Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Ms. Connie Jarvis Vacant Ms. Sally McPherson City of Cape Coral Hardee County South Florida Water Management District Ms. Melanie R. Grigsby Hon. Ray Judah Hon. Don McCormick City of Fort Myers Lee County Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hon. Herb Acken Hon. Carol Whitmore Brig. Gen. Rufus C. Lazzell (U.S. Army, ret.) Town of Fort Myers Beach Manatee County Southwest Florida Water Management District Hon. Tom Jones Mr. Jeffrey Spence City of North Port Polk County Hon. Charles Wallace Hon. Jon Thaxton City of Punta Gorda Sarasota County Hon. Mick Denham City of Sanibel Ms. Kathleen Weeden City of Venice Hon. Yvonne Brookes City of Winter Haven Management Committee Co-Chairs Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OUB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. fr«6) 32J) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form i*EG\SrEB This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts/See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. 1 . Name of Property historic name Punt a Gorda Fish Company Ice House other names/site number 2. Location street & number N/A >J/A not for publication city, town Safety Harbor, North Captiva Island LX vicinity state Florida code FL county Lee codeFL 071 zip code 33091 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property l~Xl private ED building(s) Contributing Noncontributing I I public-local I I district 1 Q buildings I I public-State I I site ____ ____ sites I I public-Federal I I structure ____ ____ structures I I object ____ ____ objects 0 Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously ___________N/A_________ listed in the National Register N/A 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this EKJ nomination I I request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Registepof Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • UPPER CAPTIVA ISLAND • NO CARS - Just Golfcarts, Bikes, and Self Propulsion (Approx
    |—INDEX- Arts & Leisure 5B What's going on around the islands 4B At Larae 5A Calendar 4B Classifieds 7C ISLAND ADVENTURE Crtyside 15A DINING OUT Commentary 6A Dining out Glean Crossword 7C Environment 3C Annual guicte Volunteers rid Police Beat 2A Recreation 90 features top islands of 12,700 Remember When 4A island restaurants 1990 Insert pounds of trash 1961-1990 Still first on Sanibel and Captiva VOL. 29, NO. 17 TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1990 THREE SECTIONS, 48 PAGES 50 CENTS Voters still split over causeway replacement By Frances Adams Islander staff writer The issue that has divided islanders for almost a year now continues to do so, if last Thursday evening's special City Council meeting was any measure of unity. More than 300 islanders, along with Sanibel and Lee County officials, attended the Aprfl .19'ineetjng that was billed as an informative session relativeio the replacement of the Sanibel bridge and causeway and the upcoming May 8 vote on the Save Our Bridge group's initiative ordinance. From the meeting's outset, the audience was fairly evenly split ~ those advocating the county's proceeding with its plans to replace the entire bridge and causeway structure with a single fixed span, and those advocating repair and adherence to the Interlocal Agreement, which only authorizes replacement of the lift bridge. Under control After the measured testimony had been independently About 90 acres of land within the J.N. "Ding" Darling Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel-Captiva Road presented, some insults traded and the public's views and at the Bailey Tract were burned off last week as a means of vegetation control.
    [Show full text]
  • Blind Pass Inlet Management Study 2018 Update
    BLIND PASS INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY 2018 UPDATE Prepared For: Board of County Commissioners of Lee County Prepared By: Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. August 2018 BLIND PASS INLET MANAGEMENT STUDY 2018 UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Blind Pass is a natural tidal inlet located in Lee County on the Gulf Coast of Florida and is bounded by Captiva Island to the north and Sanibel Island to the south. This area of the coast is characterized by a series of barrier islands and tidal passes that are separated from the mainland of Florida by various water bodies. Blind Pass has migrated and closed at various times throughout history, and is presently managed by Lee County with an ongoing dredging program to maintain the inlet in an open condition. The study described in this document provides an update to the 1993 Blind Pass Inlet Management Plan and recommends refinements for future management of Blind Pass. The study was developed as a collaborative effort with Lee County, the City of Sanibel, and the Captiva Erosion Prevention District (CEPD) to develop a mutually agreeable inlet management strategy for the future in a science-based approach. The study also aligns with the objective of balancing the sediment budget between the inlet and adjacent beaches, and assisting the FDEP in adopting an Inlet Management Plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 161.142, Florida Statutes. The scope of this study included literature review, data collection, preparing a sediment budget update, performing an alternatives analysis with advanced numerical modeling, and developing inlet management recommendations. The alternatives analysis utilized the numerical model Delft3D to evaluate the conceptual designs in an individual and combined fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol.14, No.4 – December, 2015
    Friends of the Randell Research Center December 2015 • Vol. 14, No. 4 A Tour of the Islands of Pine Island Sound: A Geological, Archaeological, and Historical Perspective Part 12: North Captiva by Denége Patterson North Captiva rises from the Gulf of Mexico between Cayo Costa and Captiva Islands. Its northern boundary is Captiva Pass and its southern boundary is Redfi sh Pass. For residents and visitors, the island is a subtropical paradise accessible either by boat or by private airplane. The harbor provides visiting boaters with direct access to at least two restaurants, two small shops, an ice cream parlor, the Safety Harbor Club, the North Captiva Island Club, and golf carts. Islanders have invested in conservation- minded development, using battery-powered golf carts on crushed shell and sand paths North Captiva Island, seen from the air. (Photo by R. Mayhew.) shaded by native vegetation. Shell mounds provide elevation for rare, tropical hammock vegetation such as gumbo limbo, Boca Seco. These are today’s Captiva Pass and Blind Pass. mastic trees, and strangler fi gs. Neither “Captivo” nor “Captiva” exists in the Spanish language North Captiva was attached to Captiva Island until the 1921 but Boca Seco in Spanish means dry mouth or opening, suggest- hurricane blew out Redfi sh Pass. The new pass was 4,127 feet ing a shallow pass. wide but by 1977 it had narrowed to 660 feet. North Captiva In 1833, the English-speaking American investors of Sanibel Island is geologically dynamic. At least three other passes have Island named the northern island “Captive” with an “e” on the opened and closed during the past 1500 years including Packard end.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simulation of the Hurricane Charley Storm Surge and Its Breach of North Captiva Island
    A SIMULATION OF THE HURRICANE CHARLEY STORM SURGE AND ITS BREACH OF NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND by R. H. WEISBERG(1) AND L. ZHENG(1) (1) College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Revised to: Florida Scientist January 2006 1 ABSTRACT: A high resolution, three-dimensional numerical circulation model with flooding and drying capabilities is used to simulate the Hurricane Charley storm surge in the Charlotte Harbor vicinity. The model-simulated surge is in sufficiently good agreement with observations at four stations for which data exist to allow us to use the model to explain the surge evolution and to account for the inlet breach that occurred at North Captiva Island. Despite Charley being a Saffir-Simpson category 4 hurricane the surge was only of nominal magnitude and hence the damage, while severe, was primarily wind-induced. We explain the relatively small surge on the basis of the direction and speed of approach, point of landfall to the south of Boca Grande Pass and subsequent translation up the estuary axis, and the collapse of the eye radius as the storm came ashore. These inferences are based on lessons learned from hypothetical hurricane storm surge simulations for Tampa Bay. Under other approach scenarios the potential for hurricane storm surge in the Charlotte Harbor may be catastrophic. Key Words: Hurricane Charley, storm surge, numerical simulation, inlet breach. 2 1. INTRODUCTION ON August 13, 2004 Hurricane Charley made landfall near North Captiva Island, traveled up the Charlotte Harbor estuary, and made landfall again at Punta Gorda, as the first of four devastating hurricanes to sweep across the State of Florida that year.
    [Show full text]
  • After Andrew Islands Almost Untouched by Hurricane; Islanders Touched by Needs of Victims Elsewhere by Steve Riiediger the Cleats Holding His Houseboat Pulled Loose
    INDEX Arts & Leisure 5B Keep track of that next hurricane At Large 5A WB Business*. 8B Classifieds - Commentary • •,•M - Crossword Then and now Environment 1B Permits If It's football season 'Girls in 509' Police Beat 2A that means It's time makes return Scuba Scoop 4 A Weather -Watch 4A for Pigskp Picks 4A to island theater 5B Since 1961 Still first on Sanibel and Captiva VOL. 31, NO. 35 TUESDAY, SEPT. 1, 1992 THREE SECTIONS, 32 PAGES 50 CENTS After Andrew Islands almost untouched by hurricane; islanders touched by needs of victims elsewhere By Steve Riiediger The cleats holding his houseboat pulled loose. The boat Islander staff writer was slammed into a piling and into the next houseboat Sanibel and Captiva were virtually untouched by Hur- and was torn apart. ricane Andrew last week. Downed branches and tree limbs Roof damage was suffered by a Sanibel Siesta were quickly cleaned up. A couple days after the storm, Condominium building, the Sanibel Causeway restrooms virtually all signs of the storm were gone and life was and the little gazebo behind Sanibel City Hall. back to normal on the islands. Some signs and a few trees were downed by the storm, The exception to normal activity was the getting to- however total damage on the islands was very slight. gether of donations for the hurricane victims in south Please see ANDREW, page 8A Dade County. Sgt. Jack Primm, the Sanibel Emergency Management Director, asked Bailey's General Store to co- ordinate the relief effort on Sanibel. Bailey's is accepting donations of sealed food products FISH shuttles 97 and other items from 8 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating and Forecasting Ecosystem Services Within Pine
    Estimating and Forecasting Ecosystem Services within Pine Island Sound, Sanibel Island, Captiva Island, North Captiva Island, Cayo Costa Island, Useppa Island, Other Islands of the Sound, and the Nearshore Gulf of Mexico James Beever III, Principal Planner IV, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 239-338-2550, ext., 224 [email protected] Tim Walker, GIS Analyst, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 239-338-2550, ext. 212,[email protected] Introduction and Background The natural world, its biodiversity, and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to human well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision making. Ecosystems and the services they deliver underpin our very existence. Humans depend on these ecosystem services to produce food, regulate water supplies and climate, and breakdown waste products. Humans also value ecosystem services in less obvious ways: contact with nature gives pleasure, provides recreation and is known to have positive impacts on long-term health and happiness (Watson and Albon 2011). Human societies get many benefits from the natural environment. Especially in Southwest Florida, we are well aware of how important eco-tourism, sport and commercial fishing, and natural products such as locally produced fruits, vegetables, and honey are to our regional economy. The natural environment also provides, for free, services that we would otherwise have to pay for, in both capital outlay, and operation and maintenance costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 29. Critically Eroded Shoreline Within Lee County
    Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida Figure 29. Critically eroded shoreline within Lee County. June 2015, Page 85 of 87 Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida Lee County There are eleven critically eroded beach areas (22.4 miles), four non-critically eroded beach areas (5.3 miles), three critically eroded inlet shoreline areas (0.6 mile), and two non-critically eroded inlet shoreline areas (0.4 mile) in Lee County (Figure 29). The southern 4.0 miles of Gasparilla Island (R7-R26.7) is critically eroded threatening development and recreational interests in the town of Boca Grande and the Gasparilla Island State Park. Much of this area has bulkheads, and inlet sand transfer has been conducted using Boca Grande Pass dredge material. The north shoreline of Boca Grande Pass within the Gasparilla Island State Park (0.2 mile) is also critically eroded. Three areas on Cayo Costa Island are non-critically eroded. The northern segment (R27-R33) extends for 1.1 miles, the central segment (R46-R52) extends for 1.2 miles, and the southern segment (R60-R65) extends for 1.0 mile. All of North Captiva Island is eroded. The north shore fronting on Captiva Pass (R66, east 1000 feet) has critical inlet shoreline erosion threatening development interests. The northern 1.0-mile of gulf beach (R66-R71) is critically eroded threatening development interests, and from R71through R78 is 2.0 miles of non-critical erosion. The island was breached between R78 and R79 during Hurricane Charley (2004). The truncated southern 0.8 mile of North Captiva Island extending into Redfish Pass (R79- R82.3) is critically eroded threatening development and losing wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • PINE ISLAND, MATLACHA PASS, ISLAND BAY, and CALOOSAHATCHEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida
    COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PINE ISLAND, MATLACHA PASS, ISLAND BAY, AND CALOOSAHATCHEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia May 2010 Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuges TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN ...................................................1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1 Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3 Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5 Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations .......................................................................................................5 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
    [Show full text]